Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copmanthorpe train accident[edit]

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

This article doesn't appear to be notable. In particular, it appears to be a straightforward train vs. car accident, with no lasting effects or reforms. In addition, editors three years ago seemed to agree that it should be deleted, but never submitted a request. Kage Acheron (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of those who didn't follow through with the request for deletion, so my apologies. I would just like to support deletion for the same arguments i gave on the article's talk page i.e."This article needs to be considered for deletion. It is already mentioned in summary on the Copmanthorpe page. I have failed to see a reply to the above and would be interested to know how this article could possibly fulfil the WP:Notability (events) criteria. This was a news item; it was covered nationally for a short period of time and then locally for an even shorter period; it has had no long lasting effect or had any historical significance. It could be argued it falls into the category of routine events, which would then fail this criteria for inclusion. Thoughts before i tag the article for deletion?" (this comment was from Rimmer1993 (talk · contribs) who left off signature)

Delete per nom - death was sad but no lasting impact or significant coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be adequately covered in relevant list articles. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eddie 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no lasting impact. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The death is sad but at the end of the day we don't need articles on every small train v car crashes, Crashes happen everywhere but doesn't mean it needs an article. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 5 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringrr[edit]

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

This article does not appear to be notable. The company's only claim to fame was a Kickstarter project, and a small group of tech articles over a year ago. However, since then, there has been no further mention of this company. In addition, the company appears to be defunct, as shown by its website: https://bringr.com/ Kage Acheron (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The definition of "notable" isn't "I don't think it's important." The definition is right here. Boston Business Journal, the Lowell Sun, CNN, TechCrunch, these are all reliable sources, and the articles cited are substantive. Whether the company is defunct or not or whether coverage is ongoing doesn't matter, notability not being temporary. Nor was coverage fleeting, as the nom suggests; the news hits I'm looking at run over a spread of five years. I recommend the nom become better acquainted with WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 04:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to keep since the article is neat and sourced by notable websites and News found results from the past years although none recent. Browser found nothing good but Highbeam found results along with mostly press releases at thefreelibrary; all in all, the article is still acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 15:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Ravenswing CorporateM (Talk) 07:16, 5 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 Rename. New title will be List of non-fiction environmental writers. The category renames should be listed at WP:CFD. —Darkwind (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers[edit]

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

This list is wrong for so many reasons (well some anyway...) Why exclude one country? Why create a list that may be of limited use to readers? Why not a List of non-fiction environmental writers? (Not that I would want this sort of as well, even as an ardent environmentalist and Green Party supporter) The editor has a history of creating pages that are outside of the scope of WP. And yes I know I probably have not given a policy or guideline reason for deletion but the wikilawyers who comment here need to look at the Big Picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a List of American non-fiction environmental writers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand the stated basis for the deletion. Seems apparent that the reason for the two lists is simply a matter of length. If we don't think there's a length problem, why not just propose combining the 2 lists into 1? To the extent this is a list of authors who are notable for writing non-fiction works on environmental topics, why wouldn't these lists be appropriate?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that combining might be the best option here. The list might also get a little confusing for people who look at the American list and wonder why people from South America aren't included. I know that American is usually aimed at North Americans and that's sort of the standard on here, but it's still sort of a minor pet peeve with me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The strange inclusion of "non-American" in the title is because the U.S. is the only country with a separate list. That's easily fixable, by reorganizing this into a list organized and subdivided by country, with the United States section simply having a link to the separate American list. That's how we generally handle lists where some subgroups are not large enough to merit standalone lists but others are. Then we can simply rename to remove "non-American" from the title. Combining with the American list is another option, but at present at least we have more articles on American writers in this category than the whole rest of the world combined. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this with List of American non-fiction environmental writers and rename List of non-fiction environmental writers. This is not a huge list and there is no reason it needs to be broken up into multiple countries. Where they are from is not relevant or even interesting. What's next, List of American non-fiction environmental writers who also have Canadian citizenship? List of American non-fiction environmental writers who now live in Peru? —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of non-fiction environmental writers, per discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I agree with DASonnenfeld, as this is appropriate, no need to merge. Gmcbjames (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I composed "List of American non-fiction environmental writers" to match Category:American non-fiction environmental writers, and I composed "List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" to match the other entries in Category:Non-fiction environmental writers. I kept the two lists separate because of length, not only then and now but also in the future when additional entries will likely be added. I accept the proposal to rename "List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers" as "List of non-fiction environmental writers", instead of merging the two lists. (Editors can see how a combined list would appear, by visiting "User:Wavelength/Sandbox 2/List of environmental non-fiction writers", where the words "environmental" and "non-fiction" are transposed. I prefer separate lists instead of a combined list.)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merged list in your sandbox looks good. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Wavelength that the separate lists are more useful; combined they are simply too long. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the two list articles gives too much undue weight to American writers when merged. Gmcbjames (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider the following name changes.

(1) List of non-American non-fiction environmental writers —> List of environmental non-fiction writers (or —> List of non-American environmental non-fiction writers, a more precise name)

(2) List of American non-fiction environmental writers —> List of American environmental non-fiction writers

(3) Category:Non-fiction environmental writers —> Category:Environmental non-fiction writers

(4) Category:American non-fiction environmental writers —> Category:American environmental non-fiction writers

—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 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 delete and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. Based on analysis of the sources I'm not seeing an argument that the non-policy based voting can overcome the GNG. N is forever so currently being the oldest person is not the be all that some voters would like it to be. I think any feat of that magnitude requires a significant level of sources to show its a big deal. That is clearly not the case here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Farrell[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)

Another non-notable supercentenarian. Attempt has been made by both User:Waenceslaus and User:Ollie231213 to "expand" the article but we still see no information that isn't already available (and already sourced) in List of Australian supercentenarians and elsewhere. Simply living to a certain age does not make someone notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is information that isn't elsewhere. What you have linked above is not a guideline, but an essay. That represents the opinions of the people who wrote it, but that doesn't make it Wiki policy. Personally I think that the oldest person in a country is notable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with any pre 90s article sources are next to none impossible to find which is why leniency is given, Personally I think expanding the article is better than deleting imho. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But this isn't a "pre 90s" article. The sourcing isn't there because there hasn't been much coverage on her. The most recent article on her was in November 2012 for her 110th birthday. The only recent information I could find is a brief one sentence mention that simply states she is the oldest living Australian back in October 2014. Ollie231213, what "information" is in this article that isn't already present in List of Australian supercentenarians? CommanderLinx (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Biographical information (marriage, descendants, health habits). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been recently expanded and new sources have been added. User:CommanderLinx, by admitting that the GRG is the reliable source, there appears the need for you to consider those, who are verified by the Gerontology Research Group as the oldest living people in their respective countries, as notable. Only one person can be the country's oldest resident at a time. Mrs. Farrell has been recognized by the media and the proper citations have been provided for the article. Moreover, there is great probability, that the article will be expanded further. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mrs. Farrell is listed by the Gerontology Research Group among the Validated Living Supercentenarians as of May 1, 2015. Here is the link: http://www.grg.org/Adams/TableE.html -- Waenceslaus (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does a mention in a GRG table establish notability? Yes, sources have been added but they contain no new information that is not already available in List of Australian supercentenarians. Again, living to a certain age does not make someone notable. Pinging User:DerbyCountyinNZ who also has experience in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pinging someone you know will agree with you. Do we all get to "phone a friend"? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every information, which is not merely a mention of name in a table serves here as a new piece of information, which is not available in List of Australian supercentenarians. These include the detailed information about the person's life, the citations of which have been provided. Living to a supercentenarian age, in my honest opinion, does make someone notable. It does even more if the person is the oldest resident of her respective country, which is a fact in Mrs. Farrell's case. -- Waenceslaus (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mrs Farrell is the oldest person in Australia. And most of the info in the article is not on the list of Australian SC's. So that's why I'm going for keep.

To CommanderLinx: Why do you want to "destroy" longevity and supercentenarian articles? That's all you do these days, isn't it? I can name countless supercentenarian articles that you have tried to delete for no good reason! -- Bensonfood (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (Greenwich Mean Time)

Keep - Being the oldest resident in a specific country is enough for me to vote in favor of keeping one's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just wanted to say 2 things:

1. New information has been added that is not present in the list of Australian SC's, which is why we should keep Ethel's article.

2. Sorry for my overreaction there. -- Bensonfood (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2015 (Greenwich Mean Time)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can any of the above "keep votes" explain how she passes the WP:GNG when there is nothing available on her after November 2012? Or do we keep this article because of encyclopedic information such as "she used to smoke" and "has children and grandchildren"? Coverage is minimal at best and again, the sources in this article tell us nothing of value that is not already present in List of Australian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. As noted above, debatable/negligible encyclopedic content and nothing to justify a separate article. No indication of WP:SIGCOV. Note that almost all the entries at List of British supercentenarians#People have more substantial content than this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in my opinion, being the oldest person in a country qualifies one for notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Australian supercentenarians. I don't see being the oldest person in a country as inherently notable. I was expecting that she would meet WP:GNG, but it just isn't there. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep opposed to delete. She is not only Australia's oldest living person, but second oldest person ever born in India, 9th oldest Australian ever (If she is alive until October 2015, It will become third oldest Australian person ever) and last known living Australian person to have been born before 1905. I think that article of Orma Slack is should be deleted than this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provide her as the oldest living person of a major country which should convey notability, information like "she smokes" provide historical context of her field (centenarian), she has reached the top of her field. GuzzyG (talk) 15:01, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. Being the oldest in a country is not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of sources would be really helpful unravelling this. There are a lot of no policy based votes here that make finding a consensus extremely hard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article currently has 3 sources: 1 is from the GRG which establishes her age but confers no notability, 1 (from 2012) mentions that she has become a supercentenarian which is not the notability claimed for her and 1 is a passing mention in a story about her predecessor as oldest Australian. In short none of the sources are sufficient to justify an article about the notability claimed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed it. I will also add that the WP:WOP wikiproject states that articles such as this one should be redirected to a list as sources don't demonstrate notability and don't provide significant details on anything but her longevity. As DerbyCountyinNZ shows and I stated above, these sources tell us nothing interesting that isn't already available (and sourced) at List of Australian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one source confirming her age is verified, one confirming that she is the oldest Australian, and one that gives biographical details. For an article which is currently only a stub, that isn't bad. All are reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis she's already listed appropriately at List of Australian supercentenarians. Supercentenarians are much more common these days, as evidenced by the tiny amount of news coverage about her so far. Fails WP:GNG at the moment. Sionk (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Mrs. Ethel Farrell is the oldest person of her country, Australia. That makes her very notable person. The authenticity of her age has been confirmed by the Gerontology Research Group and details from her life are given in articles, published on her topic. All the citations mentioned are provided for the article. What is more, its further development is excepted. Waenceslaus (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said that 4 weeks ago and no other news coverage has been forthcoming, so further development is unlikely, wouldn't you think? Sionk (talk) 17:30, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey[edit]

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

Members of college boards of trustees are not normally inherently notable. The listed references I find are either unreliable (Ancestry, Findagrave) or represent insignificant mentions (the Newspapers.com articles). I could not access the Levin book; I'll have no problem withdrawing this if that or other sources can be shown to add up to meeting WP:GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, even one of the newspapers.com sources is referring to a relative and not to this subject. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclosing that I'm the AfC reviewer) His presence on the national committee of Presbyterian General Assembly was reported in several major newspapers of the time, such as the New York Times and The Topeka Daily Capital. While those pieces could be considered trivial, there is also a large amount of discussion found here which gives significant coverage of him in relation to a court case which he presided over. Apologies for letting this through AfC in this state, it is a tough balance between biting new editors and upholding Wikipedia's guild lines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can understand the difficulty in striking that balance. I just think that a consistent, guideline-based approach to notability does the most good for the newbie who is learning the ropes. There are sources, but I don't think that presiding over a local court case, graduating from college, being a lawyer, being related to other lawyers, serving on a national church subcommittee or the other sourced events would really get us over the notability bar. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for considering the article. I'll continue to work on documenting Judge Edward William Cornelius Humphrey as a notable person. Confusion will arise, however, because of his relation to others named Judge Humphrey and other Judges named Humphrey who are not related. Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey IS a relative of the article's subject, but as far as I can determine the J. Otis Humphrey mentioned in the [1] headlined court case mentioned by Winner 42 as here is not a relative. Thank you for the other suggestions, and I'll keep working on this.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey was the half-brother of Judge Edward William Cornelius Humphrey. Here is what I have found about him so far: User:Mitzi.humphrey/Alexander Pope Humphrey.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since seeing the article the first time, I was concerned that the lead doesn't say why this person is notable as leads are supposed to do in succinct prose. I'm neutral right now on whether to keep or delete, although I'm not seeing anything really compelling for a keep so far. Having a presence in a notable religious assembly would make this person notable only if this person led it or was a key figure. I don't have access to newspapers.com -- what kind of a judge was he and where did he serve? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have been based in Louisville, Kentucky, but I can't find anything that mentions him significantly enough to even specify the type of court. I don't have access to newspapers.com anymore either, but I was able to see the newspapers.com articles that Winner42 clipped by clicking on one of his links. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article is no longer an orphan. There are now links at Centre College indicating his trusteeship and Harvard as a notable religious leader and judge with a law degree.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Winner 42. The minutes of the aforementioned general assembly for 1916 also have E W C Humphrey as secretary of some board of directors. In any event, ineligible for deletion because members of a notable body should be redirected to it if they are not notable, not deleted (WP:R). James500 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like he mostly served on subcommittees as a church elder. I think the discussion is getting a bit muddled because of the number of references, most of which are passing mentions or which concern relatives of this subject. Can you point me toward the BOD secretary reference that we are referring to? Would this redirect to Presbyterian polity? Just trying to understand and learn what I can. We delete articles all the time where people are members of notable bodies like the IEEE, when those memberships themselves don't confer individual notability. I'm just confused at this point. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I checked about the General Assembly in Presbyterian polity. It says, "The general assembly (or general synod) is the highest court of presbyterian polity." He was the only lay member of the General Assembly referred to in the source given and helped to set the agenda. This is not the same as being a member of a subcommittee as a church elder. The meeting was important enough to be recorded in the NY Times because it involved possible changes in religious creed.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can understand the confusion, but NYT is pretty clear that he was once on a committee/subcommittee of the general assembly and not one of the leaders of the general assembly. That's consistent with the fact that there are only passing mentions of his name in independent, reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - EricEnfermero, your understanding of the NYT article headlined about "Creed Revision" is not the same as mine. The article was datelined Philadelphia, appearing in regard to a forthcoming meeting in NYC of a select committee which had been drawn from national synods to advise the national Presbyterian General Assembly on the important item of creed revision, a major item on the agenda of the General Assembly. The same select committee had previously met in Washington, D. C. to draft their proposal. This article alone establishes that E.W.C. Humphrey was a notable religious leader, and I will add that fact to the lead as suggested by Stevie is the man! Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete (or redirect if applicable) I can't at this point put my finger on anything that makes this person notable enough for inclusion. His participation in activities may have been important in a limited sphere, but that's all I see from the discussion so far. I don't see true leadership. If we listed all members of committees corresponding to national conventions of religions or anything, this encyclopedia wouldn't be so encyclopedic any longer. It would become more of a resume directory. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer some comments above: I was under the impression that the general assembly of the US Church had its own article, though on closer inspection, I find that it doesn't. The board of directors reference is in this and seems to refer to the Theological Seminary of Kentucky. I don't think "only leaders of a body are notable or listed" is policy. We do have articles on or list all members of certain legislatures and courts. There is such a thing as ecclesiastical law. James500 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I noticed on the Presbyterian Church USA website that there have been 221 general assemblies, so I'm just wondering how much general assembly service confers notability. Discussions at WP:AFD/PROF have consistently held that college presidents aren't inherently notable, and I'd think that college BOD members would have an even harder time meeting that standard. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, it's very unusual to declare a person notable via one thin reference who has served on a non-governmental board. I don't see any meat on these bare bones. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tag was removed. "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 28 May 2015 (General fixes, removed orphan tag using AWB (10999)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version." Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article should be kept. The notability of Judge Edward William Cornelius Humphrey is demonstrated by additions I made today showing that the creed changes brought about at the Presbyterian General Assembly were headline news and that Judge Humphrey was instrumental in shaping the final vote. I uncovered many more articles in Newspapers.com simply by searching for Judge E.W.C. Humphrey rather than by his full name. Thank you to the editors for your patience with this article.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely on the basis being "appointed by the Presbyterian General Assembly to serve on a national committee" does not seem to confer notability (even if it was an article about someone living today with all the available news sources). The biographical info is largely WP:OR from original documents, while the news coverage seems to be about the creed changes, rather than focusing on Edward Humphrey. Sionk (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the news article and its context before commenting.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please read all previous discussion, including that before this new discussion before arriving at a consensus.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say that criteria 6 actually makes most presidents of colleges notable. I think the president of Centre College would pass those criteria. However board members do not. Humphrey might merit mention in the article Presybyterian Church USA General Assembly of 1902. That is a topic that might be worth covering. There is nothing about Humphrey that stands out enough to make him notable. He was a lawyer, a college tustee, and a presybyterian elder who was on a General Assembly committee. Unless we have articles on the other 5 members of the committee Humphrey does not merit one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The improved article shows that former U.S. President Benjamin Harrison was a member of the creed revision committee up until the time of his death. He is shown in a group photo with Judge Humphrey along with other members of the committee.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Harrison is famous for being the President of the United States, not for being on a religious committee with Judge Humphrey. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison's role in that committee is not even mentioned in our article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of the Wikipedia article on Harrison refers to him as a "Presbyterian church leader," and his participation on the creed revision committee is mentioned in the press of the time.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's really hard to see what is supposed to be notable about him. He was a lawyer and an elder in his church; those are both run-of-the-mill. The article calls him "judge" but provides no details about what kind of judge he was, so we can't use that for notability. He served on a committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly, which produced a 1902 creed revision; however, that creed revision does not rate a mention anywhere else at Wikipedia, not even in the article about the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); presumably it was just one of many adjustments to the creed over the years. The article has a commendable number of sources, considering this was more than 100 years ago; however, the sources that I can see are reporting on the General Assembly, and mention this subject only in passing, thus failing the "substantial coverage" requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 5 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) 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iury Snow[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. This was originally deleted by PROD because of lack of reliable references but quickly recreated with the same problem. I am removing the current PROD.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything to support GNG as Iury Snow or Bogdan Daogaru —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why don't you delete it speedy? This is fake. It's some kind of virtual game and mockery for such a site like the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F08:82CF:FFFF:0:0:4F71:F723 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well an AfD is more easy to make permanent. I am beginning to believe you are right about the hoax. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoshei Darius Peter Rehse (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the article is not a hoax (and it very well may be, who knows?) the fact that the boxing promotion's only official presence on the internet is a Facebook page suggests that it, and the boxers associated with it, aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article may or may not be a hoax, but either way there's no evidence he's notable as a boxer or has the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to comment at Hoshei Darius's AfD, News and Books quickly found nothing and even a browser search provides seven links, all Facebook. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:10, 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/speedy delete per WP:SNOW and WP:G11. I can re-open this for a full week if enough people want it, but the article is fairly promotional in tone and a search brings up zero RS, so I can't see this closing any other way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocking the Secrets of the Pinewood Derby[edit]

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

No evidence that this book meets any of the notability guidelines for books. Trivialist (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, self-published book with no coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', very promotional article for a book with no media coverage. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:02, 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 no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies with more than one Academy Award nomination in the same category[edit]

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

A list based on an arbitrary criterion. I don't see any secondary source discussen such kind of list. Useless for navigation Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it included the song category it would probably be more useful also I think there is a similar list already.Wgolf (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are similar lists, but they are for multiple awards, not nominations. They are fancruft as well, but notability is a notch higher. 21:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. While there are many Academy Award lists (Category:Academy Awards lists), this seems too random. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fear of vote splitting is real and alive in Hollywood, and should be discussed in the article. See the Variety article "A look back at Oscar vote-split survivors" or AMC's comment on how both Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift being nominated for the Best Actor award for From Here to Eternity probably benefited William Holden.[2] Bette Davis and Anne Baxter in All About Eve is another notorious example.[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we have to write an article Vote splitting in Hollywood. If it is a real issue, then this list would make sense. In this case I may agree than my nomination was based on little understanding of the subject area, and this list is not so random as it seems at the first glance to an ignorant person. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Hollywood+"vote splitting"+film does hit several thou in google search. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see how vote splitting applies in Oscar voting and think they are using that term incorrectly. Additionally, Oscar voting results are never revealed, unlike political elections where it is possible to see where the votes went and analyze them. It's not possible to see that in the Oscar race, so it seems reaching to base a list purely on that theory. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are ~~two~~ three forms of Oscar vote splitting, one in which similar movies can split the ballots, when one person is nominated multiple times, and when actors/songs/etc. from the same movie divvy up the support. Variety thinks the last is a real (or at least perceived) issue. So does this unpublished paper by Steven Brams and Paul Hager and this New York Times article which cites three nominated Enchanted songs. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think there was one movie (The Miracle Worker maybe?) where one of the two leading actresses was actually nominated as a supporting actress to avoid this problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nominators arguments. If voting is secret then any suggestion of relevance of vote splitting would be speculative (and if there were examples of notorious vote splitting allegations these could be mentioned briefly in the main Academy Award article(s). Sionk (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see some basis for this list. It is somewhat specialist, but I did find a couple of reliable sources: Associated Press: "Same category, same film? Oscar win unlikely" and The Week: "7 curious facts about the 2012 Oscar nominees". I think a good way to find sources would be to search for some titles together to pull up additional sources that talk about multiple nominations. In addition, if this is kept, I would say to change the name to say "films" instead and to put "acting" before "category". Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above as well as Clarityfiend's reference, which I did not explore until now. I think there is sufficient basis to keep a list. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills requirements for a stand-alone list article, change name from "movies" to "films." Gmcbjames (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The vote splitting issue is purely speculative in nature even from those resources. And, I'd say there needs to be more than ten articles to have this particular list stay

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:55, 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 Delete.' --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel "Gotts" chalkford[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - FYI his name is Dan Gottschalk, not Chalkford, but I didn't find enough to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all my searches found nothing aside from a few News links and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's nothing to suggest that is an option. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:41, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Way of Seeming[edit]

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

Non-notable independent film that hasn't even begun principal production. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF utterly. Unable to find any non-trivial sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:NOTFILM or WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 30 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 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NFF. After this begins filming and if it gets the requisite coverage an undeletion or recreation can be considered. But for now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as IMDb lists for a February 2016 release and News and Books searches found nothing, even browser only found a few links and they're mostly HorrorSociety and other links listed in the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google brings up stuff like Kickstarter & Horrorsociety but unfortunately nothing source-wise, Agree with the above looks TOOSOON atm. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 5 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 withdrawn as sources were found to improve the article (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granville (French band)[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:BAND, confirmed after several source searches.~~ They have a description page at Last.fm, ~~but not finding much else.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No apparent claim for notability, and no independent research can turn up any. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I'm highly curious as to what sort of searches these were... [4], [5], [6], [7] —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But only if the article is expanded, if not, than it should be nominated for deletion again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being too short is not a valid reason for deletion and an AfD would be closed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the details and sources provided in the French Wikipedia version of this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn – Per the sources posted by Wikimandia and those at the Granville (groupe) French Wikipedia page. My mistake. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 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) 20:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaico Rave Garcia[edit]

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

Actor who falls under too soon-The only Jaico Garcia on the IMDB has just one role so far (I thought something was up when I saw Runaway Bride and his DOB was 1993-considering Runaway Bride is from 1999) Wgolf (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - support per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The internal claims don't match up with the article's dates for the actor. Otherwise, the article claims roles as an extra. Seems like vanity. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking dang this guy has a rather American/Spanish name for someone from Asia! (Granted the name means nothing but yeah it was odd) And the dates don't match up of course. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wgolf, the Philippines was a Spanish colony for like 300 years. A large number of Filipinos have Spanish surnames. Actually every Filipino I've met. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely not notable and nothing to support the current claims. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmonkey[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All my searches found nothing (News only found article links from newsmonkey themselves) and they could be non-English but considering it was only founded last January, it's unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:49, 5 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 Bass_oboe#Repertoire. No point in dragging this on forever so closed as Redierct. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bass oboe concerto[edit]

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

The article amounts to little more than a list of three generally non-notable pieces, written by relatively obscure composers. Even if the article were expanded to provide more information, I'm not confident that the topic itself is sufficiently noteworthy to merit having an article, as the bass oboe and heckelphone are and always have been extremely rare instruments, with a minimal of professional musicians specializing in them Zhanmusi (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 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, Kraxler (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Upon checking the full revision history for the 19 May 2015 AfD log page, it appears that this nomination was not transcluded there. It was on the 12 May 2015 log page when I relisted it. As such, the relist below should be considered the first relisting for this page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bass_oboe#Repertoire which discusses the same topic in more detail. Note that 2 out of the 3 entries in the list aren't actually written for bass oboe. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per user:Colapeninsula: The name is unsearchable, for the most part, and the contents appear to license the inclusion of iffy material (i.e. "a bass oboe concerto what I just wrote!"). Hithladaeus (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the users above. Not notable in itself, but a valid redirect for that section of the Bass oboe article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 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 delete. Due to notability and promotional concerns. Davewild (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CarePlus[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ. Take away the many press releases and what you have left is ~~two~~ one thin piece from RFID Journal and The Miami Herald. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Brianhe (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, it's an WP:ADMASQ, which fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources seem enough to establish notability, the page can be marked with advert tag instead of deletion.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome back, it's been a long time since you edited. Tagging is not meant to be an alternative to fixing. Either the article should be fixed if it can be, or it should be deleted. — Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused; article says CarePlus is a nurse paging system but one of the sources refers to it as a health care plan. Are these two different companies/products? —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch; Miami Herald story was unrelated to this article; I removed it. Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That CarePlus is very large. The health insurance brand, "Care Plus," has a lot of capital in the U.S. It is, however, a brand within a larger corporation, I think. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional material telling you (yes, you) why you should get/invest in this exciting product. There isn't any description of the product as a factor in care facilities or its effects upon them. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:36, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightfighters[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage beyond very minor and local sources. Fails WP:MUSIC because they simply haven't created any significant work of music (i.e. no awards and no chart presence). Possibly created by someone associated with the band. Accepted from AfC 2 years ago by a no-longer-active editor who seems to have been unaware about AfC protocol, evidently ignorant as to this article's severely deficient structure, etc. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a lot of minor radio appearances and other small accomplishments, so they're not a typical WP:GARAGE band, but at the same time they haven't really done enough to be noticed by the world at large. I was thinking about a merge to Rock Band Network, but the source that verifies that claim doesn't list the band. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion - This band is already on wikipedia and should be merged with Rock Band Network, as the current wikipedia source is valid and mentions the band on the List of Rock Band Network 1.0 songs for February 15,2011. Giants4635 ^(talk) ^(cont) 3:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Don't understand above suggestion to merge. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches only found minor mentions here and here and nothing significant and notable. Giants4635's comment is not clear as to why this should be mentioned at Rock Band Network. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion -My searches have clearly shown this band is in fact mentioned on List of Rock Band Network 1.0 songs dated February 15, 2011 here and have already been on wikipedia 3 years. I found their music in films that were featured at the Cannes Film Festival and Hoboken International Film Festival.here and a documentary film with Arlo Guthrie here and here Their music does come up on a more accredited music site Allmusic here which supports that they are obviously not just a local WP:GARAGE band. Further still, they were published on more noteworthy sites like this one here Also, their tour schedule has them at national venues such as the Whiskey a Go Go, and national festivals such as Bayfront Blues Festival and The California Rodeo here rebuking some rather curt assertions above. On top of this, they have supported quite a few notable acts such as John Mayall, Stephen Pearcy of RATT, Tommy Castro, The Guess Who, The Mother Hips, Moonalice, Charlie Musselwhite,Otis Clay, and Rosie Ledet. here and here The claims above asserting that a band needs awards and chart toppings to be considered notable are not following WP:GNG guidelines . Furthermore, if national attention is what constitutes being notable, as has been stated above, then there is no question of allowing them on WP as they have been in national video games, films, performed at esteemed national venues and festivals, as well as supported national acts aforementioned. Olddude123 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so but what the article needs is significant and notable sources talking about it, not pages like ReverbNation and the band's website. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Jean[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Jean were to make the Patriots' final 53 man roster in August, will he then be considered notable enough to have an article (he just went undrafted and is currently on the 90 man roster)? I am new to editing Wikipedia so I am unaware of how notable a player must be. Thanks. DataManiac18 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @DataManiac18: No, professional football players are not presumed to be notable until they have played in one regular season game in the NFL, CFL or other major American football league under the specific notability guideline for professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON. He might still be notable as a college football player under the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too soon, as it were. The claims for notability within the article are from the UAB playing days, where he got three interceptions in twenty-four games. Those aren't outstanding numbers for a cornerback in college. I suspect that an NFL completist was at work with this article and jumped the gun. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played in NFL yet, and as an undrafted free agent he won't necessarily do it anytime soon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GRIDIRON. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON, or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It's quite possible that subject will play in one or more NFL games in September or October of 2015; closing administrator should be prepared to userfy this article on request. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not, as of now, appear to pass any of the pertinent guidelines in WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 2 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. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hiranandani[edit]

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

Article about a totally non-notable Indian construction/real-estate development company, with the only sources in the article not even being about the company but about the managing director and director of the company. And even those sources don't count since they're not WP:RS. When I first saw the "article" a while ago it was 100% promotional, and nothing but a sales leaflet. After cleaning out the promo and puffery very little remained, but today I noticed that they have started to add the unsourced promotional material and puffery back again, so I decided to nominate it for deletion. A search on Google returns no significant coverage at all in reliable sources, only one or two obvious press releases, and there's also the usual social media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and so on) and some real-estate web sites trying to sell flats in Hiranandani projects. Thomas.W ^talk 09:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some contact with an IP they have started to add references, the problem is that none of the sources is about the company, i.e. providing significant coverage, only making passing mentions of the company name, if even that. Thomas.W ^talk 11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I agree regarding the article's current sources, which include a press release, an article where the company is not actually mentioned and other low-quality sources. This is probably the best out of the lot, but there is simply not enough to make a quality article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional in tone and reads like "About us" from a company website. No notability as a company sufficient for an encyclopedia at present. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:45, 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) 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Legion Post No. 1[edit]

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

This American Legion post is only notable if it is actually the founding post of the American Legion, but there is no clear indication that it is. Although the idea of the American Legion was born in France in the days following the end of World War I, the actual founding of the organization occurred in Minneapolis. (See American Legion#History and its reliable sources.) Immediately following the founding, posts were chartered in several foreign countries, France among them. But in general, individual posts or branches of an organization are not separately notable from their parent organization unless there is something specific that sets the branch apart, and in this case, there does not appear to be anything of that nature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wrote a good deal of the current iteration of American Legion, for what it's worth. There are a pretty large number of American Legion Post #1s around the United States; the number itself is not that big a deal, nothing to go into WP:IAR mode over. Outside of that, it seems a pretty easy delete on the basis of lack of substantial coverage in independent sources. Certainly whatever historical importance exists for a Paris Post is already intimated in the American Legion piece and its contemporary importance (and coverage) is negligible. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Post #1" != "first American Legion hall" or even continuously meeting group, so, as above, no notability for this "post." Hithladaeus (talk) 18:49, 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) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amitash Pradhan[edit]

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

Non notable actor-only a couple roles so far (article was previously blp prod) Wgolf (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedied once as advert as well - fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first sentence really lowers one's expectations. Ignoring that, the actor doesn't appear to have much press, and it's not even clear if he's regarded as an actor who sings or a "performer" who has been in theater/films. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Laptops been a bastard so I'll make it short & sweet - Clear advert, Fails NACTOR & GGN. –Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) the best results I found are this article and some others but nothing amounting to notability and significance. SwisterTwister talk 15:26, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TactonWorks[edit]

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

Non-notable product. No indications that this product has received any in-depth independent coverage. Sources that are available all appear to be from the company itself or its vendors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable product, the best sources I could find were some press releases in German and Chinese. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotion/press release for a product that does not set itself apart from others in the eyes of the world. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no significant sources with my searches only finding this (press releases), this and this. SwisterTwister talk 16:07, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Target[edit]

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

This website lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only third party links are passing mentions of the website, and there is no sustained, independent coverage with which to write an article. Coverage from other vg sites (from a video game reliable sources custom Google search) also amounted to passing mentions. The article topic does not pass the general notability guideline or any subject-specific guideline. – czar 16:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've managed to find trivial mentions with this search, but significant coverage does not seem to exist. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:49, 20 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) 13:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My plethora of searches (different detailed searches at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found absolutely nothing about this website. SwisterTwister talk 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the others, I can't find significant coverage in independent sources about the site. Since it was apparently affiliated with UGO Networks, it could probably be redirected there. But I'm not sure that it's really all that useful of a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jetpak (Logistics Company)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a company tagged for notability since March. It does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly very little in coverage, even of the non-RS variety. Subject fails GNG and CORP. Article fails V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is suspiciously little coverage, given what is stated in the article, which makes me wonder if there aren't deeper problems than merely lack of notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I could find online consists of its acquisition. This company seems completely un-notable. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable company. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:30, 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Prabhu[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, and previous AfDs have been closed because they failed to attract comments. It would be great if this article could finally have its notability resolved. Personally, I don't see that it meets WP:NOTABILITY, but Im aware I may be missing something, as someone who only reads English. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole cited source is not RS. I am unable to find in depth coverage from reliable sources necessary to establish notability. Sources cited for the discography appear to be all from the same website that also does not appear to be an RS source. Article currently fails WP:V and the subject fails both GNG and BASIC. Will reconsider if in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources can be found per GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is an anglophone blindspot, but the other blindspot is Bollywood's. It appears that the subject is real and did a lot of composing for a film industry that put out a ton of product. It is also a film industry that had an. . .industrial approach to product. . . so this isn't exactly Lieber and Stoller. When 3rd party, reliable sources document Bollywood composers, tertiary sources like Wikipedia can write about these workers. Until then, the subject fails the notability guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion. But fact check first: He didn't work for Bollywood. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs to be expanded to assert notability which can't be done since the subject is not covered enough.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete - My searches found nothing significant (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) with Books providing what seems to be only one source. It wouldn't be surprising if alot of these sources are non-English and offline. If people familiar with the subject and access to sources, the article can be started again but I'm not seeing much (past the current sources) for an article. SwisterTwister talk 15:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How many of the editors over here could search the topic in the language the subject worked? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:57, 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church Cape Town[edit]

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

Non-notable church plant. Merge referenced content into parent church's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 13:52, 4 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church Paris[edit]

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

Non-notable church plant. Merge referenced content into parent church's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This article fails to give any induication that the church is of any signifciant size or prominence. This contrasts with the London nand Kiev articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge clearly a better option to go for. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Struck !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:AC/N#OccultZone and sockpuppetry Esquivalience ^t 00:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see notability per WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 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 merge to Podiatry#United_Kingdom. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foot health practitioner[edit]

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

Found this expired prod and thought it could use more views. Prod rationale was "Entirely unsourced article with no sign of sources for well over a year" - but, well, WP:NOEFFORT.

The article ~~was created by~~ has been extensively edited by an SPA who's made strange posts complaining about a conspiracy of podiatrists. The term appears to be used primarily in the UK and Ireland. Google does turn up apparent registries, professional associations, courses, etc., but it's unclear if this is actually notable despite the sorry state of the article, or just weird crankery. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Podiatry#United_Kingdom. It appears this actually a profession and people can get a license to practice in it [8]. Obviously, I don't know the background of this and if the foot health practitioners (or this particular editor) have some kind of WP:FRINGE view that podiatry is a scheme or something. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - this popped back up on my watchlist due to the 'every AfD is about baseball' thing. I cleaned the article a little by reverting to a pre-SPA version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned. This page discusses them together [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above - Personally it seems best suited to that article as opposed to being seperate. –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 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) 20:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mormon Contribution to Alberta Politics[edit]

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

Article about a book, published by a small specialist publishing house that has all the hallmarks of being a personal vanity press (the author of this book is credited as either the author or the subject of every single book but one in the company's entire catalogue of titles), which makes no strong claim of notability and relies almost entirely on primary sources — one of the three references is to itself, while a second is to its informational profile on Google Books. And the one reliable source that's being cited isn't coverage of the book itself, but is simply supporting a statement that a newspaper published a full 100 years before the book existed, which is in the article for quasi-promotional reasons rather than actually having anything to do with the book itself. Being able to demonstrate that a book exists isn't what gets the book into Wikipedia — references demonstrating that the book has been the subject of reliable source coverage is what gets a book an article, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. A general google search brings up nothing (in the first 100 hits anyway:)), googlenews and googlebooks brings up nothing either. (Also the article's creator may have a coi as on their userpage they state they are working for Dr Mardon (the coauthor) for the summer, and have also created/edited other Mardon articles.)Coolabahapple (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rather like the old List of people who died with a turtle on their heads, it's a slicing of the pie into wedges that won't feed anyone. Additionally, we have likely conflicts in points of view. Book does not have notability, and the underlying issues are worrisome. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of any indication the book is notable. Hithladaeus' argument has no relevance here, since the issue is not if the topic is notable, just the book about the topic. I have to say that I find it bizarre that the writer defined marriage not only to include those who had never been members of the Mormon Church but had ancestors who were, but also to include those connected to the Church by "marriage". That said, we have articles on books that are inherently flawed and incorrect, but not ones on books that do not pass notability, which this book fails to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Bodyguard Association[edit]

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

Fails basic rules of WP:ORG. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Only sources are the org's own site and a single news article about the man that runs it that is less than complimentary. Legitimus (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing significant and notable here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but here is another source if someone wants to have a go at it. source I would recommend they create it in a user space first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. While the man may be notable (which might not be the case, actually), this organization certainly is not. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the organization is not notable, no significant coverage whatsoever. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:42, 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 Twins Affair. And if they aren't notable either, bring them back to AfD. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taye Olusola[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC. I can't find enough evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as promotional. In addition, article fails WP:GNG BangVng (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Also, so promotional that it fails WP:PROMO, probably due to COI from the creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twins Affair, his band. Somebody might want to take a look at whether Twins Affair is actually notable, but that's another issue. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per MelanieN. Any notability comes from the band, so until/unless the band article is deleted then we should redirect there. Davewild (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Twins Affair - My searches found nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 15:53, 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 and redirect to Pall Corporation. —Darkwind (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farsad Fotouhi[edit]

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

Article fails to meet notability requirements. Much of the content previously contained in article was irrelevant text about the subject's brother's jealously for the subject. When that is removed, the rest fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The referencs are all about Pall Corporation, not about Fotouhi. (The material in the articles ought to be incorporated into the article about Pall, where this unpleasant info is completely absent.) Fotouhi fails WP:N Tapered (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Predictable, right?) Farsad Fotouhi is a major player who in great part will determine whether or not the MDEQ fulfills its mission, plus his interconnections with various levels of government and academia are having profound consequences for the people of Michigan. All the relevant information is hiding in plain sight in plenty of "reliable sources" but the dots still need connecting. Bumps on 94 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bumps on 94" is the originator of the article. Please show dots to connect! Tapered (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only aware of some of the dots (but I am still sure Farsad is a major player in this). For one thing, if it was so important to have the dioxane database at a university, why not the University of Michigan? Why Wayne State? Bumps on 94 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pall Corporation, where there is already a paragraph about him. In a search the only source I found about him is his public response to a Dioxane spill by the corporation. This article appears to have been written primarily as an attack page on his brother; that material has fortunately been deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pall Corporation. Maybe it's not our place to sort out whether Farsad is more evil than Farshad or to what extent Farshad is envious of his younger brother's 7-figure salary at Pall. Let's just not forget that for every good person slandered (e.g., John Seigenthaler), there are two bad persons who get to slide with their crimes unmentioned. Epistle to the Andorrians (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this is a very rare coproation, he is best described as "a vice presdent". They almost always have more than one. No clear claim to notability, just routine communications with the media on issues related to his company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Pall Corporation - I agree with Johnpacklambert above but Pall Corporation is still the most relevant article and my searches obviously found no signficant and notable sources here, here and here (some of the same results) with nothing at Highbeam and thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigyan Neupane[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP I dream of horses (T) @ 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See recent previous AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigyan Darshan, though it was terminated as a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be the same guy trying again. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some 17-year-old poets are notable, they have to pass the notability requirements for poets. Merely getting published is not enough. That is all the article claims for him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography making a self-claim of notability but without evidence. Fails WP:CREATIVE and wider WP:BIO criteria under both names being used by the subject. AllyD (talk) 17:46, 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 Speedy Deleted (A11) by Chrislk02. –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seb's Unofficial Eurovision Song Contest 2015[edit]

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

Google search reveals little internet coverage. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone's WP:MADEUP Eurovision rankings; we're not the right place to host them. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up one day, no coverage at all. Esquivalience ^t 03:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:A11 (no claim of significance or importance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ben (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A11 - Tagged as such as this is obviously made up - I'm very surprised it wasn't speedied earlier but hey ho all done now. –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 5 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) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Matthews[edit]

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

Journalist of no special acclaim at Vox, a news website/blog. Fails WP:GNG and the additional criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to Vox where he is mentioned. Searches for him here, here (browser, not many good sources), here and here provided several links but all connected to Vox. Not notable by himself at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

With the caveat that I've expanded the article (and so am responsible for maybe 1/4th of its current content), keep. Matthews obtained significant recognition both inside the Washington Post and from various media outlets for his work on the Post's blog "Know More". There's plenty of coverage of Matthews's work on Know More from multiple independent sources, which I've added to the article. I think the article as it currently stands passes all the criteria outlined under the General Notability Guideline on WP:N. Johnleemk | Talk 21:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Vox (website) or Washington Post. Even with the expansion, the coverage is mostly about the WaPo blog and not the individual. The sources going for the individual are the "under 25" award and maybe the WaPo internal award, but with everything else, it sums up to a mention on the article of a larger project, and not enough information to warrant its own dedicated article without stretching his cameos in the references really thin and using quotes where paraphrasing would suffice. – czar 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it'd certainly make sense to create a new Wonkblog article from the content here and redirect appropriately. I don't think redirecting to Vox or the main WaPo article is a good idea; Wonkblog/KnowMore don't make sense to cover in detail on the main WaPo article, and they aren't part of Vox (though they are arguably predecessors). There's also adequate precedent set for giving WaPo blogs their own articles, e.g., The Volokh Conspiracy. Johnleemk | Talk 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Vox would be fine because the individual is mentioned there by name. A redirect to WaPo would be fine because a Wonkblog/KnowMore article should be incubated there first summary style. If it has enough sources to spin out, so be it, but that's outside my purview with this AfD. – czar 23:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or redirect to Wonkblog article, for reasons given by Johnleemk above. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- his notability is well-established, as noted by Johnleemk above. NCdave (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Anyone who reads Vox or the Washington Post will know who he is.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 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. Article has been A-7 speedied by RHaworth, thus rendering this discussion moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N - Creation[edit]

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

Non-notable film company I dream of horses (T) @ 17:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only source is the guy's own blog. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable compnay. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in reliable sources found so far. Results that turn up in Google search are for Rootz N Creation.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. This appears to be a fairly non-notable company with no true assertions of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, so I'm going to tag this accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks like this is one of several pages created by a COI editor. I'll warn him about spam on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is an attempt to evade detection since this was already speedied at N-Creation and the editor's past history shows similar habits with articles for himself. This warning is going to turn into a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 2 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church Kiev[edit]

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

Non-notable church plant. Merge referenced content into parent church's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a substantive article. Unfortuantely it does not make clear how large the church is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ****I really think we need to take a closer look [10]. Moreover, since Hillsong Music Australia opens with an assertion that Hillsong Music is produced by the Sydney, London and Kiev churches, deleting London and Kiev becomes problematic. This seems to be a big deal church, in London and Kiev as well as in Australia, New York and the music biz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? That article discusses Hillsong Music Australia, and only mentions London and Kiev. You have again conflated the London conference with the London congregation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a look at the discussion on pp. 70-71 in Religions as Brands: New Perspectives on the Marketization of Religion and Spirituality, Ashgate Religion and Society Series, Edited by Jean-Claude Usunier, Jörg Stolz. they discuss the Hillside use of production facilities in the Hillsong Kiev and London churches to pick up a more contemporary "vibe' form the London music scene, and music with appeal in the former USSR in Kiev, where Hillsong can also record more easily in Slavic languages. or could, not sure how the recording/music biz is doing in Kiev just now. Hillsong Music is (or, at least, was until Russian invaded the Ukraine) a Sydney-based outfit, with significant creative and recording capacity at the Kiev and London churches. capacity created, according to this book, because Sydney is not exactly a world center of cutting-edge music. I do not claim to have ever heard of this mega-Church before happening on this AFD. I only claim that everything I see makes me think that it can support a good article, not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I believe that this article does not violate any of the rules and the existence of offices in Kiev and London is not absolutely impossible situation today. Did you want to rename the article.

Shad in Net 08:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Church London[edit]

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

Non-notable church plant. Merge referenced content into parent church's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I think the fact that it hired the O2 arena for its anniversary indicates a substantial size, perhaps for a network of churches.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge clearly a better option to go for. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Struck !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:AC/N#OccultZone and sockpuppetry Esquivalience ^t 00:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an international mega-church based in Australia. Religion News Service article linked here in an open source:[11] indicates that the European branch churches are large and growing. And in the Hillsong Church article, "Extensions" section there is this unsourced assertion : "Hillsong London have planted extension services in Surrey and in Paris." This may simply need more sourcing, failing that, it should be redirected to the "Extensions" section of the mother church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Changing that to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage of the London Hillsong: [12], this Christianity Today interview makes the London church sound like a pretty big deal, here's an interview with the pastor of Hillsong London [13], an article about the Hillsong London expanding to Norwich [14], plus considerable coverage of the music that comes out of the London Church, celebrities who attend, an invitaiton to a controversial pastor ot speak there, and here is a 2006 BBC article about the church [15] The London Hillsong readily passes WP:GNGE.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your first source is about a conference, not the church, and about disgraced American pastor Mark Driscol's presence at the conference. Other articles are short. Not sure they help meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really think we need to take a closer look [16]. Moreover, since Hillsong Music Australia opens with an assertion, which can be sourced in some of the articles I flagged above, that Hillsong Music is produced by the Sydney, London and Kiev churches, deleting London and Kiev becomes problematic. This seems to be a big deal church, in London and Kiev as well as in Australia, New York and the music biz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman E. Amundson[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. A single book by this writer won a single award from his professional association. The article is primarily a list of languages the book was translated into, with new ones being added as new translations are published. No references, and a search found a single quote from him (one of about ten people quoted in the article) in a single article about an unrelated subject. No mainstream mentions of him/his book. Page is an orphan except for a link from surname Amundson page, which was added the same day this page was created. valereee (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think this person passes GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC. I say "weak delete" because I don't know the importance of the awards in his particular field. For example, I found that he was given the Stu Conger Leadership Award by the Canadian Career Development Foundation [17]. It doesn't look like it would raise him to notability, but I'd like to hear if anyone knows differently. LaMona (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: A h-index of 28 and nearly 3000 citations is probably a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience ^t 03:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esquivalience - could you point to his profile? I don't see it on Google, so you must be accessing it elsewhere? thanks. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I calculated his h-index and a script with Google Scholar. Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find that the scholar calculator includes a lot of false hits (e.g. J Amundson on a search for Norman E Amundson). I don't think we can use that alone to determine notability. LaMona (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The weakest of keeps per Esquivalience. This is a very borderline case, but I think there is sufficient scholarly coverage to pass the academic notability guild lines. Additionally, Good-reads reports eight separate published works by him.[18] which is confirmed by amazon.[19] He also appears to be featured as an expert on some sort of video series.[20] Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:25, 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 Speedy Delete per A7 and G3. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Turtlelover 23[edit]

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

While the author tried to claim that Kyle Brady is "well known" on YouTube, a quick check of the channel revealed that the channel only has 18 subscribers. As such the notability of the subject cannot be established. Also the author's username can't help but make me think that Kyle created this page himself. — Andrew Y _talk 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. I would almost call this page pure vandalism, but there is no claim of significance in the article. Pishcal — ♣ 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically the editor put a claim that the subject is "well known". Though I suppose this is not a credible claim and I was a bit too generous. — Andrew Y _talk 17:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 and G3. Vandalism as it is deliberately undermining the integrity of Wikipedia by its continued existence and A7 because there is no credible claim made of significance. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could even be interpreted as an attack page with a liberal enough interpretation of G10. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:06, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calcio Italia[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable defunct magazine. The only coverage I've been able to find is around that it managed to publish 100 and 150 issues which is probably not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DissidentAggressor where did you get the info that it is defunct? The article also has a ref about it reaching 150 issues, which, for a monthly magazine, is 12+ years. The corresponding Italian wiki article also says nothing about it being defunct, and links to a subscriber login for digital issues. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official link that was in the article was dead. The domain http://www.calcioitalia.com/ is now a sports gear shop. The article Anthem Publishing lists it as a former publication (without a source). Maybe it is not defunct, or maybe it is defunct as a magazine, converting to a paywalled website. then we just need to satisfy GNG and change the article to be about the website. Note that the login for digital issues is published by Exact Editions Ltd which is not the publisher of the magazine according to the article. Anniversary announcements for the magazine probably don't meet GNG but we can keep looking. The Dissident Aggressor 14:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have amended my original nom to include the 150 number. The Dissident Aggressor 14:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Calcio Italia" literally means Italian Football, and the article on the 150th issue says the original title of the magazine was "Football Italia." Italian Wiki has this website in external links: http://www.football-italia.net/ - —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the same entity? http://www.football-italia.net/ makes no mention to subscriptions or magazines and is published by yet another company, Tiro Media Ltd 2015. Based on that, it appears to be a website unconnected to the magazine. Either way, the point isn't whether they're defunct or not, rather whether the magazine is notable. The Dissident Aggressor 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh it looks like it is defunct but back issues still available. It could still meet GNG though.[21] I don't know why the Italian version of the article links to football-italia.net. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is pretty twisted. So far we have two articles a couple years apart saying the magazine is not dead yet, and one a bit later saying it is dead. That's probably not GNG material yet but I'll add that ref to the article. The Dissident Aggressor 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if the magazine is dead, notability is not temporary and this magazine was on sale for a good few years and had a pretty wide circulation. They even sold it in Australia for a bit. – Pee Jay 10:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does being on sale for any length of time satisfy WP:GNG? The Dissident Aggressor 18:09, 5 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. —Darkwind (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stalins's religious views[edit]

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

New article appears to be OR. Sourced to a single non-RS source. LavaBaron (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletess's, my precious. He was born in a religious family and became an atheistic communist? Don't need an article for that. And who is this Joseph Stalins anyway? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make something similar to Religious views of Adolf Hitler, after changing the title to "Religious views of Joseph Stalin". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to do all that? If so, I'll change my !vote to Keep. LavaBaron (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can try. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move this to draft space for the time being? I agree that the topic is potentially notable but the current version isn't at all suitable for article space. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it should be moved to draft space. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per above discussion, I change my !vote to Keep conditioned on article being moved to draft space pending improvement. LavaBaron (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike Hitler, Stalin had no religious views whatsoever. That's why this page is so small. We do not need a page only to tell that Stalin had no religious views. This is just another page on subject that does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin ordered the recreation of Churches during World War 2, I am sure there are many other interesting facts to note. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about policies by Stalin with respect to religious organizations (recreation or destruction of churches). That would be an important and legitimate subject, and it has been already described on a number of pages. We are talking about his personal religious views. All books I read about Stalin tell nothing about his religious views except noticing that he apparently did not believe in anything of this nature. If you read something about this, please tell me what it was. I would be surprised. My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What books have you read about Stalin? —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot, from standard Soviet textbooks on the history of CPSU to "The Origin of Partocracy" by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. But that's not important. What's important is that no one so far was able to provide any reliably sourced content about personal religious views by Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Currently a poor article, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. Could clearly be improved with many reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point

. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep/rename to Religious views of Josef Stalin or even better, Josef Stalin and religion, so in addition to his personal religious views, can discuss his interaction with the church and religious leaders. This has been extensively studied, discussed and analyzed. The length and citations of the Russian article should be a clue. OccultZone if you need help let me know. If there ever was a nomination for the AfD Hall of Shame, this is it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to a better title (no preference now). The Joesph Stalin's views on religion significantly shaped the religious policies of the Soviet Union. These policies have had widespread effect on the modern world. Additionally, a rough machine translation of the Russian article demonstrates that this topic is significantly covered in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously a notable topic, WP:UGLY is not a valid reason to delete it. I also support a move as suggested above. Cavarrone 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A proper subject for Joseph Stalin, but a fork otherwise, and not a particularly fruitful one. Stalin's personal religious views may have had effects on his public acts, but that is an ongoing argument for biography and history. As a public individual, though, which is where we live, we have the facts of his actions and the tenuous and shifting discussion of interpreters. The fact that the maniacs who want to use Hitler's religion, heterodoxy, or theosophism to justify their own ongoing political agendas can sustain a fork article there doesn't mean it's a good idea. This is an improper fork from the biographical article and an invitation to ongoing culture warring via Wikipedia. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what a fork is - if you're talking about a WP:SPINOFF, there's nothing wrong with that and spinoffs are often encouraged. If something is a "proper subject" for the Josef Stalin article, and it's been shown there is sufficient content to sustain its own article, then that's all the reason to make it a spinoff. If you're trying to talk about WP:POVFORK, that makes even less sense. (I'm not even going to ask what "maniacs" are doing to exploit the article about Hitler's views on religion.) AfD is about determining notability, not about what you think is a "bad idea" for an article because it might cause controversy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This "article" is just a few unsourced phrases copy-pasted from other pages. Even if it will be deleted, nothing prevents anyone from re-creating this page under this or a different title. Just care to provide some meaningful content and appropriate referencing, please. Right now this is lacking. Speaking about the page on ruwiki ("Stalin and religion"), it describes a different subject: Stalin's policies with respect to religious organizations, not his religious beliefs. He had none to my knowledge, even though he spent some time in a theological seminary. But this is easy to disprove. Just bring the sources which tell something different. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Religious views doesn't mean only "deeply held personal beliefs on the theological nature of the deity", and it would be highly appropriate to expand this with discussions of state religious policy under Stalin. See for comparison this big chunk of the article Religious views of Adolf Hitler#Religion under Hitler.--Pharos (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a paragraph entitled "Role of religion in the Nazi state". Well, if someone could create a page Role of religion in the Soviet state with appropriate referencing, that would be fine, although this should be new page on a very different subject. Now, speaking about religious policy under Stalin (yet another different subject), we have this already described on many other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to competent recreation, and I say this as the guy who wrote the probably more marginal Stalin's poetry. (I mean, I wrote the article, not the poetry.) The topic is likely notable, but the content is worthless. The article reads "Joseph Stalin was an atheist[citation needed]." Seriously? That's what we need an article for? Of course, once somebody writes a sourced article that goes beyond what we currently have in the main article, they're welcome to put it in this plave. Sandstein 18:35, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Sailor of the Year Awards[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - award is actually titled "Rolex Yachtsman and Yachtswoman of the Year" - [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. —Darkwind (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originals (Cozi Zuehlsdorff EP)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Neither me nor the article's author could find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Article creator moved this article to their user space to end the previous AfD, didn't add any sources, and then moved it back to mainspace. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't need any sources right now, and whenever I add a source you complain about it not being a reputable source. It is a reputable source. If it wasn't, I wouldn't add it in the first place. You are really starting to push my darn buttons. Please stop with this. I'm getting really annoyed, and you are starting to make me want to leave Wikipedia entirely. So please stop with this. Kamran Mackey (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and therefore has standards about what articles should be included, and unfortunately this album doesn't appear to meet the guidelines at WP:NALBUM. I hope you can continue to contribute constructive edits on notable topics. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep it, it's good enough for it to have its own article on Wikipedia. - Kamran Mackey (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no coverage of this release. Just no sources out there that can establish its notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted. If anything it should be merged into Cozi Zuehlsdorff's main article. Kamran Mackey (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention (except sales outlets) of this EP is here which is a report of the launch of the EP, at the website of the venue. Notability can not be established for a stand-alone article, and the info is already in Cozi Zuehlsdorff. No need to merge or redirect. Kraxler (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't care if it gets deleted now, as I'm the one who merged it into Cozi Zuehlsdorff. Kamran Mackey (talk) 01:28, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition, the Right of Asylum, and Julian Assange[edit]

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

Does not qualify as a standalone article per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. There may be a possibility of some of the content in the article's "Julian Assange as a case study" section being selectively merged to Julian Assange, but not in its present form as a "case study." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination: great essay title but not a suitable title for an encyclopedia article. Any useful content can be merged.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No brainer per nom. It's an originally researched essay. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there really isn't any valid content here to merge, but if anyone can find bits that would be useful, I would agree with that. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought this was a title of a book, in which case there might be some notability, depending. However as it stands it is not encyclopedia, and has no place in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR--Antigng (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay. Some of the listed sources could probably be used in other articles, but I'm not convinced there's anything to merge anywhere. This would make a fine blog post or whatever, but it's not an encyclopedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 4 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.

Bashir Abu-Manneh[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:CSD#A7 Non-notable company) by Deb (talk · contribs)

York University Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable, recently established company that provides "educational consulting service" - ie, not a real university or educational institution. Looks like a for-profit publisher, potentially a predatory one and/or a degree mill. No coverage in 3rd party RS so fails GNG.

Not to be confused with York University which is in Toronto. This is a private company incorporated in Colorado. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 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 speedily deleted by User:MelanieN under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Graymore[edit]

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

Newly created stub biography. Can't find any sources that this person existed. Zero results in Google, VIAF or Newspapers.com for this person. Witty lama 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no sources are given. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find anything on this person either. That's after searching for both "Vincent Graymore" and "Vincent Greymore" (the article uses both). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tagged as hoax, despite his supposed fame for "demented" paintings. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 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) 20:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to International Economy[edit]

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

Article about a new academic journal that has only published 1 edition [27]. No notability claim other than that it exists. Already deleted on Russian Wikipedia as spam.[28] Witty lama 13:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references can be added PDQ.Deb (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable journal published by a questionable institution (York University, Inc.). The journal lists an editorial staff of apparently non-existent people, and charges authors fees of between $400 and $600 for publishing. Sounds like another candidate for Beall's List. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be a matter of WP:TOOSOON, but it does not look to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 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. Reposted from Kendra Sunderland that was recently deleted as a BLP vio. Therefore incorrectly attributed and recreated in violation of BLP that requires a consensus to restore material removed under BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra sunderland[edit]

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

Does not qualify per WP:BLP1E. News coverage is all based upon events related to her arrest and minor non-notable events thereafter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 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. A review of the article's history clearly indicates that this article was at least partially, if not entirely, created to be humorous/satirical in nature (see the first version, for example). Further, most of the sources linked by Northamerica1000 (t c) use quotes around the term, implying it is not an actual term or an object in common use apart from this controversy. With that said, the keep !votes have very little sway under policy for keeping an article that portrays a one-off occurrence of a particular term as a common object. No prejudice against creation of an article with an appropriate title such as "Nkandla firepool controversy" or against inclusion of the topic in a related article. —Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firepool[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)

Parody article, created around recent events concerning Jacob Zuma and Nkandla Stuart Steedman (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why, to qualify the stance? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because when created it looked like a joke article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all factual. Can't see any parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.142.178 (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — 41.164.142.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Indeed parody, as indicated by the incorrect (repetitive) spelling of Nkandla. Should be deleted. geebee (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Geebee100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not anymore. I fixed the spelling errors you pointed out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now; will !vote later. Perhaps it could be kept and rewritten or redirected into an article about firefighting. Has been mentioned in the media: here and here. Oh, and this too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is not a parody article, and the topic passes WP:GNG as per [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Another option is to merge to ~~Jacob Zuma~~ Nkandla (homestead) and Firefighting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not the only one who thought it was worth keeping. Now I'm a hundred percent sure. Satisfies GNG per links given by me and NorthAmerica100. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NA1000s findings, One has to wonder whether WP:BEFORE was followed, Anyway I found this [37] which was rather amusing!, Anywho seems a clear keep. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not delete It is factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.33.216 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.33.216 (talk • contribs) [reply]

*Snow Keep clearly passes WP:GNG per above. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect I thought this would also be used in contexts outside of South Africa but it appears it isn't. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All factual. Read references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.208.51.132 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — 105.208.51.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. YibberYubber — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — YibberYubber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ – supported by ANC government declarations WP:GNG. YibberYubber — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.6.129.105 (talk) [reply]
- Please leave only a single boldfaced keep/delete opinion. I have struck out your second one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems legitimate to me. Might I recommend a speedy closure per WP:SNOW. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite being humerus, The misappropriation of funds for the building of a fire pool for Jacob Zuma in South Africa is factual and widely debated amongst all South Africans with access to a media source. As a significant part of South African history now, this makes the addition appropriate to the term "Firepool", even if just as a secondary comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.161.76.130 (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — 41.161.76.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ Mention "Firepool" to any South African and they will reference the "Nkandla" saga, that very fact deems it appropriate. NJI 30/05/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.161.76.130 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To me that seems more an argument for a redirect than for a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck second !vote from the same IP. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~rename~~ Jacob Zuma firepool controversy. the article seems to be about an otherwise notable event, and i feel its inappropriate name may have provoked its nomination for deletion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- second thoughts, unless the concept of the design, function, history of firepool are better established, it appears to warrant a redirect to Nkandla (homestead) to avoid repetition. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I second this - either rename or redirect. Christiaanjmeyer (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If only this were actualiteit just a parody...--Michael (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the report mentioned is incorrect, it is not "Opulence on a grand scale", but "Secure in Comfort" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuli_Madonsela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.196.63 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nkandla (homestead) We do not need a separate article for this. The word only has meaning in the Nkandla context. Sources use scarequotes around the term with contempt to indicate it is not actually a thing at all so why would we? The article may have been intended as satire (or something) but could actually backfire by giving the term credibility. Helen Online 06:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The idea that a firepool is a perfectly normal thing is part of the propaganda around this issue. An important function of Wikipedia is to provide the facts, in situations where propaganda may be convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtapson (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Jtapson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect - I agree with HelenOnline that this really is only related to Nkandla. It does not meet the requirements of being a WP:NEOLOGISM as it is not in wide use. As far as I can tell, this has not even been discussed in a general way, like, firefighters saying they regularly use pool water as a water source or something. If controversy continues with articles like this one, I agree with creating something like Zuma spending controversy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Part of the ongoing debate around the Nkandla issue BoonDock (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Factually accurate but the firepool doesn't merit a page of its own. It should be covered on the Nkandla page Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Cleary part of the Nkandla debate and should be merged with that article. Conlinp (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The value of swimming pools as a reservoir for fighting brush fires has been long known and recognized (and is easy to source) but political expedience isn't a good reason to pretend that they are now suddenly a new and independently-notable different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is factually correct and it is not a parody because the pool actually exists in Nkandla and it was referred to as a fire pool. Its use was even demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.82.10.65 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITEXISTS. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO this is a clever parody (which I enjoyed.) Yes the ANC government claims the pool's primary purpose is for firefighting, I would argue that the majority of the public don't believe this to be true.[38][39] Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 08:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of truth, reliable sources refer to it as a firepool so the correct term for the article would be firepool. It meets WP:GNG and doesn't fall under any of the Wikipedia:NOT categories. Appable (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument might hold water (no pun intended) if it was an article about a "firepool" instead of a firepool, because that is how reliable sources refer to it. Helen Online 17:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is factually accurate and should be on Wikipedia. RJ -03 June 2015 - 15:52 GMT+2

Take it down we will just put it back up WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.242.203.35 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 197.242.203.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - this is entirely accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.228.59.215 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Factually correct and highly topical article. 2001:43E8:8:0:11A5:B83D:919:CE78 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 2001:43E8:8:0:11A5:B83D:919:CE78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: it is clearly a parody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyyie (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Above !vote moved from AFD talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - It is not a parody and it is factually correct. The term 'firepool' was created to refer to the specific pool at the Nkandla compound and does not cause confusion. Aandiebrand (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Aandiebrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Factual article, in fact they need to spend even more money to improve the efficiency of the fire fighting equipment. Extra booster pump and hoses required. (Fudpukker (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - It's a highly factual article. Haven't actually seen such a good and well maintained article on Wikipedia in a long time. The only thing that could make it better is not converting the currency to $23 million as such direct comparisons can't be made. --105.11.221.8 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 105.11.221.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is indeed a factual article. As much as I'd like it to be a parody - it isn't. Agentrfr (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Agentrfr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It is based on fact and reputable sources proving it exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.92.233 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 105.210.92.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Its all fact however absurd it may seem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.12.228 (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — 41.160.12.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - It is factual and relevant. I can see that the term and meaning of it will be added to Oxford, just as "Selfie" made it, which might have been absurd at the time the word was introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwiftSmoker (talk • contribs) 08:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — SwiftSmoker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - This is all fact based on official government stance, government enquiries, and the Minister of Police. A "firepool" is indeed a South African reality, as shown in the many citations to the article. It would be much better if this was fake, but sadly it is not. Richard Le Mesurier (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Richard Le Mesurier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – As it is a seperate issue from the Nkandla debacle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicc777 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Nicc777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - This is all fact based on official government stance, this is unfortunately not a fake or parody. This should be left on wikipedia as it serves the same purpose as the rest of wikipedia (enriching people in their knowledge). Thank you. 197.77.14.200 (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — 197.77.14.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Apart from being factually correct, and being written in a straight-faced tone, this article is important, since it represents an objective account of the creation of the firepool, and all the statements and rationale offered by the government, hosted on a system beyond the control of the government of South Africa. Keeping accurate records of government misspend, spin, and propaganda is crucial to democracy as a whole, and under pending FPB regulatory overhaul, articles like this could be easily censored under overly-broad powers. Wogan May (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Wogan May (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Unfortunately, the word has been invented to describe a reservoir that has been spruced up to serve a double purpose, in this case, as a swimming pool. So form this point of view it is now a term requiring a reference. What should maybe be removed is the elaboration of the definition by referring the Nkandla on going saga in South Africa. All this "information" could be added to the article on Nkandla and a simple link used to refer to the background. Daniellgr (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)User:daniellgr — Daniellgr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep : Surely Zuma and his government have nothing to hide in this regard and the article is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.234.173 (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — 86.205.234.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – The decision on whether to keep Firepool should not be based on the Nkandla instance. Instead, a consensus should be reached as to whether or not the use of Firepools themselves are considered significant enough to warrant having its own article explaining them. If it is common to build pools for firefighting purposes, then the term Firepool is justified - otherwise not. If the significance is too low, then the term/concept could at least still be merged into firefighting and/or swimming pools (a possible but unintentional 'use' for swimming pools). If the term is downright absurd, then it should be exposed as corruption on Jacob Zuma's page. But if Firepools stay, then the Nkandla instance would be a perfect example of one. The controversy and cost are separate matters - instead the real question is whether or not the concept is absurd or not in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragtion (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is not a parody but actual fact and event that happened in south africa, still standing, now everyone has an extra use for a swimming pool.105.225.79.41 (talk) jaco mahuma — 105.225.79.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - this is indeed a factual article as much as I wish it weren't. evidence of Zuma's corruption should be kept so the international community may know what he is doing to South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.164.178.69 (talk • contribs)

Keep – It is not a parody article but based on factual spending of taxpayer money for Government members with supporting video from the government on the use of a firepool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.127.124.122 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — 154.127.124.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to Nkandla which is not overly long. Unless others have similar firepools of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 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 of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OWSLA[edit]

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

Almost every single area is unsourced or poorly sourced, and multiple IPs have been closely related to the article, constantly adding unsourced and unlisted artists to the roster, as well as adding unsourced albums to the Releases section. The article also does not follow the guidelines set by WP:RECORD LABEL. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — No way an article this notable and this in-depth should just be straight-up deleted. Reform is what it needs and if you believe it needs to go in another direction then why not help out yourself rather than resorting to this? Also, how does the fact that one IP has been doing controversial editing have anything to do with the page's deletion? If you're trying to suggest that it's one person doing all the contribution then check the history, this article has had tens of users' time and effort devoted to it on a regular basis (to ensure that the unreliable stuff does get dealt with). --ItsLuke (contribs) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the WP:RECORD LABELS page you linked only discusses style and templates, neither of which the OWSLA page has a problem with. Did you add the wrong link by accident? --ItsLuke (contribs) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think an {{unreliable sources}} tag would have been more appropriate than a deletion discussion. The onslaught of IPs is pretty normal for a page with this many daily hits (regularly over 300, which is high for a label), and their additions are perfectly manageable with the tools we have available. Earflaps (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. widely distributed label with not a few, but many notable signed artists, therefore this label has a discernible impact on music culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:45, 2 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 speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational Status & World View Defense[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A11 - seems invented by author, no sources to be found on subject. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A private concept for understanding dissent and cognitive dissonance, it seems. Folks need to read more. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Private concept = made up —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A11. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A11 - Tagged as such as can't find anything and to be honest you can tell it was made up just by the wording. –Davey2010^Talk 15:53, 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) 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Bacon Miller[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Furthermore, there are significant problems in verifying content in the article, as is being discussed on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their only claims of notability are that they were the "first recorded woman physician and surgeon in America" and "founder of Northampton, Massachusetts"- neither of these has a reference. If they were the first recorded person, why can no-one find this record? Fails WP:GNG as a result. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that she was a physician is found in various genealogy texts, like [40], but it's just a mention in the midst of a large list of "begats." So there is a reference but it is scant. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verification and the extraordinary claim. The period being discussed is one without "physician surgeons" in general. Surgery was still generally done by the "barber surgeons" before the Civil War. Physicians were still generally medical and avoided surgery. This is even excepting the gender problem, which would have been tougher in that field than nearly any other. Also, umm, isn't this locating her in Virginia Dare territory? Hithladaeus (talk) 13:26, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cokeboy Flip[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail notability and represents someone with only ephemeral notice so far. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps if the article was expanded there would be a chance of notability, but as of now there doesn't seem to be enough sources to do so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why nominate this rapper for deletion but not other members of the same group? Why is this rapper not wiki worthy but his group members are? Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postcard Cathy: See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. — sparklism ^hey! 14:12, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USERC[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, confirmed after several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Virtually no content other than "is an organization" and no claims to notability except being a subdepartmental agency. . . which it may not be. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an unsourced sub-stub. Web searching convinced me that it exists but didn't turn up anything usable as a source (neither to rescue the article from its current sad state nor to provide evidence of notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:58, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPROXX[edit]

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

fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 10:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - easily passes GNG. This is a fairly well-known and well-discussed site. Here's a few articles - there's so much info that it's hard to wade through (Googling "uproxx -uproxx.com" brings 2 million+ hits, 33,000+ articles in Google News.) [41], [42], [43] [44], —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG no questions asked. Reliable references, may need cleaning up though. --☣Anar chyte☣ 02:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nonsense nom at best, that's how the article appeared when the nominator started the AfD, and it already included substantial coverage from Variety, The Wall Street Journal, The Hollywood Reporter and more. If even the nominator was not satisfied with that coverage, a few minutes of WP:BEFORE would had easily provided more reliable coverage. Cavarrone 16:05, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle First[edit]

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

This appears to be a group of Tyneside people who may have genuine grievances about the the Newcastle City Council and how the Newcastle City Council elections are run. Unfortunately, "Newcastle First" does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article.

No "Newcastle First" members appear to have been elected to the Newcastle City Council
It appears that "Newcastle First" has apart from its website no mentions in third-party reliable sources.

Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too small and nonce at this point (the article's tense kind of gives it away "is" "standing" for "(these) elections"). It's not always at the first election that a party gets talked about, and Wikipedia is a bad place for promoting a social cause. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG for lack of available sources.- Mr X 16:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anuthida Ploypetch[edit]

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

We don't need an article about every person who took part in a reality TV show. Fails WP:N Rayukk (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not show any coverage other than in show report. Her performance in the show has not generated any coverage, let alone anything else she did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 10) as she is still appearing in those episodes but as for notability, there's not much for an article with my searches only finding News. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, the 10th cycle of the show is over, so she will most likely not be appearing anymore..--Rayukk (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but I suppose it's still the most relevant article. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have moved the source to the main article Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 10). The other informations from our one-sentence-article you can find in a still existing table in the main one: Germany's Next Topmodel (cycle 10)#Contestants. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:43, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Il Diario di Mary e altri Racconti[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. The refs here seem to be primary sources and mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: More of the fan's work. I'm not sure Thomas Mann is as well discussed as this unknown Italian-language author on Wikipedia (ok, but not Erasmus -- an article for every single thing he ever wrote?). Failed notability before and still does. This person apparently gets a book of aphorisms, two books of poetry, a book on the 20th century, and this. . . and all of a sudden, without any other press noticing. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've now been through this with every one of this author's books; the article on the author is also under scrutiny (Talk:Menotti_Lerro); and the whole is under a sock puppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leicesterdedlock. LaMona (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If the author's article survives scrutiny then it can redirect there, but right now that's up in the air. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and opened up an AfD for Lerro here. With how difficult it is to find any good, significant sourcing, paired with the notability issues for his books, opening up an AfD for him is pretty much inevitable at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per entire world —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:23, 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) 21:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2084. Il potere dell'immortalità nelle città del dolore[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. The refs (the few that are here - two total) here seem to be primary sources and mentions in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: The "Lerro fan" again. So we can add a dystopian novel to a work of history, a book of aphorisms (published, mind you), and two books of poetry in the same year. I can't assess the work itself, but no one else has, and that's what we need for Wikipedia: people speaking about the book from independent and reliable sources. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is getting tedious. I hope that we're near the end of this guy's books. LaMona (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 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) 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Orrel[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. The refs here seem to be primary sources (up to and including Facebook) and mentions in passing. There are two reviews on "http://www.zam.it/" but that site doesn't look very reliable (through I'd appreciate comments from Italian editors). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Andrew Mangham" is the common blurb for all of these "Lerro fan" articles. (This one's a book from 2008.) Whatever value the poet/novelist/aphorist/historian has in Italian, he doesn't have a Wikipedia page at the Italian language Wikipedia. The references for notability provided for all of these works either show up as somewhat related to the purported publisher or to a very small group of individuals. There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable press notice of this juggernaut. I accuse no one of anything, but these articles don't pass notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel like we're playing whack-a-mole with this author. Every time I think we've finished with him, another book article turns up. Not only does the author himself not have a page in the Italian WP, a page on him was deleted from the French WP. [45]. All of the articles are by a group of SPAs. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and per my comments on the other AfDs. This book is not notable enough for an article, nor is the author himself from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:53, 4 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Ann Holt[edit]

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

An article on this subject was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Holt, however having written it I can say it differed almost entirely to this. In any event, this is an unsourced BLP and perhaps, judging by the username of the creator, created with a COI. Laun chba ller 21:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this is kept, can the previous content deleted at Natalie Holt be restored to the history of this article.--Laun chba ller 14:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is still a WP:BLP1E as far as Wikipedia is concerned, regardless of whether the subject (whom I assume wrote this) feels otherwise and is trying to capitalize on those 15 minutes of "fame". There's already a redirect to the Raven quartet article, so I wouldn't even recommend redirecting this one. It should have probably been deleted as a G4 since it does not improve over the previously AFDed version. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't G4 it because, having written the deleted version, I know this version had nothing to do with the previous version.--Laun chba ller 13:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added to the article the fact that she won an Ivor Novello Award. That was announced only last week so the information wasn't available earlier. I believe that is a significant enough award to qualify her as notable. I have removed the "unsourced BLP" tag. It should be noted that this article is totally unlike the previous, deleted one. There is no BLP1E aspect to the current article; in fact it does not even mention the egging incident, although it probably should, for example [46] . --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, and that's why I AfDd rather than G4d. FreeRangeFrog, please reconsider your vote.--Laun chba ller 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't think that's enough to meet GNG because the coverage is essentially non-existent; a passing mention on that one ref is not enough, IMO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that this award might qualify her per WP:ANYBIO, where it says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Of course, opinions can differ over whether this is a sufficiently "well-known and significant award" to meet ANYBIO. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not, we can always simply redirect to RaVen Quartet#Natalie Holt and work from there.--Laun chba ller 11:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, I am not seeing enough to pass WP:BIO. At best, it's WP:ONEVENT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability based on winning the Ivor Novello award. Article needs to be checked for COI, I'm guessing it is an autobiography as it's largely unsourced. I removed the list of people she's worked with etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On the basis of the article I just read, her work as a composer passes the bar. The rest of the article does read a bit too much like a CV. Much of the personal material can be handled in a single sentence ("a conservatory trained violinist, she played with the ___ before working as a composer"). I know that that doesn't feel good to a person whose life is being represented, but, from the cold eye of these pages, it's kind of the point. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Ahhh she was the woman who started throwing eggs at Simon Cowell ...... Ah egg-streme but also egg-citing , Anyway she won Ivor Novello so thus is notable. –Davey2010^Talk 16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO. Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 5 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. Sandstein 07:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Murray (journalist)[edit]

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

Not notable. Simply a journalist with a byline. Also he had some kind of position in a trade union. This XFD has been discussed before, but this latest version has all the unsourced material removed, and there is really nothing left that makes him Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at risk of repeating the arguments of the previous AfD. "Simply a journalist with a byline" is a bit simplistic, he was President of his trade union, after all. However, there is no automatic notability of trade union presidents, who have a, erm, presiding role in the running of the union and rarely hit the limelight. I still can't see any significant press coverage about this guy. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The National Union of Journalists is a fairly important trade union, the president of this union is a notable post. PatGallacher (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to primary connected notability. I searched and found absolutely no independent WP:notability. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with PatGallacher that he is in a prominent elected position, but we need more sources. Is he a news producer? TV journalist? Writer? It's almost impossible to find info on him because about 27 million people have this name, including others who worked for the BBC. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just can't find "the president of this union is a notable post" in our policies. It's an editorial judgement, going against "notability is not inherited through positions" (there are exceptions, but why should this be one?), and would like to see something more. For starters, what makes the poorly referenced National Union of Journalists notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, the NUJ article is not great, but the NUJ was a major force in the UK in the 1980's in particular, when attempts were made by Fleet Street to destroy the print unions. Of course, much of this coverage is not available online. And Murray was President several decades later, after the union had shrunk and was no longer a major force or in the headlines. Sionk (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG Shad Innet (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think that being a Union board member is sufficient to warrant an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 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 keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Georgia, 1980[edit]

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

This short article is entirely redundant to United States presidential election, 1980. It includes nothing not already in the larger article, so there is nothing to merge. It is not likely to ever be more than a stub. It should be deleted. Possibly a redirect to the larger article should be created, but I question the worth of even this. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Election articles like this are noteworthy. It was one of only six states that Carter carried in his 1980 campaign, which makes it notable as one of the few Carter carried. Also, I've seen several election articles like this on Wikipedia, such as this one, this one, this one, as well as countless others. Considering the fact that a major election happened in the state, yes, I would say it is worthy of an article. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)(user hass been blocked as a sock puppet-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

- That fact that Carter won Georgia but few other states is noteworthy, but it is highlighted by the colors and data in the results table in United States presidential election, 1980, and could and should be in the prose there as well. I am inclined to think that most similar articles, at least if they contain no more content than this, should also be deleted, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not persuasive. I would say that it is incorrect to state that "a major election happened in the state" -- rather a major election happened in the country, of which the state was a part. Otherwise we could have United States presidential election in XYZ county, 1980. Now if there were content about the specifics of the election in Georgia, the ways in which local issues or events affected the election or its results, which would be too particular to fit into the overall article on the elections, then such a sub-article would be justified. But there is none of that in the article as it now stands. DES ^(talk) 16:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major election, and as mentioned above, very similar stuff exists. Passes WP:NEVENT. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential election, 1980. Flat Out talk to me 03:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential election, 1980. I have seen many of these articles created over the past year or two, and I have had my doubts about their meaningfulness. However, DES is completely right when they point out that it is redundant to the main United States presidential election, 1980, as this contains the detailed results by state, making this and all the other state articles rather pointless. I don't understand how these articles could be expanded more beyond their current stubbiness, nor what the point in doing so would be; this was a national election, not a state one. Number 5 7 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable event. In the United States, each state conducts its own election for presidential electors, making the election in each state separate and notable.--TM 20:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I wouldn't advocate this must be kept/deleted because we have/don't have that. But, please see United States presidential election in New York, 1980 and Template:State Results of the 1980 U.S. presidential election and you will see that this article is one of a large series, and should be seen in context. I think it is not warranted to just single out one of hundreds of articles (50 per year), and nominate it for deletion. Fact is that the US presidential elections are held statewide independently, only the result of the vote of the state's electoral college is later forwarded to Washington, D.C. Also, the event is notable, without any doubt. The only question is whether Wikipedia policy allows to split the statewide elections from the main article with the countrywide result. There is certainly enough in-depth coverage for the election in any state, and sometimes there are different candidates (not all minor candidates go on the ballot in each state) and different party names (in New York it is forbidden to use the word "American" on the ballot, so the "American Party" appeared under different names. All these facts can be explained in articles state by state, and more detailed interpretations of the results can be added, especially in case of contentious elections. Kraxler (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - subject meets notability and required sources; every US election has this broken down by state, and it's silly to argue it meets notability in one state but not another, and have to analyze these one by one. All of these should be approached as a whole. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Self-loathing keep: I knew a person who totally warned everyone that this kind of granularity was coming. He also warned that "little school house totally rocks" was coming. Well, he was against it, and I agree with him. However, once the barn door is open, the horses are in the field, the cows are in the pasture, and the milk has been spilled, there ain't no point trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. There is no reason to deprecate Georgia, the home state of the virtuous man who lost the election in 1980, as it is the largest state east of the Mississippi and all that. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Either you nominate em all for bloc consideration or don't bother at all. You can't onesy-towsey here and leave the rest of the state articles up, it'd be absurd. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State presidential elections are considered notable as per long standing consensus. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:46, 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) 18:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Zmatiq[edit]

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

Not seeing this meeting WP:GNG here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find sources to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is some coverage, but it seems to be local/fringe in nature. A LGBT artist mentioned in what appears to be few minor LGBT outlets. That said, it's not a passing, but dedicated coverage. If there would be more sources, especially more reliable (mainstream) I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 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. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher-Student Centre, University of Dhaka[edit]

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

not notable student center, written as if it were a major architectural monument. On campus interest only, and WP is not a campus guide to student activities. . DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant work by a notable architect. Constantinos Apostolou Doxiadis was a major architect in the Indian sub-continent, and this was one of his larger works, apart from the plan for Islamabad. With WP's systemic bias (and the bias of the architectural press) in favor of North American and European subjects, I wouldn't describe this as a subject of purely local interest. Doxaidis has become less well known in recent times, but he was a big deal in the 1950s and 1960s. That said, I'd rather the article focused on the subject's architectural significance and less on the unencyclopedic campus activity guide topics that DGG notes.Acroterion (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Acroterion —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The center f activities in Dhaka university. Marches and programs against many military regimes of Bangladesh began here. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:48, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mochary[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" either are passing mentions or do not mention the article subject. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Quick search for sources yields a few more.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/thinkfilm_hbo_go_for_favela_rising

> A deal for Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary's "Favela Rising" has been announced, with THINKFilm and HBO/Cinemax Documentary Films nabbing distribution rights to the movie.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-usa-startup-stanford-specialreport-idUSKBN0JO20D20141210

> That summer he crashed a conference given by 500 Startups, a popular program for entrepreneurs. At lunch, he found himself sitting next to Matt Mochary, a 46-year-old who started a technology-services company in the 1990s and was now involved in the early-stage funding known as “angel” investing.

> When Backus and Meier needed somebody to guarantee the lease on their new apartment, Mochary stepped in. BlockScore invited Barber and Mochary to invest. They also tapped another venture capitalist with close ties to Backus - his father, a partner at New Atlantic Ventures and a Stanford alumnus. The elder Backus says he has mixed feelings about his son’s ditching school for a startup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildZimBoost (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=20050922&id=7f8fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lxMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3603,3346826&hl=en

> "they came from filmmaker's who'd won prestigious awards, including jeff zimbalist and matt mochary" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildZimBoost (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Subject is notable. Also, the itsy bitsy spider went up the water stout. Down came the rain, and washed the spider out.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per award at Tribeca, passes WP:ANYBIO —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: "Favela Rising" is indeed notable. It went beyond THINK/Film and got picked up by Independent Lens among others, I believe. However, those are all elements of the film, not the person, which is what the article is about. Is this person and biography notable? Is the person, as a person, talked about by reliable, independent sources? There will be bubbles from actions taken, but discussions of the person, rather than the action, seem pretty thin. So, I have to lean to delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's guidelines about notability are available to read, at no cost to you. Click here → WP:BIO. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:02, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria (Happy Feet)[edit]

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

Lacks any real world information. On trying to find sources, here or here, I just get information about it relating far more to the film itself and nothing about the character. As not much information about the character is already isn't already in the articles on the films themself, I'd just say delete it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Character has enough sourcability to be spoken of and sourced in the Happy Feet and Happy Feet 2 articles, and perhaps in articles on Brittany Murphy and Pink (the women who gave her a voice) but not enough for a separate article. IF there is ever a Happy Feet characters article, some of it could be placed there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The character isn't notable enough for its own article. Koala15 (talk) 02:49, 2 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prakriti Shrestha[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR perhaps WP:TOOSOON to have an encyclopedic biography. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Wikicology. The article comes off as a bit of a PR piece. Additionally, than you for changing the template; sometimes I get a bit hasty. :P --PureRED (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 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. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Poetry of Menotti Lerro[edit]

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

The Title lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. The references given are a trove of trivial mentions and unreliable sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this book is a notable book. There are very notable critics inside giving their point of view. Serpieri is one of the most important Emeritus English Professor in Italy (the one who has translated Shakespeare's Sonnetts and plays) and Barberi Squarotti is an important italianist. But it is true that on the web there are not so many references. Poetry world is such a wired world... Anyway, as you like it. Prettycatss (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soon deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goruinus (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Menotti_Lerro#Work_by_Menotti_Lerro_translated_into_other_languages. While notable people are involved with this work, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by that association. This can make it more likely that there will be sources, but this is never a guarantee. Sometimes books can fly solidly under the radar despite having a host of notable persons involved. This is especially true with anything released via an academic publisher, since those tend to be almost always ignored by everyone except for journal articles and scholarly websites. The end result is that we cannot base notability on whether or not the people involved are notable- we have to be able to show how this book is independently notable and I cannot find anything that would back this up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And I agree! However, trying to underline the good point of it, maybe I could say tha the book has been quoted in Il Sole 24 ore [47] (and it is a good result considering it was published in UK). Moreover it is adopted by many important libraries. :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettycatss (talk • contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign... Prettycatss (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is an interesting book by a good critic http://www.reading.ac.uk/english-literature/aboutus/Staff/StaffPublications/ell-andrew-mangham-publications.aspx and it is not a shame if this book is quoted on wikipedia... Indeed, there are so many things we should delete from here instead of interesting books of poetry... Rainermaria27 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is just that the publisher (and the authors) didn't promote the book as it should be for this volume. Sometimes we find around books without any critical importance with a lot of reviews, and viceversa. However, I say that the book was quoted in Il Sole 24 Ore and it should be much more important that to have 10 reviews from unknown critics or worst from critics who talk (and it in Italy happen very often) about their close friends... Moreover, we have to consider it is a book published in UK about an italian young author. So it is more difficult to be reviewed by critics (they like reviewing only Shakespeare and Dante to be sure they are right ;-) )... Prettycatss (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is missing reliable sources, and is in essence one of over a dozen of promotional articles created by SPA representing Menotti Lerro, and author whose notability itself is not clear. I just AfD several of his "books"; this is the icing on the cake. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete him and his "books" soon!Devbasdev (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've actually started cleaning up the main article for Lerro since there is so much WP:PUFFERY throughout the piece. I was hoping to use Mangham's book as a good, solid RS but Lerro has attended UoR and has other affiliations with them. This makes Mangham's book WP:PRIMARY because Lerro has a strong tie to UoR and because Mangham works for UoR. Other than that I'm finding that most of the sources (so far) are either primary or unusable. In one specific instance there's a book that was written about him... but was issued by a self-publishing company that has also published Lerro's work. I haven't done an extremely thorough look for sources yet since I'm trying to clean out the puffery, but a look didn't really bring up much to show that he'd pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a massive amount of cleaning I've removed the puffery. I think that he passes notability guidelines for the most part, although the coverage is far lighter than I'd like. He's getting a little coverage for his poetry getting set to music (see here), which helps quite a bit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book does not meet WP:NBOOK, and is already listed on the author's page. The editors who are adding material about Lerro do not seem well-versed in WP standards, and should take some time to become more familiar before continuing to edit. Also, this author appears to be the only topic they have edited -- it would be good to branch out and learn before continuing. LaMona (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Lerro fan's industry is a thing of wonder, but the book doesn't pass notability. We have sufficient numbers of Wikipedians who speak Italian that it seems as though it shouldn't be too challenging to check the Italian press, but the poet appears to have small coverage there, and the English language material is thin and perhaps self-referential. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:22, 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 keep. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Lilly[edit]

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

The subject fails the general notability requirement of WP:BIO. A Google search brings up a few biographies from schools she has worked at, and one article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but little other third-party coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails both WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMICS. --Non-Dropframe _talk 11:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is a former Principal dancer, current head of a University department, and president of a national yoga organization. -- Willthecheerleader18 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Principal dancer for Bill T. Jones is nothing to sneeze at, and the sources indicate that she continues to be at least modestly notable as a choreographer. For example, here is a feature about her in the The Sunday Times of Sri Lanka, and here is a piece in The New York Times that talks about her work in some detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep The itsy bitsy spider went up the water stout. Down came the rain, and washed the spider out.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been chair at two universities and is a professor. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:52, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina)[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CATHOLIC and WP:CHURCH. No reliable sources to make this church even notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:57, 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (post) @ 15:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fil Delacruz[edit]

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

Just like the WP:PROD said, this failed WP:GNG with just one presumably WP:RS. –H T D 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is probably something that hasn't been fully established yet for Philippine-related articles, but a visual artist who has received a "Thirteen Artists" award from the Cultural Center of the Philippines may be considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The Thirteen Artists award is an established triennial award who includes notable Philippine artists like Manuel Baldemor and Antonio Austria. It given to young, promising artists (at the time of the awarding), and receiving one such award would help improve a visual artist's chances of being nominated as a National Artist of the Philippines (although this has yet to happen, AFAIK). That said, this article has room for improvements (this reads much like a biography/CV), and some of the awards could probably be eliminated if they can't be considered to be very important awards. (I plead ignorance for things related to the local visual arts scene, so maybe another editor with better knowledge of the visual arts could probably help improve this one.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If such "Thirteen Artists" award is truly notable, it should have been covered by independent third party sources. The references of him getting such an award are from the Wikipilipinas wiki and his own freely-hosted website. That's not reliable at all. –H T D 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "Thirteen Artists" awards per se, it is (somewhat) notable, just not on the same scale as being appointed a National Artist. That said, I do agree that this article in question needs more citations to use. Especially not Wikipilipinas --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things that have to be done: 1) Show that the award truly is notable by using references from multiple reliable sources, and 2) Show a reference from a reliable source (or more) that this person won said award. That's the only way we could gauge the notability. –H T D 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been significantly improved since nomination. As well as the thirteen artists award (about the significance of which I am dubious) we have better evidence for notability: his art is in the permanent collection of the National Museum of the Philippines (reference 2 of the article, spelled as "Fil dela Cruz"). We also have several in-depth and reliably published sources about the artist listed as sources (here's another: [48]). I think he passes WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The text surely needs to be rewritten to escape the CV format. At present, it really reads more like a job application than a retrospective or contextualization of an important and referred-to artist. However, the subject himself passes notability. It does seem as if this points out a need for solidifying the awards structures of nations .en Wikipedians will be less familiar with so that nominations are clearer. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:29, 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Chamberlain[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP with a notability tag since 2008, where no reliable, independent sources can be found to establish notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into maybe Shortland Street article - nothing notable on his own NealeFamily (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination, I don't know that a merge/redirect is really called for. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, fails WP:ENT CoronaryKea (talk) 10:45, 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 merge to Lipkovo Municipality. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Lipkovo Municipality[edit]

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

An article based upon primary sources. Non-notable content. Nominating, based on notability guidelines. - Phill24th (talk). 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lipkovo Municipality and possibly Timeline of Kumanovo. There is not enough content to warrant an independent timeline about a small rural Macedonian Municipality. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (but prune) to Lipkovo Municipality. All we have is its history since 2000, which is not worth a separate article. A hisotry section in the main article will be much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lipkovo Municipality, not Timeline of Kumanovo. Lipkovo stopped being part of Kumanovo in 1996 (where this article begins) —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:10, 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 no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2015[edit]

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

Remake of an earlier removed article (reason G5, 8 April 2015). Crystal boll with hardly content en source with related sources, not WP:RS The Banner talk 07:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - if the Miss Tourism International pageant is notable enough to have its own article, then the article for this year's event should qualify. From what I've noticed these pageant articles are updated beforehand with all the qualifiers as they win their national spot. See Miss World 2015. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until the event starts receiving significant coverage. This will be eventually notable and deserving of a article, but not for a few months until the contest is about to occur. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent article until sources meeting the general notability guideline are present. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there hardly seems to be any reliable sources with which anyone could create a page. GNews barely turns up any mentions. I don't think a redirect is necessary here. mikeman67 (talk) 15:31, 9 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. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Frisko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about local news anchor which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. The single source does not seem to function at time of this writing to allow for verification. Google news searches bring up no hits with significant coverage. Article was restored at Deletion Review as a contested soft delete. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that it has been undeleted I am working on adding additional information and sources. The original article needed work, and the newscasts he anchors & produces are for 1/4 of Canada under CTV Atlantic. I'm on a mobile device, I could use some regional help.Lady Noremon (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took another look at this - I'm willing to reconsider my position but need the sources to do so. This is pretty funny, though unfortunately a primary source, but I'm guessing he is one of those local anchors who develop cult-like status as a regional icon/mascot. We need a few articles about him though to support this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I get into the substance of the article in its current form, I want to point out that the deletion review was at least partially based on a false premise, namely that anybody involved in the discussion ever said anything at all, anywhere at all, about how "little known" he is. The problem was that the article, as written, was not making a substantive claim of notability that would satisfy WP:JOURNALIST, nor was it citing any reliable source coverage — it was essentially just a thinly veiled rewrite of his profile on CTV Atlantic's own website, but slightly rewriting a primary source verification of the journalist's existence without any independent reliable source verification is never how a journalist (regardless of medium, or level of prominence) actually gets a Wikipedia article. Nobody involved in the discussion ever cast a single solitary aspersion on his basic worth as a person — the problem was the quality of the article in its as written form, not anybody's opinion of him as a person.
That said, while this version of the article is a lot longer than the original one was, I've had to strip almost every single one of Lady Noremon's new "references" as primary (CTV's own video of its own newscasts, Bell Media's own press releases about itself, his involvement in a charity event sourced only to that charity's own website) or unreliable (blogspot) sources — so the article is still not referenced enough to claim a WP:GNG pass, and two of the three references that are left are still covering insubstantial achievements (a best hair award and a social media challenge which forced a coworker to get a tattoo of his face) which do not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST. I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing and substance can be improved from where they're sitting right now, but in its current form any real reasons why he should actually have a Wikipedia article still aren't being properly demonstrated by this version of the article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From my talk page: "I have not done any editing here besides this and spelling correction in 7-ish years and this was my first time with references. I really was just trying to add more since that was the problem stated. It was a rushed job done over 2 days from a mobile device, and I apologise [Though the CTV Atlantic page was already linked before I edited it]. Someone else will have to deal with the article or such; I am not cut-out for any of this.". — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Gardener[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Google search brings up nothing beyond trivial mentions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 01:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would be preferrable to merge with a section of Australian Broadcasting Corporation or something similar, because there is a point to preserving the early history of national broadcasting beyond nostalgia. In this case, it's a small market with a confined timeline, so there's no way that the show will pass notability on its own two feet. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not pass WP:TELEVISION. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:37, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Benbini[edit]

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

Non-notable drummer by himself but best known for Fun Lovin' Criminals so redirect would be best. Searches here, here, here, here and here found nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised you found nothing as I found these from the first few pages of Google results: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Kintsurashvili[edit]

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

There's no evidence this meets Wikipedia:JOURNALIST and searches here, here, here and here found nothing that appears significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than sufficiently notable. [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], etc. I've added her name in Georgian to her page. Nominator is kindly reminded to check native language sources prior to AfD as per WP:BEFORE :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a SNOW KEEP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't as we don't close on 1 keep sources provided or not. –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that rule listed? So if I nominated Wikipedia for deletion it would have to wait until two people commented before it could be closed? —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awful article that could easily lead any reader to miss the significance of the person. For example, the person who wrote the article was probably a non-native English speaker and missed on the last sentence of the lede. She was appointed the director general in 2005. Is she still? Was she that for only a month and then defenestrated? The publications are so incomplete as to be very hard to locate even with the titles. As it happens, this is an accomplished person, but the article is in that dreary CV format. Now, if I had just gone and found out a bunch of information about the subject, I might want to fix the sentences that mislead less beatific readers. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CherryBlackStone[edit]

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

Absolutely non-notable band with searches providing nothing useful (a search at Highbeam found nothing) here, here, here and here. I'm not sure if Damage_(British_band)#Biography is a possible move as it basically sums what alot of these sources above say. It's not surprising there's not much as they had one single and one album (release date unconfirmed) and are unsigned "still looking for a record deal so we can take our sound to the masses" (the masses has apparently not happened yet). SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Band article of unclear notability, lacking coverage in multiple independent references. Only RS coverage appears to be the 2006 The Sun article, on its own not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Download only single in 2006, album yet to be announced. Well, that's about that, isn't it? No indication that the group achieved notability. The copy in the article is pretty pneumatic. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:47, 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 no consensus. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rinaldi Firmansyah[edit]

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

I'm not sure if Rinaldi Firmansyah is notable as multiple searches here, here, here and here all give results that are not significant or notable and are simply talking about the company. The Forbes link listed provides nothing either so I'm not seeing the notability here. I actually had redirect in mind but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been around since 2008 and has never had any references other than this one. There have been edits (adds and deletes) to the article over time, but nothing substantial. The person seems to be a member of a famous wealthy family (one version included a partial "family tree"), but I find nothing about him. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of the most important telecommunications company in Indonesia. We normally do keep articles for the heads of companies at this level. Negative results in GSearches and similar indexes are irrelevant unless material in the the relevant languages are searched for and examined. And, of course, we do not delete article bases on arguments that no substantial work has been done on the article since it was created. Thee's a little additional material in the Indonesian WPs. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medican Enterprises Inc.[edit]

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

This company is not currently notable. Also, the amount of information has been slowly decreasing, and it's just not worth the effort anymore. --Magnus Puer (sermo) 01:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It seems to have only gotten attention recently and most of that is press releases here (first ten pages gave nothing) and a wider search only gave one result; Highbeam and thefreelibrary also found results but nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, but consider re-creating in the future if notability increases and if reliable sources increase.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Study of religious compositions of India[edit]

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

WP:OR that appears to have been published only on-wiki.
The "study" being described is basically just an opinion column published in a community newspaper, which has been expanded into an article on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not even clear what this article is about. Not a well-conceived topic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Private essay, it seems. We all want to understand the world. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to WP:OR, is an unwarranted content fork of Religion in India. I earlier favored redirecting, but don't think the title is a likely search term. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge very selectively to Religion in India per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mostly-unsourced essay. Would make a better blog post than encyclopedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellina Graypel[edit]

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

The article's only source is to the subject's website. There is no claim to anything that would pass the notability guidelines for musicians and the article is further burdened by a lot of trivial details about music exposure in childhood. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked her up in Russian (Эллина Грайпел) and find only a handful of pages, mostly hers; she's clearly not notable. Languagehat (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, doesn't claim any achievements that would pass other guidelines, except an award received in Yalta. However "Эллина Грайпел Ялта" (her name + Yalta, in Russian) yields zero results on Google. Kraxler (talk) 19:52, 5 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. No consensus for a particular action has arisen here. As per the discussion herein, adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J. Sherman[edit]

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

Joseph J Sherman (AfD) First nomination

Highly promotional article about non notable speaker. Written as a web page, giving extensive minor details of his personal experiences, and extensive quotes in references from PR about him. Article lists him as businessperson, but omits indication what his business was or is. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very promotional and not much for notability, it seems this says he lectures about business at a college in Jerusalem. My searches found nothing significant or notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs thorough rewriting. But the subject is notable and contains proper citations in the article. It was previously nominated for deletion and the result was keep. - Arr4 (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: – Looking at the article, it's clear the man has several, secondary reliable sources that mention him. He seems to be a prominent motivational speaker. Therefore, let's not delete it.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for nom: SilverSurfingSerpant is blocked as a sock puppet. (See user page) LaMona (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feeble keep: The references are possibly tainted by the subject writing for the newspaper that is providing them. At the same time, the article is distasteful, and the way it's getting over notability may be distasteful, but it probably is over the line for notability. That makes it a case for watching and cleaning, but not deleting. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs to be rewritten, but he is notable. The subject was written about by Mishpacha, a large Jewish magazine. Adamreinman (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. AfD is not for clean-up, so the charge by nom that it is promotional is of no moment here. SOFIXIT. It meets GNG, though barely, with sufficiently substantial RS coverage. It was kept a mere four months ago at AfD, with nom !voting and being in the significant minority, so I am a little surprised it is being re-nominated. Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable references are nearly all trivial mentions and non-trivial sources are poor. WP:BIO/WP:GNG not met. I'm amazed that people are saying anything else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 2 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. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Meagan Hockaday[edit]

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

No indication that this event is one of lasting importance as discussed on our notability guideline for events at WP:EFFECT. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a number of references demonstrating ample press coverage. How do you justify this nom? Everyking (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyking: the nom was not related to the number of sources in the article, but that the event does not appear to meet WP:EFFECT. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Second User:Everyking's comment. There are a variety of references demonstrating some lasting importance. OR drohowa (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The shooting had no lasting impact. Nearly all of the press coverage was within a short time span. US police shootings have, unfortunately, become relatively commonplace lately. This one doesn't have the racial aspects that would make it notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Meagan Hockaday was an African American woman. Her death has been taken up in recent protests around #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName. I will add this detail to the article. Vaparedes (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Meagan Hockaday was an African American woman." -- I am sorry but this alone does not confer notability, although it is an intrinsic detail. Quis separabit? 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the coverage is local, though my personal inclination is keep, I am not totally convinced. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment, Rich Farmbrough. Your feedback is very appreciated. I have added a News coverage section in the hopes of addressing your comment. Vaparedes (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lasting coverage. James500 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with comments above to the effect that this topic satisfies the relevant notability guideline. Having an article on this topic cannot in of itself "exploit the racial identities involved" as suggested below. Even if the content of the article was biased, that is something that would be dealt with by editing (ATD, BEFORE, PRESERVE, IMPERFECT etc). James500 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the further avoidance of doubt, contrary to what is suggested below, whether the killing was justified or not is irrelevant to its notability. In this respect, what constitutes lawful justification for a homicide is determined by the legislature and courts, and will reflect their POV. So I don't see how we can use that as an inclusion test. The coverage has lasted nearly two months and crossed the atlantic. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable killing; article is just to exploit the racial identities involved. Quis separabit? 00:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge summary to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2015. WP:NOTNEWS. While clearly very sad, I don't see this having any long-term notability. Her fiancé was there as a witness, and there have been no allegations that this was anything but a justified shooting. It seemed to get rolled up into the hashtag activism, but the actual shooting received very little coverage and was all within a few days of the event. This seems very much like a mental health issue and not a case of police brutality. There was a guy in my town who pulled a knife at McDonald's and came at the cops when they showed up - he got a hot lead injection as well (but no Wikipedia article). —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in the article. As James500 (talk · contribs) noted, there has been sustained coverage for two months. Not all the coverage is local. The subject has received significant coverage from reputable national publications directed towards African Americans such as the magazine Ebony and the TV channel BET. And the subject has received coverage in the Russian TV network RT (link^WebCite).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shooting of Meagan Hockaday to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: what sources cover the event in sufficient depth to meet WP:EFFECT? I see lots of sources like this, which are completely trivial (one-sentence coverage) in regard to this specific event. VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EFFECT refers to a lasting effect, not lasting significant coverage of the original event, so the length of the description of her death in the article in The Independent doesn't seem to be the issue. What seems to matter is that the shooting led to some kind of protest (which happens to have been covered at length in that article), still going on two months later. The protest itself is the lasting effect. EFFECT is not framed as a mandatory requirement, either. It does not say an event must always have a lasting effect to be notable. In fact, it says the exact opposite. James500 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it says is "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." Without significant coverage of lasting effects, any claims of lasting significance are not verifiable. Trivial listing with other shootings is evidence that this event merits a sentence in the a summary article, not a dedicated article. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culinaire International[edit]

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

Local catering service in one municipal area. The refserences are mere notices or press releases DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm from Dallas and I can say this is a not even a locally notable company and searches here, here, here, here and here found mostly results for events they were catering. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete swistertwister's search shows WP:GNG clearly not met. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 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) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serge April[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable, and this one only gets minor coverage. marked for notability concerns for over 2 years and no improvement made to article. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:DIPLOMAT there is no presumed notability for Ambassadors . They can be redirected to List of Xian Ambassadors to Y but there are no such lists for the subjects posts. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Diplomats can be notable enough for Wikipedia articles if they garner enough coverage in their own right to satisfy WP:GNG, but they are not a class of topic that gets an automatic entitlement to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because they exist. Redirection to a list wouldn't be suitable because there are multiple lists that could be chosen and all or most of them don't even exist yet anyway. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus on whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Tagert[edit]

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

Non notable manager in the Frontier League. Spanneraol (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a few things here with this article: it doesn't use great sources, it doesn't meet WP:BASE/N, and most independent minor league people don't warrant Wikipedia articles. That being said, there are good, independent, and reliable sources in which Tagert is the main focus (here and here most notably). He was also honored by the Indiana House of Representatives for winning the Northern League championship and being voted the Manager of the Year in 2007. There are plenty of other sources on the internet as well. The article is poorly sourced, but there may be enough online to warrant keeping this article even if it doesn't necessarily meet WP:BASE/N. Gargleafg (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable, not all, but majority are. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC) SilverSurfingSerpant blocked for sock-puppetry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources provided above are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Two articles, the second of which is not really about Tagert, and one brief acknowledgement by some state representatives is not nearly enough to pass GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Mellowed has been blocked indef, is no longer an editor in good standing, and that therefore his !vote does not count. Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nonsense. You just invented this "policy" out of thin air. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out for anyone else looking at this discussion that the three sources I linked to are far from the only Greg Tagert sources available online. Gargleafg (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Among the sources linked in the article, only one approaches being "significant" as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Most of the sources are team or league websites which are not independent of the subject and are therefore not counted for purposes of determining notability. The resolution by the Indiana House of Representatives mentioned above is neither independent of the subject (it was the body that granted the honor) nor does the legislature's journal constitute a secondary source (it's primary). Therefore, subject fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I'd like to reiterate that my reasoning for keeping this article is based on the sources available on the internet regarding the subject (not the sources actually used in the article). There are likely hundreds of independent articles from secondary sources that refer to Greg Tagert online; I just haven't had the time to parse through each one to find the best. If the only sources available were the ones used in the Wikipedia article and the ones I've linked to, this would be an easy delete. As it stands, he's shown up in numerous sources, which seems to be enough to pass WP:GNG in my estimation. The reason I voted for a "weak keep" was because I wasn't sure if those hundreds of sources in which Tagert appears include only passing mentions. Gargleafg (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could point out some of these great sources you mention... I can't find any other than what Bbny remarks on below. Spanneraol (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Meets GNG. It's irrelevant if refs in the article are not sufficient to meet GNG. They needn't be. As Gargle points out, they needs merely exist. Which as indicated above, and by google searches, is the case. Though not resoundingly, there is sufficient appropriate coverage to meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Sources are just routine mentions of a manager being hired by low-level baseball teams or the routine coverage/mentions that those types of managers receive. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I would like to see more of the "many other sources" Gargleafg mentions, but his first source (the nwtimes) article seems to be a good source providing significant coverage and I also found this, which also provides significant coverage of Tagert. Plus there is also this article, which has sections about others besides Tagert, and at least some but certainly not all of the others are probably not notable, but which does provide a statement about Tagert being "one of the most successful managers in Frotier League history," also raising him above "run of the mill." Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if being a successful Frontier League manager really makes one notable... Spanneraol (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Span -- I don't know either. It is though, I note, a notable league, by Wikipedia standards. And Rlendog's quote is not that he was "successful". But rather "one of the most successful ... in Frontier League history." Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Reeves[edit]

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

Skipping past all of the findagrave links, I see a lot of broken links and no in-depth third-party coverage other than mentioning his suicide. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor district attorney with no significant and notable coverage aside from News finding this and this and some results at Books (but nothing at highbeam and thefreelibrary). SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Local politician with adequate coverage from four news sources, his obituary, and election returns. Major figure in Winn Parish for fifteen years. Tragic suicide case. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – His suicide received significant media coverage, and he received signifcant coverage even before that, due to his four years as a district attorney prosecuting criminals. There's no question he's notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billy Hathorn. James500 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is coverage of his political career, and significant coverage of his tragic death by suicide while under investigation for financial malfeasance or fraud of some kind. Wikipedia:Does deletion help? to delete a suicide of public moment in Louisiana?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 2 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. Sandstein 18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries)[edit]

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

Un-encyclopedic topic. I'll copy what I wrote on the article talk page: The main problem is that a list of most widely spoken languages by number of countries is meaningless because countries are not equal, and even arbitrary / trivial. Take for example the language listed last as of time of writing: Urdu. The countries that speak it are given as India and Pakistan. Now India is comprised of 29 states and 7 union territories. If every one of them went independent, Urdu would suddenly be spoken by not two but 37 countries, vaulting Urdu all the way from last place on the list to third, even though fundamentally nothing about the prevalence of the language has changed. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates how arbitrary - not to mention meaningless - the list is. In a way, a list of languages by number of countries that speak it is as useless as a list of languages by the number of speakers with the surname "Li". Such a list could be completely accurate and index every single person surnamed "Li" who speaks a language, and yet it would be meaningless.

I don't see a point in this article; it looks like an un-encyclopedic topic that's not worth having an article about. Banedon (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ as nominator. Looking through the article's talk page there's an argument that the article is worth keeping since it indicates how prevalent the language is (example given is how Mandarin has more speakers than English, yet English is the more important world language). While that is true, counting the number of countries that speaks a language is not the way to measure prevalence. It gives for example equal weighting to Tuvalu (population ~10000) and the United States (population ~320 million). One could argue for a list of languages by the surface area of the countries that speak it as a measure of prevalence, but that neglects population density, and countries such as Canada, Greenland or Russia would be unfairly weighted for. I think the topic is inherently unencycopedic, and that the two other lists by number of native speakers and number of speakers are the ones to look at. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments on the article's talk page, basically that the content is unverifiable. Since there's no one source, instead all editors add or delete languages according to their own definition of "language", "spoken", "in", and "country", it also borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sjö (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really difficult to verify that the majority language of the USA is English or that the official languages of Finland are Swedish and Finnish; indeed, the WP articles on those countries report this same information. If it is not considered unverifiable in the context of those articles, why should it be considered unverifiable in this one?

Like I said on the talk page, the article's coherency depends largely on whether an agreed set of definitions can be established. Regarding countries, the conventions for this on WP are fairly well established. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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. Source provided shows policy based arguments are in favor of retention. (non admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1700 Zvezdara[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]

Weak redirect. Only one study, but it's solely about this body [65]. Close to threshold, but not quite meeting it for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural~~ (Updated to) 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]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: Reluctantly I concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 17:42, 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|✉ 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my vote from "procedural keep" to keep after looking further into this item and adding some references to the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Quis separabit? 13:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on Milowent's sourcing improvements plus [66], to be honest, the new sources don't say that much, but apparently "Serbia-related asteroids" are a thing (even a thing that could be argued as meeting LISTN), and adding that *to* the study David Eppstein notes, I think there's enough. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now has 7 sources and is well beyond the ~20,000 generic bot-generated substub standard. -- Kheider (talk) 15:14, 5 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. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nusraat Faria Mazhar[edit]

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

Prod taken down by a IP-actress with no notability yet who none of her films have been released yet Wgolf (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, seems to be well sourced to meet up the notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – minor television/radio presenter; doesn't meet WP:ENT, a case of WP:TOOSOON.
Sources info: the Coffee one is an interview, the Dhaka tribune one's a straightforward duplicate of it, another has substantally similar points, probably based off it; there's a tv listings ref plus a press release about doing tv commercials; the few remaining are typical of promotional material put out by agencies representing their clients. --146.199.151.33 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unlike the above editor, I do believe it meets some general notability and WP:ENT. WP:TOOSOON is just an essay although it even says:

WP:ENTERTAINER expands on consideration of entertainment-specific criteria for actors who, even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having:
"significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", OR etc.

I don't think it's fair to just treat almost all of the references as unreliable. Besides, the entertainer has a portfolio of three TV shows and is going to star in two films soon. I've seen more refs searching for her Bangla name, নুসরাত ফারিয়া, which AfD nominators usually forget to check.

"ছক্কা মারলেন নুসরাত ফারিয়া" [Nusraat Faria hits a sixer!]. Priyo.com (in Bengali). 20 April 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
"মহড়ায় কলকাতায়" [Kolkata trial]. Daily Manab Zamin (in Bengali). 16 May 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
"টিং শুরু হচ্ছে নুসরাত ফারিয়ার প্রথম ছবি 'প্রেমী ও প্রেমী'" [Shooting has started for Nusraat Faria's first picture, "Premi O Premi"]. The Dhaka Times (in Bengali). 16 May 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
"মাহির পরিবর্তে নুসরাত" [Mahi replaced by Nusrat]. Famousnews24.com (in Bengali). 17 May 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2015.

In fact, in the second reference, you can see that article has been liked 7622 times in the last two days (facebook). This probably shows that it isn't too soon and she already has a following of some sort. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 05:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Withdraw !vote per User:Northamerica1000 and their persuasive links. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 2 June 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 01:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG based on being prominently featured in Bengali news, even if she hasn't had the movie roles yet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. WP:TOOSOON is an essay, whereas WP:BASIC is part of a notability guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This time simply because the amount of sources although that doesn't always mean the subject is notable (gossip, unreliable sources, etc.) and the fact she hasn't released any movies yet is a little concerning and there's no IMDb but I suppose alot of this is more based in that country. SwisterTwister talk 15:00, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Taehyun (Winner)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a recreation of Nam Taehyun, which was deleted a few months ago after this discussion. Truth be told, I was almost thinking about tagging this new article with a speedy deletion tag per this critera, but since the page was deleted a few months ago and I don't know for sure if the content is exactly the same as the old one, I decided an AfD would probably be a better idea. Now, as for my rationale behind thinking this article should be deleted, I'll quote this from the last deletion dicussion: "Since this member has no significant solo contributions and has done no notable work outside of the group I feel this page merely provides a very small amount of redundant information." I feel that this reasoning still applies, and therefore, this article should be deleted. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore to Nam Taehyun - more than enough articles when you search for his name in Korean (송남태현). There's about 5,000 articles where he's the subject. I notice he had some sort of scandal for his use of "informal language" (hah!) but it seems like there is sufficient additional coverage outside of this, including his forays into acting. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the person who nominated the page the first time and I took a look to see what had changed,but only one thing had. He acted in 1 web drama, and if that is notable it can be fit back on the main page easily. I say IF because there are three source given for that web drama. One is a link to the dramas home page on naver, one is a broken link to an article from Nam Taehyun's Company's website, and one is from the gossip blog-news site Allkpop simply saying he was going to be in a drama. Aside from this one web drama being added which culminated in one improperly sourced biased sentence about it, everything else on the page is the same as before. Peachywink (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is notable as a member of a boy band, but I don't think he is independently notable yet (See WP:MUSBIO). He's been in one web drama, and if he continues his acting career he may be more notable in the future. Random86 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:30, 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 keep. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Kenney[edit]

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

Non-notable person Zackmann08 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very convincing reasoning. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [73] [74] [75] [76], plus the newspaper obit from which the article is taken. EEng (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned is not sufficient; the death notice is typically considered a standard mention. Please see WP:GNG; significant, long-term coverage in multiple sources is required. The article has a single reference with no title - is that the obituary? I have no way of seeing the Berkeley Daily Gazette, March 24-27, 1916. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An extended obituary of a public official is not a "standard mention" (by which I think you mean WP:ROUTINE); that you can't see it is neither here nor there. And contrary to what you say, multiple sources are not required (not strictly, anyway) and your notion of "long-term coverage" is completely made up -- see WP:NTEMP: 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.' EEng (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable certainly in local history. Refs are not numerous, but exist. Tmangray (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual seems inherently notable and above refs further demonstrate this. Nominator hasn't offered any reasoning to suggest non-notability. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: Nobody is inherently notable. "Non-notable person" is shorthand in this part of Wikipedia to indicate the subject does not meet WP:GNG. That's all the reason necessary. Anyone who counters that must provide solid evidence that the person meets the stated requirements. Unfortunately not a single reference listed above comes close to proving notability. Please review the requirements; if you can find better references, please post them here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: So your argument is that unless other editors can prove a subject is notable, it is not notable? All one needs to do is claim something isn't notable? Seems to me like the nominator and those who agree with the nominator have the onus when it comes to establishing non-notability. Establishing "significant coverage" by today's standards for a subject who died nearly 100 years ago isn't possible. Rather, we have to accept a different standard that allows for the fact that 100+ year old documentation isn't always available online. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: - Yes, that's how AfD works. You might scroll through all the ones from yesterday to get a better idea of it goes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 12, or read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. It's actually not too hard to prove someone is notable, even from 100 years ago, thanks to the huge amount of digitization and Google Books, etc., not to mention continuing mentions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Cool, well, I'd love to stick around and have you talk down to me some more but I've made my point and I don't expect to sway you. --Non-Dropframe _talk 08:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: I'm sorry if you think I was "talking down" to you - I was trying to be helpful by suggesting a way to get more familiar with the AfD process. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:BURDEN of proof is on the one claiming something, including notability: it is easier to provide a source that shows something is notable when it is, than demonstrating that no source ever (even outside the internet) proved notability when it is not. This does not mean sources can be dismissed without argument. If there is indeed an extended obituary (i.e., not a 5-line mention in a local newspaper) he would be notable in my view; does someone have access to that? Tigraan (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BURDEN applies to article content -- content, if challenged, can't survive unless a specific source can be located and named. In establishing notability however, we only need to conclude that we believe appropriate sources exist -- they don't have to be explicitly enumerated. If, for example, a brief editorial mentions that "every paper in the city has carried a dozen articles on Topic X in the last few months" then we don't have to actually go find those articles to conclude Topic X is notable. This is the basis for many of the notability guidelines such as WP:ACADEMIC's Point 2, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" -- it's not that such an award makes the recipient notable per se, but rather it's the way of the world that recipients of such honors will almost always be covered in multiple reliable sources, and we're allowed to presume the existence of such sources without having to go find them right now.

I'm only mentioning this for the record. The sources in the article are more than adequate. EEng (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Uncertain because it seems there aren't many available sources and my searches found results here (the best entirely and it's only a few links all from the early 1900s) with minor mentions here. In a way, I like the article because it's interesting, neat and at least sourced but there could be better sources so maybe delete for now and maybe mention somewhere else. SwisterTwister talk 15:09, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAT (jeans)[edit]

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

No notability. Only result in Google for their name is an article which features a shirt from them. SouthSlops (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Google search turned up nothing. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, delete. Page says company is defunct, meaning more reliable sources are very unlikely to appear. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there aren't many significant sources with my searches (News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam) only finding one result at Books in a 1993 magazine which is basically minor. Even adding "Gypsies and Thieves", "Los Angeles" and "company" to widen the search found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 15:17, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aeropause Games[edit]

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

This website has no significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Not the subject of any dedicated work that I could find. Only the subject of a series of passing mentions about its reporting, though hasn't won an award or been covered in any substantial manner. Third party refs in the article are not about Aeropause itself. Fails the general notability guideline and WP:WEBCRIT. – czar 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately as the need for better sources has not been addressed nor have they received any attention at all. My searches only found passing mentions here. SwisterTwister talk 14:53, 21 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) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Also, the referenced video game blog appears to be dead, and has now become a book review blog. Kage Acheron (talk) 23:58, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Tolibao[edit]

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

Graphic artist that I'm not sure about notability-basically all the "references" go to a personal webpage-and considering the number of graphic artists out there not quite notable Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable; this is a resume in search of an an article, but this in not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 00:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from his work (which someone passing by may think is notable), it's obvious especially from the primary sources, he is not notable yet and a few searches confirmed this and found no third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 2 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. Discussion regarding a merge can continue on an article talk page, if desired, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.Z.Z.U.[edit]

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

Non notable band where there are no independent reliable sources to support notability. There biggest accomplishment seems to be that they were played on the radio. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Winner 42, I understand your concern about notability, but this is a band that was featured in three albums and who's tapes were taken by John Peel himself during his visit to Bulgaria so he could play them for the British audience on BBC Radio. I just added another source, by the way, which is a link to the band's discography. By no means am I portraying the outfit as one of the greatest punk bands, but as one of the pioneers in the genre in Bulgaria, it has significance, and considering the censorship imposed by the then Communist government, it is difficult to find many sources online. That said, I will keep searching for more sources to enrich the article over time. User talk: Footballer99

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately as there aren't any good and significant sources aside from discogs, etc. Multiple searches including News, Books, highbeam, browser and thefreelibrary found nothing aside from this Books result. My thanks to the author but unless anyone agrees to moving to Music_of_Bulgaria#Punk_and_Funk.5B9.5D, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Punk rock#Rest of the world and Music of Bulgaria#Punk and Funk.5B9.5D I searched and searched and unfortunately came up dry. I found this blog post about them and it laments the lack of information out there. On the BG Wikipedia they are listed under the article on punk rock, but it's redlinked. :-( @Footballer99: I agree about their notability, suggest you merge to the punk rock article - hopefully at some point more info will pop up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with —Мандичка^YO Shad Innet (talk) 09:23, 4 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Database[edit]

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

Not notable as corp. Promotional language. SPA creator and possible COI. GregJackP Boomer! 03:26, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So promotional, fails WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there aren't any solidly good sources about this company with both News and Books finding results but nothing significant as it's mostly data results from their studies along with Highbeam giving results. Until they receive some better attention, there's not much for an article. SwisterTwister talk 14:50, 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 delete. - strength of arguments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cormac Devlin[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. Devlin holds a position as a county councillor, with no history of ever having held any more significant office. As he is seeking re-election in 2016, the article reads largely like a campaign ad. Many news stories cited, but the amount to local coverage or insignificant mentions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accept while municipal politicians do not generally pass WP:POLITICIAN, there is a place reserved on Wikipedia for local figures who have attracted significant media coverage beyond their own home town or district. A number of media articles at national level concerning the subject have now been linked.

The page now cites 16 articles published in the national press, including several where the subject is the main individual featured / quoted, examples Irish Independent, Sunday Times and Irish Times. The page cites an interview with the national television broadcaster, RTE. The page also cites multiple articles in the regional press where the subject is featured. This meets criterion as regards “significant coverage by reliable sources, independent of the subject”. On this basis the article should be removed from Aft category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus X (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that User:Quirinus X is the creator of this article. Snappy (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, articles where the topic is merely quoted as giving a soundbite in coverage of something else does not contribute to getting the subject over WP:GNG — so the last of those three links doesn't count for anything at all. And both of the other two are covering him specifically in the context of his candidacy itself — but media have a public service obligation to cover elections happening in their coverage area, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. To prove that he satisfies "local figures who have attracted significant media coverage", you would need to rely on sources that were specifically covering his work on the county council as a thing in its own right — coverage of his reelection effort does not, in and of itself, contribute to notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, article clearly created to promote his candidacy in the next general election. As a local councillor, he had received any national coverage relating to or about him, other that passing mentions. Btw, I live in the county council area that he represents and I've never heard of him! Snappy (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has received significant national coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, further examples not cited in article: Independent Herald Irish Times Irish Independent A Google news search returns 692 different links Subject exceeds WP:GNG imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus X (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not, as a rule, extend notability under WP:NPOL to most local city or county councillors — while we do have some leeway to consider exceptional cases where a person, for either good or bad reasons, becomes significantly more notable than the norm for that role, nothing that's been written or sourced in this article satisfies that condition. The entire thing is just "generic county councillor doing generic county councillor things", edging into "campaign brochure explanations of his opinions on local issues", and that's not the kind of article that we allow a local political figure to keep. Further, as near as I can tell the sourcing (both the stuff in the article and the stuff Quirinus X is offering here) is almost entirely of the primary, non-substantive "namechecking his existence in the process of failing to be about him per se", and/or "routine coverage of his reelection campaign itself" varieties — none of which can contribute anything toward whether or not a county councillor has the extra level of notability needed to clear the bar. So no, I'm not seeing any reason why he's more notable than any of his other colleagues who don't have articles. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever seeks higher office. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin has attracted more coverage than colleague Kate Feeney or John Bailey who have articles. Dun Laoghaire is high profile council in Ireland attracting more interest than others. On the basis of coverage and precedents regarding similar articles I think he passes the test for Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.237.98 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 31.216.237.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aha, the always strange anon Keep !vote, quack quack! See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Snappy (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Feeney's article has been put up for deletion in the past, and landed at "no consensus" — and the "keep" side in her case didn't rest on her county council seat itself, but on her having been involved in an internal party dispute which spilled over into purportedly causing a leadership crisis in the entire national party. I still don't agree that she actually clears the bar — the actual national significance of the purported leadership crisis seemed severely overstated, since the coverage was over in three days flat and nobody actually lost their job — but a case was presented that she should be considered more notable than the norm for a county councillor. And Bailey's article also landed at "no consensus" when deletion was attempted, although the "keep" side in that instance made an even weaker case than Feeney's did (it boiled down to "keep because county council is the highest level of political office in the country short of a TD, so it's equivalent to a provincial or state legislature elsewhere" — the first part of that may be true, but the second doesn't automatically follow from that.) But most importantly, the fact that they were both closed as "no consensus", rather than clean keeps, means that they can both be renominated for another deletion discussion absolutely anytime somebody decides to actually take it on — it does not mean that the articles have been declared "safe", or that notability has been extended to county councillors in general. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I can tell that is a WP:MILL local politician.

This being said, up there Bearcat said newspapers have a obligation to report the electoral campaign (and hence, such reporting is routine); can someone clarify? Where I live, electoral rules impose that TV and radio speaking time be fairly attributed to candidates, but nothing of the sort for newspapers - based on the premise that while the number of broadcast frequencies are limited, paper is not. Of course, even if some coverage is mandatory, any coverage beyond that is no longer routine. Tigraan (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting me a bit — I didn't say "newspapers", I said media in general. Newspapers in most countries, as far as I know, aren't regulated by a licensing authority, such that there are any legal conditions of license on their being able to operate at all — but there are still market conditions, whereby a newspaper that people don't consider to be trustworthy isn't going to survive because the readers will stop buying it. So candidates do still get newspaper coverage — it's a moral obligation rather than a basic condition of license in their case, but it's still a matter of public service to their audience. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misquote, my brain had a short circuit because you were discussing newspapers even though you wrote "media" in your analysis.

Although I agree that electoral campaigns lend themselves to routine coverage just as violent murders, I disagree with your analysis that there is an "obligation" on the papers in the sense you write above. I could see the paper's editor demanding the electoral campaign be covered because he personally feels the civic duty to do so. But the market or moral obligation to print something that readers find interesting is not really a bias; if we rely on newspapers to establish notability it is precisely on the grounds that journalists are competent to decide what is notable and what is not (with some caveats of course). TR;DR: WP:ROUTINE applies, but no more to electoral campaigns that to other things. Tigraan (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough media coverage to establish notability. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain... Do you disagree with Bercat's "routine" dismissal above, or did you find another source? Tigraan (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that WP:POLITICIAN is designed to keep out articles about run-of-the-mill local politicians with only fleeting, election-related news coverage. Devlin is known for nothing other than being a local councillor. Sionk (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far below the level of passing notability for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Nom misunderstood or misstated. Devlin is not running for "reelection" to his city council seat. He is a serous contender for the Fianna Fáil nomination for parliament.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election isn't a notability freebie either, so that still doesn't boost his notability unless and until he wins a seat. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do understand that User:Quirinus X has COI and wrote the article, nevertheless, I read the articles he cites above, and these 2 Irish Independent, Sunday Times made me look further. He is being flagged [77] by major papers as a serious threat to the nomination of former cabinet minister Mary Hanafin. It's a hot race, and while I won't copy every recent article that comes up on a news search, it is getting intensive coverage (even silly coverage when both Devlin and Hanafin entered a charity foot race [78],[79]). There is an intensity of serious coverage rare in a party primary. I think the article should be kept; deletion can reconsidered after he either loses or wins the nomination and, if he wins that, the election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect reversal of WP:TOOSOON. Since notability is not temporary, if the current coverage is considered a proof that he is notable then the article should be kept no matter the electoral results. Conversely, if his notability depends of the results, then it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation once the results are up.

This being said, if the coverage is indeed more than the usual, it ought to be taken into account. Tigraan (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This being said, if the coverage is "intensive" about him (beyond routine election coverage) then at least a few articles need to be cited here. Source 1 above only has the briefest mention and makes no claim at all that Devlin is a "serious threat". Sionk (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the briefest google search brings up a lots of national coverage. E.M.Gregory is correct the intensity of the coverage is very rare. If Devlin was not notable prior to this he is now. Local politicians simply don't usually get national coverage in Ireland - the Sunday Times is the Sunday paper of record in the UK and Ireland, and there's a large piece on him there. That should settle the matter. Examples of non-routine national coverage [80][81][82] Examples of intense interest (smear campaign, leaked minutes, involvement of party leader) [83][84][85][86][87][88] Reggiegal (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage presented here is routine stuff for any minor politician seeking re-election to a higher office. Being a dial-a-quote doesn't give any particular notability. If he gets into the Oireachtas, then by all means create an article, but that's still a decidedly chancy prospect for a politician with such a modest profile. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

WP should tread carefully here. Seat in the Oireachtas\national parliament for which Devlin is running is "hotly contested" (today's Independent [89]) but note that the other contestants for this seat within the Fianna Fail party include not only former Minister Mary Hanafin, but a city council member similar to Devlin in early career status who has an uncontested WP page Kate Feeney. WP should be very careful about deleting one candidate and keeping another during hotly contested races.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair E.M.Gregory I think as Snappy (talk) noted the other candidate was a "no consensus". But you make excellent points about this primary contest attracting lots of national media attention. There were four articles over the last 24 hours alone. As author (discount it as you will), I'd argue Devlin meets criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Bearcat (talk) has reasonably argued that some of coverage is routine, and in some instances that is correct, however articles, like for example, his Young Blood feature in |Phoenix Magazine in 2009 are not routine, the editor of the longest running political magazine in Ireland made a decision to feature him (they only feature 3 or 4 councillors per year). Some of the other articles, such as those cited by Reggiegal (talk) go well beyond what might be argued is routine - [90][91][92] [93][94][95][96][97][98]. On this basis I believe the article meets the criterion, but obviously it's a matter for the closing admin to decide and I'll accept whatever decision they make. Thanks everyone for you comments and interest in the issue :) Quirinus X (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't Wikipedia's job to give "equal time" on here to all candidates in an election — our job is to have articles about people, be they incumbents or candidates, who satisfy one of our inclusion rules, and to not have articles about people who don't. This does not compromise the electoral process — there have been many, many elections throughout the 15 years of Wikipedia's existence which were won by candidates who did not already have Wikipedia articles, quite often by defeating incumbents and/or notable-for-other-reasons candidates who did have articles. (The textbook example I always point to is the Calgary municipal election, 2010, in which a mayoral candidate who did not have a Wikipedia article yet won the election over two more "established" challengers, who did have Wikipedia articles as they already satisfied some other Wikipedia notability criteria for reasons independent of their candidacies.) We do not extend "temporary notability" on "equal time for all candidates" grounds to a person who does not already satisfy NPOL — either sufficient notability was already there before the person became a candidate, or it does not exist until they're declared the winner. It's not our responsibility to compromise or water down our inclusion criteria for politicians so that unelected candidates for a notable office can use Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People really should 'put up or shut up' (to put it crudely) about this so called 'non-routine' coverage about Devlin. From what I can see, the coverage above is about the election (largely concentrating on Mary Hanafin the most well-known contender) with brief mentions of Devlin as one of the participants. Is Devlin behind the dirty tricks? I don't see this either. The coverage could certainly be used to support an article about the election, but the biographical (or otherwise) detail of Devlin isn't there (and he's not the subject of these articles at all). The most interesting claim is the Young Blood feature in The Phoenix, but we don't know the details of it (it's hidden behind a paywall). Find more stuff like that and I may (possibly) be persuaded to change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate the Phoenix | Young Blood feature on Devlin is behind a pay wall, but do articles need need to be freely available? The Sunday Times, Financial Times and many other serious publications operate a pay-wall, surely the existence of the piece should be sufficient? But maybe another WP contributor with access might take a look? There is more Phoenix stuff but if it can't be accessed is there any point in citing it? The Phoenix interest at the time stemmed from Devlin being very young (he was the youngest individual ever elected to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council) and his success despite his age in overcoming attempts by Hanafin (then a Senior Minister) to replace him in 2004 and 2009. The background provides context to the current race. Hence the Irish media interest. Sionk you asked asked E.M.Gregory for evidence about Devlin posing a treat to Hanafin, if it helps these two articles are examples of the views of various national political correspondents: | Mark O'Regan, Irish Independent, | Niall O'Connor, Irish Independent. As regards non-campaign coverage, Devlin has had a significant amount relating to his work as a public representative, Enos733 deleted much of it when he refocused the article on 28th May. But some examples of the coverage are: | Dublin Gazette Newspaper, Front Page, | Herald | Dublin People, Front Page there's loads more. Quirinus X (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quirinus X What is needed are profiles of the man, analysis of his career, articles that show that his career is is some way extraordinary; not coverage of what seem to be his activities as a member of the city council expressing opinions on local issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Putting up as requested, This from the MAY 8, 2015 issue of The Phoenix:

"There has been much coverage of the Hanafi n-Feeney rivalry as they both struggle for the general election nomination in Dún Laoghaire. But it is Cormac Devlin that Hanafi n should really worry about as the 34-year-old has been a Dún Laoghaire councillor for eleven years and he knows the local party membership inside out. Devlin is fond of reminding members that while Hanafi n was AWOL in cabinet duties, he minded the shop in her absence. Hanafi n, Feeney and Cllr Jennifer Cuffe each have a fraction of Devlin’s vote in the local party and the debate has now switched from who will win at convention to whether HQ will add a second candidate when Devlin is selected. "Devlin’s supporters are apoplectic at the notion of adding Hanafi n to the ticket and point to the party’s Dublin wide polls taken before the Euro elections which showed that Hanafi n was transfer repellent. And most Dublin members believe that if HQ and Martin bring back former cabinet member, Hanafi n, in a blaze of publicity, then they ought also to select John O’Donoghue down in Kerry and Brian Cowen in Laois."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to access that 2009 article in "The Phoenix". No success at this point, although one search did turn up a 2004 piece in the Examiner highlighting Devlin, "http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2004/0308/ireland/party-eager-to-show-off-its-young-blood-939032107.html" [99]E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Text of The Phoenix Young Blood feature on Devlin, 8 May 2009 as requested by User:E.M.Gregory & User:Sionk

FIANNA FAIL tyro Cormac Devlin swept to victory in the Dun Laoghaire ward of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown (DL-R) council in 2004, but he faces an altogether stiffer test this June. Apart from the generally uphill battle for most FF councillors, he’s got some serious opposition from his own running mate – Mary Hanafin’s personal assistant in the constituency, Peter O’Brien, behind whom serious resources and energy have been thrown. With FG likely to take two seats and Richard Boyd Barrett ready to capitalise on a strong election performance, this leaves Devlin and O’Brien scrapping for the one FF seat likely to be on offer.

The Dun Laoghaire ward of DL-R is opposition country, with both FG and Labour enjoying the strongest support there. After all, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was a councillor in the ward until the dual mandate was abolished and the party’s current councillor is the long-standing Jane Dillon Byrne. But it’s Fine Gael that really dominates Dun Laoghaire, and in recent times two princes of the party’s royalty have held council seats. In 1999, blueshirt senator Liam Cosgrave junior (son of Liam snr and grandson of WT) was a councillor, while one of FG’s three seats is Tom O’Higgins, one of the scions of the O’Higgins clan. It was into this political bearpit that young Devlin – just 23 at the time – threw himself after sitting councillor Betty Coffey decided not to go forward again. Having secured a nomination at convention alongside Brendan Kiely (lately of the Forum for Europe) and Eimear McAuliffe, one of Mary Hanafin’s pals, Devlin surprised them all by getting elected just behind poll topper John Bailey of FG and collecting 1,776 first preference votes.

Devlin is one of the young turks in Dun Laoghaire Fianna Fail, and was a member of Ogra in the mid-1990s at the tender age of 16, where he got pally with Luke Martin. In 1999, when Martin was head of Ogra in Dun Laoghaire, they all got into a spot of bother when Martin and his vice president, Stephen O’Connor, fired out an angry press release directed at Bertie Ahern over his u-turn on NATO’s Partnership for Peace, which resulted in Martin getting hauled over the coals by HQ for his impertinence. But Devlin’s friendship with Martin isn’t limited to just politics, they are also partners in two pub companies, Osiris Bars and Atlantis Concordia. Unfortunately, Atlantis Concordia, through which Devlin, Martin, barrister Morgan Shelley and businessman Ronan Callan owned Lime Cafe Bar, recently went toes up, while Osiris has only recently been incorporated and will certainly find it difficult in the current climate.

Devlin will be hoping the same fate does not befall his election campaign. And as tough as the 2004 election was, things will be much tougher for Devlin this time around. For starters, there is likely to be just one seat available for Fianna Fail again this time, which makes it all the more unfortunate for Devlin that FF have thrown such weight behind O’Brien. While strategically a weaker second candidate can often enhance a stronger candidate’s chances by ensuring a solid number of transfers, two equally strong (or equally weak) candidates could rob each other of necessary votes and leave them both off the pace. Nevertheless, O’Brien – who is a long-time functionary of minister for social and family affairs Mary Hanafin and who is currently her personal assistant in the Dun Laoghaire general election constituency – is getting plenty of support from Hanafin, in terms of resources and canvassing. Hanafin hasn’t yet gone out with Devlin.

Still, young Cormac will be hoping that Hanafin’s support will be doing O’Brien more harm than good. Hanafin’s demotion to social and family affairs means that she is now one of the public faces of some of the harshest cuts in social welfare the country has seen. While her presence on the doorstep would have been a boon to O’Brien in any other election, in 2009 it might end up serving as a rather large lightning rod on the doorsteps. Worse have been recent media reports that Hanafin had been using Oireachtas resources – envelopes and headed note-paper – to write to constituents urging them to drop in on O’Brien’s campaign launch. With the abuse by Oireachtas members of such parliamentary privileges as free postage, this was a blunder.

Yet another worry for Devlin will be the recent harmony in Fine Gael after a nasty bout of infighting, caused by the entry of Naja Regan – daughter of FG senator Eugene – into the fray. Regan wanted a shot at running in the locals for FG (see The Phoenix, 27/2/09). The prospect terrified the three sitting FGers, Bailey, Mary Mitchell O’Connor and Tom O’Higgins, who fired off a letter to HQ demanding that they, and they only, be ratified (which, HQ were told by Tom’s brother Kevin, the party’s solicitor, was perfectly legal). However, when HQ did just that at the selection convention, the Regans sprang into action, and they dragged the party to the High Court. Both Devlin and O’Brien will have been relishing the prospect of a prolonged legal spat within FG as the locals loomed, but the blueshirts came to an agreement by which Regan would agree to withdraw her challenge. In exchange for this, among other things, Naja was promised a co-option to any seat in the DL-R wards of Dun Laoghaire, Ballybrack and Blackrock when one arose, while Eugene was told he’d be selected for the substitutes’ list for the party’s Euro candidates after the next election. SCRAP Whether any of these promises are ever delivered remains to be seen (and already one is off the cards; the promise to place Naja on the now-defunct National Forum for Europe), but nevertheless Devlin is now faced with FG certainly taking two of the six seats on offer. John Bailey’s non-stop canvassing will ensure his re-election, while Mary Mitchell-O’Connor, though she switched allegiances from the PDs to FG in 2007, is well-known locally as a school principal as well as a councillor, which should see her take a seat. O’Higgins, despite his peerless lineage, has not been quite as hard working as his colleagues and will have to wait for the later counts. Depending on how well Bailey and Mitchell-O’Connor poll, he might slip in on transfers.

Although Labour are the second strongest party in the ward, they are inexplicably running three candidates. Sitting councillor Jane Dillon-Byrne has been on the council for decades, but her two running mates, Stephen Fitzpatrick andAngela Timmins, are virtually unknown and neither is likely to take a seat (in the last two elections, Dillon-Byrne has only slipped in on the last count thanks to transfers). Meanwhile, former Green councillor Kealin Ireland was replaced by Gene Feighery, whose record on planning and the presence of a handful of left-leaning candidates could boost her vote, though any backlash against Fianna Fáil might also affect the Greens. Fianna Fáil will almost certainly get one seat, but it is not clear whether Devlin, on the basis of his council work, or O’Brien, on the basis of Hanafin’s sponsorship, will snag a higher first preference tally." Quirinus X (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2015

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding merges can continue on article talk pages, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy[edit]

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

Lack of notability; specifically, it lacks any significant coverage. Any significant coverage on Collingwood Football Club best and fairest awards is primarily about the Copeland Trophy; any other minor awards presented at that night, including the Joseph Wren, the best clubman, etc., receive no significant coverage in their own right. Aspirex (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Late addition) I am also nominating the following two low-importance Collingwood Football Club awards (one for best first-year player and one for the season's leading player in the one-percenters statistic).

This is a late addition to the deletion – as I have only just discovered these articles' existence – but it is clear that these articles have the same notability problems as Joseph Wren Memorial Trophy and can be easily bundled. Aspirex (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a b&f award of a separate league (VFL) to the Copeland Trophy. Also there are separate articles talking only about the Joseph Wren Trophy and its winners. For examples see [100], [101], [102] --SuperJew (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all three of those are primary sources from the Collingwood Football Club website. While this is adequate for verifiability, it is a weak argument in establishing notability. Aspirex (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: two links not from the Collingwood website: [103], [104] --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are from the VFL website, and therefore also a primary source; and, they fall under the category of routine coverage, which is also a weak argument in establishing notability. Aspirex (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question:: Could you please give examples regarding the Copeland Trophy that do show this notability you speak of? --SuperJew (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: This is a difficult request, as the notability of the Copeland Trophy is established not through a single reference or references which explicitly state "this award is notable", but a wide range of articles over a long period of time which – when viewed together – are reflective of a world which treats the award as notable. A search of the Fairfax archives from the past ten years has hundreds of references to the Copeland Trophy ([105]); many of these were articles and/or puff pieces about notable players in which Copeland Trophy victories are listed/described amongst the career highlights of those players.([106] [107] [108]) The AFL Hall of Fame citations list club senior best and fairests amongst player achievements [109]. It's not uncommon to see a player offhandedly described as "Copeland winner" or "dual Copeland winner" to add colour to a news report. No such case exists for the Wren: that same Age search reveals only four articles in ten years, all of which were routine coverage reports on that year's Collingwood's best and fairest. [110] It's true that if you look hard enough you'll find articles which mention players' Wren Trophies amongst their career highlights; but these are generally players who barely meet notability guidelines in their own right, such as Kyle Martin (whose six game senior career will be all but forgotten in AFL circles by the end of the decade, no offence to the man). For well-known players who did win the Wren, its importance as a career achievement is basically considered zero when the player has achieved anything else of note (e.g. this article about Heath Scotland's retirement doesn't bother to acknowledge his Wren amongst his career achievements [111]; and this article considers Jason Cloke's 76 senior games for Collingwood and his career for Spotswood more worthy of note than his Wren Trophy at Williamstown [112]). Aspirex (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Useful list, but better merged into Collingwood Football Club#Reserves team. Significant coverage doesn't exist to justify own article. Jevansen (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe better merged into Copeland Trophy than Collingwood Football Club#Reserves team. I would have thought it was pretty low value content for the main Collingwood Football Club page. (Note: I still favour outright deletion) Aspirex (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator added two more articles to be considered for deletion on 14 May 2015, listed under the "Late addition" section atop.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three to Collingwood Football Club. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two more articles were added to the nomination on 14 May 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Nash[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:GNG. Any notability she had only comes in connection with her husband - and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Only sources found that talk about her independent of her husband are unreliable - some admitted "celebrity" gossip sites. Even the PBS reference is from an article about her husband. No notability on her own and pretty much known for 1E: marrying, divorcing, and re-marrying Nobel Laureate and mathematician John Nash - in other words, her marital relationship with him. Both Nash and his wife (the article subject) were killed a few days ago in a motor vehicle accident, so it follows that folks are interested in them. Even so, her marriage and death do not merit her an article on her own. She simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for obvious reasons. All you have to do is Google "Alicia Nash" Her life story is famous worldwide. A film was made about her life that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Without her John Nash would not be notable, so do not attempt to prove your "Not Inherited" theory. HesioneHushabye (talk)
- The film was about Nash's life, not his wife's. If her life story truly were "famous worldwide", there would be reliable sources aplenty documenting her life independent of her marriage to John Nash. The opposite is the case. As far as Nash's notability, he attained his genius and achieved his mathematical and economic knowledge all on his own. Sure, as his wife, she was a support. But that doesn't make for content that meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Further, "not inherited" is not a theory but a Wikipedia guideline and policy. I know you created the article and are invested in it, however, article subjects must meet notability guidelines and this one simply does not. That's the plain and simple truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pointless arguing about the film. Alicia is discussed extensively in Nasar's book. The film omits much of importance that was in the book (see our own WP section on this topic. The WP:RS material that exists on the subject qualifies her under WP:GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Actually the film is about their life together, the actress that played Alicia Nash won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, the actor that played John did not. You are false, as her life story is well documented in all books about John's life, that are linked on the article, including information about her prominent family and her own life before John. She had her own accomplishments. Feel free to read her obituary if you want to learn about her life. (link) [113] .HesioneHushabye (talk)
  - The link you provided is to an obituary. If we did articles on everyone who had a lengthy obituary, we'd be here for years going through the list of articles for deletion. An obituary in the NYT (or anywhere) does not establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. And the film was about Nash, an actress portrayed his wife because she was a part of his life - not because she was notable on her own. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your comebacks aren't proving anything besides the fact that you aren't familiar with the subject and refuse to do a Google search or read anything. I posted her obituary from the Washington Times above that lists her accomplishments. She doesn't need defending. HesioneHushabye (talk)
      - My responses are just that, not "comebacks". Being familiar with the subject is neither here nor there. All one need do is a simple Google search (which I did along with a Yahoo search) and fiund exactly what I stated in my original post here: nothing reliably sourced, nothing notable independent of her husband, nothing that allows for the article subject meeting the general notability guidelines. I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion if there were the things needed to establish notability. An obituary can note accomplishments all day long - if there is nothing from a reliable, unbiased source (obituaries are not unbiased/reliable sources except for things like birth dates/birth places/family relations) that supports and verifies those accomplishments, then we have nothing verifiable. The threshold for inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for the inclusion of articles in Wikipedia is notability. No matter how you slice it, Alicia Nash does not meet those guidelines. Sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nice. When someone writes a movie about you or plays you in a movie or when you die your death is as widely mourned and reported as Alicia, let me know. HesioneHushabye (talk)
        Me letting you know someone has written a screenplay about my life after I'm dead would be a pretty neat trick, wouldn't it? And just like Alicia Nash, I would fail notability guidelines even if my spouse was the famous one. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alicia Nash has attracted public attention and comment. She clearly passes the GNG for the level of coverage provided by her in various published sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where? What links? What reliable sources? What coverage independent of her husband? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nasar's book talks extensively about her, as well. She clearly meets WP:GNG because of sources. There is no need to compare her to her husband's accomplishments. Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, she's also a respected and accomplished academic even in her husbands shadow. On a side note: User:Winklevi, stop harassing people just because they vote and disagree with you. Seriously, you're acting like a bete noire with your relentless need to battle people just for expressing their opinion. That's not good form, and as this isnt a debate, ergo, neither is it constructive. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Forbes Nash, Jr. as notability is not inherited, though she is a plausible search term. WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". WP:NOTNEWS might also apply here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTNEWS definitely does apply here, Snuggums. Thanks for adding that point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither INHERIT nor NOTNEWS apply here, since there is extensive WP:RS that discusses her personally and which pre-dates her death by more than a decade. Agricola44 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I think it's obvious Alicia has her own accomplishments, so the claims of being notable only because she is married to John Nash are laughable. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not Paper [114] and separate articles are warranted when enough information is available to have such. HesioneHushabye (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- HesioneHushabye : Remember, Winklevi doesn't like this article, but claims amongst his/her greatest accomplishments to date is Bobby Kristina Brown. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jack, that was completely uncalled for, and a violation of WP:AGF. This AFD has nothing to do with whether one "likes" an article or not. Please also keep the focus on this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of significant news coverage about Alicia Nash in her own right. There's no argument that John Nash was far more famous, hence the coverage of the recent car crash headlines with him. But that does not make Alicia Nash a simple appendage of her husband. She was clearly a brilliant and successful individual too. Sionk (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Coulda, shoulda hadda article years ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. She is extensively discussed in sources, the best among these being Nasar's book. Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. The idea that articles on notable women with more-notable husbands should be deleted or redirected on the basis that coverage is unequally shared is really unfortunate. If that's how people are (mis)reading WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLPFAMILY, then one or both needs fixing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love your comment Opabinia. The misogyny of some editors on Wikipedia, to delete articles on women, or not include them, is very sad indeed. I see it happen often here. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have !voted keep and given what I believe to be the salient reasons, commentators on the opposite side have likewise only submitted policy-based reasons for their "delete" !votes (mainly INHERIT and accomplishments). I have not sensed any sort of sexism here (having been a victim of it, I am sensitive to spotting this) and am increasingly concerned that seeing "misogyny behind every tree" serves only to trivialize the whole matter. Agricola44 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for saying that, Agricola44. The accusation is not only out of line, it's 100% inaccurate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't say anyone is personally sexist; only that inappropriately unequal results can come from application of putatively neutral guidelines. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If you read carefully, the response was directed to HesioneHushabye, who cried misogyny. I don't think there's any WP:BIAS here. Her accomplishments aren't equal to her husband's, but that is not the crux of why she is notable enough for an article. Rather, she is extensively covered (as in Nasar's book), thus satisfying WP:GNG and this article is certain to be kept. So, I don't think there's any further need to discuss sexism, as it simply is not a factor here. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep FFS, WP:NOTINHERITED - an WP:ESSAY which is WP:NOTPOLICY does not say that subjects who happen to be related to other people have to pass a higher bar of WP:GNG. Don't be such a tool. Le petit fromage (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I will support the article for staying. However, the author of this article should add more references from sources prior to 2015. Also, please refrain from unnecessary attacks such as "don't be a tool" or crying misogyny. We are here to have an academic and collegiate discussion. In other words, no personal attacks and assume good faith.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:03, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club Life: Volume Four New-York City[edit]

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

A track listing does not an article make - as is made clear at WP:NALBUMS. Contested PROD. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose since this is mentioned at his discography and the separate article for that, as my searches only found some News links and nothing else particularly for this album. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Articles on the subject are available on multiple Wikipedias: possibly written by the subject himself. All cited sources are not independent, secondary, and reliable. None of the cited PRIMARY sources talk about the subject except his name, email address etc. The subject fails WP:GNG sami ^talk 12:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I'm not sure how you've searched, but he is the subject of numerous articles in Urdu alone [115], [116], [117], [118] and is prominent for his work in the Khowar language, including apparently designing the first keyboard/font software. Here's one in English: Linguist Honoured: Rehmat Aziz Chitrali gets Yasir Ullah Shaheed Talent Award 2015; I'm sure he's active on Wikipedia as according to that article, he founded the Khowar language Wikipedia. His article should be cleaned up, but not deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he founded a version of Wikipedia does not mean he is notable. We have also another user who too founded a version of Wikipedia and he is the one of the numbered contributors who are contributing to that language that has neither official recognition nor formally written in Pakistan. But this does not mean we should have an article on that user as well. To pass WP:GNG, secondary, reliable and independent sources are required. But here 99.99% sources either are dependent on the subject or Urdu blogs. If the subject is really notable, they should not have spammed multiple Wikipedias just to have autobiographies and biographies. Copyrights are being violated at Commons to upload copyrighted images for promotional purposes on their autobiographies/biographies. Tahir Adeem is another page about a non-notable person that was created in 2012, now upon google searching is being shown in a separate box on right side as if the subject were really notable. This BLP article is largely unsourced. Wikipedia is being used for promotional purpose only by them. For example, article states in the first sentence that he is widely regarded as Mohsin-e-Lisaniyaat (Mohsin-e-Lisaniyaat means well wisher or friend of languages). Google it you won't find even a single source stating this but only mirror sites of Wikipedia. sami ^talk 19:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: As far as keyboard is concerned, there is nothing new in developing a keyboard layout. Cited sources say they invented a keyboard for Pakistani languages??? Invention? If there were no keyboard for Pakistani languages how could Urdu, Sindhi, Punjabi etc Wikipedias came into being. All these claims do not establish notability. sami ^talk 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging all those active Wikipedians who were previously involved in the two AfDs so that we may have their opinions. Mardetanha, SwisterTwister, Xxanthippe, Yoninah, Mjbmr, Tokyogirl79, Bgwhite. sami ^talk 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samee: I never said his founding of that language Wikipedia was relevant to his notability - I pointed it out to support my point that yes, he is active on Wikipedia; since you alleged he wrote all of these bios himself. All of your claims (that he has Wikipedia articles about him in too many Wikis, his Wikipedia is being used as promotion, his article has insufficient citations, and there are photos on Commons that are copyright violations) are all irrelevant to the AfD discussion. That is not a suitable reason to support deletion. Please review WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't allege that all of these are autobiographies and did not put forth this reason for deletion. The subject simply fails WP:GNG. sami ^talk 04:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient significant independent sources. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I agree with Mr.Мандичка, he is notable in Pakistan please check his books on Pakistani languages here [[119]] He is notable and prominent in pakistan and received many national and international awards, gold medals and recently he has been awarded the Associate Fellow of Royal Commonwealth Society Great Britian. He has recently received the Dr.Q.Q.Khan Gold Medal & Award. The Express Tribune with the New York Times has published many interviews about his life and works. He is the Pioneer, Translator, editor, text administrator of Khowar Wkipedia project and tirelessly working for pakistani languages. Please check these link wikify the article instead of deletion [120], [121], [122], [123], please search in google for his notability, books, life and works, awards and distinctions etc -- 113.197.53.162 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just only claims. From your contributions, it won't be wrong to conclude you're indeed THE SUBJECT in question. Particularly this edit confirms.^diff sami ^talk 06:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above named personality is notable, if the editors of Wikpedia find any unreliable sources than this is the duty of the Editors to edit the article and remove the relevant portion according to wikipedia rules, Please check these links there are some sources out there that do show that there may be more coverage in one of the non-English languages spoken in Pakistan. ([124], [125], [126]) for his notability and also check his contributions/book in Pakistani languages here [127] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.197.53.162 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may have promotional issues and that is something that can be resolved with editing and NPOV checks. From what I can see on the material that is available, he does seem to satisfy WP:GNG and be nominally notable. There is some level of coverage in sources, including [128], [129], [130], [131] and more. Given the nature of the topic and to avoid systematic bias, it would be reasonable to say that there would be more coverage in Urdu/non-English sources than English sources, and that those sources should be used too for verifiability. Mar4d (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe keep solely because the article has several sources - Searches at News and Books found nothing so the Pakistan and Urdu news links above suggest much of the sources are going to be non-English or some English (Pakistan-based anyway). I'm not a speaker of Urdu so I'm of no use there but, despite the article looks almost the same from initiation, at least some of the sourcing has improved. What would help the article is a Urdu-speaking and competent editor. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 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. Consensus is that all of the articles identified here (apart from the withdrawn article) do not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Inline Hockey League[edit]

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

This article is the core of a substantial walled garden of related articles, templates, categories and souvenir keyrings. Given the excessive use of templates and more red links than Lenin's watch-chain this is clearly a massive case of overcoverage at best. I was initially willing to consider that it needed drastically cutting down to size, but that something might legitimately remain, so I set about PRODing the most obviously excessive sub-articles. Some of the PRODs were removed by the author. Having looked at it again, I now feel that the whole subject fails to meet the notability criteria. The articles lacks third party references. When I look, the lack of RS coverage of this sports league is glaring when you consider how the media loves to publish even minor items of sports news. Furthermore, the one really solid RS source for it (Hockey: Still Rolling, but Not on a Roll) makes it very clear that this is not a successful professional sports league. At least as of 2011, it was a pay-to-pay affair and nothing indicates to me that this has changed. As such, I think it merits nothing more than a brief mention in an article about Inline Hockey but no articles of its own, and certainly not a whole nest of articles, templates, etc.

Note: AIHL more notably stands for the the "Australian Ice Hockey League" and there was some (presumably accidental) cross-linking of the articles. You may see hits for this when researching notability.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they share the same subject which fails to meet the notability criteria and also lack reliable third party references:

General sub-articles:

"Zones":

Seasons: (These are all contested PRODs. I had nominated them all as "Non-notable sports stats".)

Teams: (Note: Only including teams that do not mention playing in other leagues which may be more notable.)

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

Withdrawn. See below for reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Obviously, I can't list the templates and categories for deletion here so I'll leave those pending the outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I've had this page watchlisted for a while now, and the talk page is hilarious. I love how it's like a diary of your thoughts. Anyway, I have never seen a notable pay to play league and I don't think this one is any different. Per the source: "In the A.I.H.L., players pay $500 and sell raffle tickets and advertisements for the privilege of competing." That's cool and all, but your rec league isn't encyclopedic material. Tavix | Talk 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harford Fire Ants was a professional team who joined what looks to be a new amateur league at the time they joined. Their pages used to make note of this and I have returned the page to stating that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. I do have my doubts about the notability of some of the other leagues too. Some are only nominally professional. But if I had known that this team was in other leagues I would not have nominated it so I'll withdraw that one from this AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I happened upon East Bay Jawz myself and tagged it for PROD, eventually finding this discussion. It looks like the nominator has done a good job identifying this problematic spate of articles. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trash the whole thing, this is just a mess of redlinks for a non-notable league.Kage Acheron (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I Second that the nominator has done a good job identifying this problematic spate of articles.Pincrete (talk) 12:00, 8 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. Ged UK 13:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow International School (Seoul)[edit]

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

Per the outcome of many previous discussions on the matter of primary schools, they are generally ot considered notable. There is nothing here that even vaguely indicates why this one would be an exception to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created as spam by a blocked SPA with a blatant COI. And still very spammy. I might have considered a redirect but one way or the other, a deletion of this is no great loss and if it ever becomes notable, i.e. fulfilling GNG and ORG, it can be created again by an independent third party. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:54, 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 keep. Ged UK 13:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diarrhea Planet[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Unsure of notability, so bringing here. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The band, while far from a household name, is certainly a notable band in the independent rock scene. A Google search will show that they have been covered by Rolling Stone, Spin, Pitchfork, Stereogum, Brooklyn Vegan, and Consequence of Sound, just to name a few prominent music publications. They have played major music festivals (as outlined in the Wikipedia article), and a YouTube video of their SXSW performance from last year has over 100,000 views. Relatively, yes, they are not a popular band in the mainstream (their band name alone assures that will be the case over the course of their career). However, I think they are notable enough that the page should remain.

Full disclosure: I helped make this page as an assignment for a Wikipedia class at my university over a year ago. I made it because I not only love this band, but thought it would be funny to make final college project about a band named Diarrhea Planet. C_Meindl (talk) Posted 5/28/2015 9:41PM EST — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with coverage from Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, SPIN, NPR, Allmusic (bio and two reviews), IndyWeek, Vice, MTV, Esquire, plus Stereogum, Alternative Press, Paste, Soundcheck, Billboard, The Tennessean, AV Club, Boise Weekly, Orlando Weekly, Riverfront Times...(I gave up searching at this point). --Michig (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per multiple extensive news coverage identified. I hope C meindl didn't get a good grade in class because if these sources had been used as the basis of the article in the first place, this would have never been brought to AfD. Sionk (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems clear to me, the band is widely reported on and any DP activity is cause for news.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillOldham (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 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. The additional citations provided after this AfD was opened seem to address the concerns of the delete !voters. Ged UK 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks "Tex" Carman[edit]

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

Non notable musician. I could not find any reliable sources for any notability. Tinton5 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that two of the external links are blogs, I would agree that there is not enough to make this musician notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Town Hall Party as an alternative to deletion because he has at least received some attention although he was obscure here (one link) and here (several pages of results including Billboard, one of the links even says he is obscure). There's not much but I would almost prefer moving to Town Hall Party to preserve this article edition for future use. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be left in place. The claim that this artist is "notable" enough is not tenable considering that the number of other contemporary "one hit wonders" from County Music or Rockabilly who have pages here including; Benny Joy, Boyd Bennett, Zeb Turner, Ersel Hickey, Johnny Duncan, Hank Penny, Hobart Smith, or Jack Earls. I have no quarrel with their presence here but even a fan would have to admit they are not especially important or noteworthy. Many of these actually had shorter careers, smaller discographies and less hits than Carman. I would further argue that Carman is noteworthy because;

a) His use of an odd instrument; the hawaiian guitar, played in a unique style. An addition of him in the list of Hawaiian guitar players on that page might be helpful here. b) Having a distinctive sound and image, however comical, which is unique to this artist. c) His presence as a pioneer of early television in California which is mentioned in the article but a further mention in the article for Cal Worthington and a link back is probably in order. d) The sheer length of his career which stretches from the earliest days of recorded country music in the 1920's into the Rock & Roll era of the 1960's.

I shall make these clarifications and links in the next couple of days when I have more time and hopefully that should clear up any such objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjo Sam (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 June 2015

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