Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 March	16 March >

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) 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Path[edit]

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

Non-notable very small road in Hong Kong. FallingGravity (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not exist officially. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for independent notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now at least and any comments for merging anything can be made with no needs for AfD now (NAC).

Michael De Santa (Grand Theft Auto V)[edit]

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

Not a notable subject; article and references do not reflect notability. All of the information regarding the character can be placed on the List of Grand Theft Auto V characters article. – Rhain ☔ 23:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 23:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following article, for reasons stated above:

– Rhain ☔ 23:11, 15 March 2016 (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/2016 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the reasons stated above.*Treker (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is notable in the same way the character of Trevor Philips is, one of the other three main video game characters in Grand Theft Auto V. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE This article is linked on the Franklin Clinton (Grand Theft Auto V) page. If you click on that article's link that says "articles for deletion" it comes to the Michael De Santa (Grand Theft Auto V) articles for deletion page, both articles go to the same article for deletion page, there isn't a separate one for the Franklin Clinton article, not a big, just letting everyone know. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neptune's Trident: Both articles have been proposed for deletion, but due to similarity they are included in the same nomination, per WP:MULTIAFD. This has also been stated above. – Rhain ☔ 06:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters. The parent page had even more information than the two pages nominated, and these two pages are unnecessary. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per AdrianGamer, lack of information. The reason why we have a article for Trevor Philips because the character was very well received with both the character and voice actor Steven Ogg having been nominated for many awards for character/performance. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and merge any unique info to the appropriate section in List of Grand Theft Auto V characters. The character of Trevor Philips is not notable solely for his status as the main character of the game, but for his perception and impact among the community, as others have stated. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not independently notable, minimal content present to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge with pre-existing, redirected articles (without the GTAV disambiguator) and redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Playable characters for lack of individual notability. The characters should be split out if and when the secondary source coverage (doubtfully) necessitates it. czar 02:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the Olympics are enough to keep this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Aabye[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 23:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes WP:ATHLETE. Individual earned a gold medal at the highest level of international competition (1900 Olympics). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An athlete who won an Olympic gold medal is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just being in the Olympics meets notability, let alone being a gold medalist. RonSigPi (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 23:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre columbian puerto sexuality[edit]

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

This page has no place in an encyclopaedia. It is written like an essay, and has no claim to significance. The "sources" this page cites are unreliable or unrelated to the subject of this article. This article also contains what could be categorized as pornographic content. Ethanlu121 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedicly writen and I'm not sure about the sources.*Treker (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete At best deserves a merge to some article about Indigenous peoples of the Americas (it's very unclear as to what people exactly, as the subject matter is about two continents with vastly different groups of people). However the article is written very messily and I don't think anything can be salvaged from this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing comes up by searching through the above "Find Sources". A search of Questia shows the authors listed at the bottom of the article have actually written about sexuality, transgender issues, etc. I'm not sure about the specific titles listed next to their names. However, the way this is written reads like a personal essay. WP:NOTESSAY. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- don't merge, just kill it. Quis separabit? 23:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly an essay with little to no basis in research or fact ("men had sex with men without being seen as homosexual"). Does not belong in an encyclopedia. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best[edit]

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

A Major ~~COI~~ POV issue waiting to happen. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see what the "conflict of interest" is. Our standard policies should avert any serious problems with any single poll receiving WP:UNDUE coverage (I have just cut back some of the Sight & Sound stuff that was swamping the article). The article surveys an overwhelming number of different polls utilising many different methodologies, so the debate regarding which films are the greatest has been engaged in at every level (critics, the industry itself, audiences etc) and thus satisfying notability without any shadow of a doubt. While not particularly pretty in some ways I think this article represents Wikipedia at its best i.e. bringing together a huge amount of information and making it digestible for layman readers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOWBALL consensus last time. Nominating editor Zppix fails to challenge why this compelling consensus should be overturned. Article meets WP:YESPOV readily by describing significant opinions and providing in-text attribution. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason that I can see to second guess the rather snowy keep from 2012. "A Major COI issue waiting to happen." just doesn't seem to me to be a persuasive rationale. The list is thoroughly referenced, to critics' polls, festivals, review sites and the like. If a "COI" editor from wherever wants to claim that his - or his client's film - is, like, the best ever.... he's going to need a reference or it won't survive, surely. Any spam that makes its way into the article can and should be dealt with at the editing stage, not at Afd. (Looking at Canada, as an example, the section's five titles are either pretty standard or in the case of Wavelength, the outlier, explained and referenced). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD's. BTW COI with what? MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think the nominator meant POV when he or she typed COI...? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name of the article doesn't sound proper, but I couldn't come up with anything better. The subject matter however very much deserves its own article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid deletion nomination aside, this article is in really good shape, with lots of third-party refs showing why those films are so highly rated. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure of what the rationale for the nomination is. Although I agree the title of the article is atrocious. Something along the lines of "List of highly rated films" would seem more appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd rather delete it than raise a WP:RM to change the title? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question, too. If you're "Not sure of what the rationale for the nomination is" and you're proposing an alternate title for the list, why then are you !voting to delete? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The rationale was because its a majorily implied ~~COI~~ POV title. Rename could be an option but the problem is that the article would probably need to be rewritten due to possible ~~COI~~ POV issues. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the article -- or list -- would need to be "rewritten" due to possible POV issues? That is to say, POV issues yet to come? Also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Even swapping the acronym COI for POV, you still haven't managed to come up with a coherent deletion rationale, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page reports what various reliable sources have concluded to be the best films made. Likewise, if POV/COI issues appear, they can be dealt with in the article, but that's no reason for pre-emptive deletion. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Ridley-Duff[edit]

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

Article does not appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Hamming 95 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2016 (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/2016 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography :( Unfortunately the main editor on the article is User:Roryridleyduff. That shouldn't be a considered for AfD, but it's hard to ignore, especially since he has been notified regarding wp:Autobiography and wp:COI (but does not seem to have responded). The article is overly long and promotional in places. His works range from a book that is cited >600 times ("Reader in Co-operative and Social Enterprise" - which seems to be a textbook) to self-published novels ("Publisher: R J Ridley-Duff (November 7, 2014)"). He does not hold a notable academic position. He might be judged as an author, but except for that one book he hasn't done anything very notable in that area. I !vote Delete, and think it's time to open a COI investigation to attempt to prevent further promotional writing. LaMona (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find independent sources that demonstrate either WP:BIO or WP:PROF are met. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography of a non-notable professor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overlong autobiography. I note that on his website links page, the first entry is to the autobiography, saying "Rory Wikipedia page providing an outline of his career and a full list of peer-reviewed publications. (sic)" -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article claims published music. Checking reference to New Horizons Music yields [1] yields "Welcome to the web-site of New Horizons Music, a partnership created by Rory Ridley-Duff and Stephen Anscombe to promote the music of Protos and its band members." So, self-published, fails WP:MUSIC.

Checking "Libertary Editions" as publisher. [2] This is a self-publishing platform. So is "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform". So is Scribd. He did publish a textbook through Sage, but it's currently unavailable, according to their site. So, fails WP:AUTHOR. No references with any depth from reliable sources. John Nagle (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and restart later, I would also suggest Draft and Userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think userfication works well with autobiographies. It would be encouraging behavior we want to discourage. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, userfying encourages them to work on their autobiography. We should be discouraging it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Khan (Actor)[edit]

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

I'm bringing this here despite the fact that it has been speedy-deleted 6 times (under this title and under the title Hafiz Khan (actor)). Nevertheless, there is now a list of references. I still think that they don't quite suffice and there is something awkward about a lede sentence that says "best known for his upcoming role". At the very least, we might want to wait until the movie comes out... Pichpich (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. In addition, the person seems to be notable only for 1 event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz_khan(actor) might need to be deleted as well. Similar content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this imaginably better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable, only role yet upcoming. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article clearly meets the criteria for speedy deletion, as it is an article about an insignificant person. This article should also be creation protected so that it is not created again. Ethanlu121 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drifts (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary reliable coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 02:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Part of the problem may be that this article is mis-named. Possibly this article was translated to English from this article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. The film is actually called "Derivas". Even so, I am unable to find reliable source coverage in either language, or either title. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I consider that the article is not misnamed. The Portuguese original title is in fact Derivas, whose literal English translation is Drifts, and Dérives the French one.

The article was first created on 4 November 2012 in Portuguese, translated into French on 21 June 2013 and in English on 13 February 2016‎. The original title might prevail in any other language. It may be followed by its translation between parenthesis or figure as a translated title followed by its original one, between parenthesis as well, without affecting the sense of the film narration.

The point here is the concept of Dérive, the theme of the film, a French word imported into English. This word has Roman etymology: deriva (noun) derivare (verb), that means to relocate, to move from one place to another. As a verb, it must be translated by “to drift” in English, “derivar” in Portuguese, “dériver” in French. As a noun, it must respectively be translated in singular as “drift”, “deriva”, “dérive” and in plural as “drifts”, “derivas”, “dérives”. In the film several characters practice different sorts of drifting. Restraining what this represents in novelty and originality into the Portuguese word Deriva(s), crucial significance would be lost. A distinctive attribute of this film would be lost as well: a certain pre-eminence as experimental film. Ambiguity is another important factor in this story. References giving basement to these reasons appear to be enough in the article at its present state.

~Tertulius (talk):03:33, 03 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that actually isn't the point. This is a deletion discussion. Therefore, the point is: can significant coverage of this film be found in reliable sources? Sources covering the film under either name would suffice.

The article name would be the subject of WP:RM discussion if this is kept. Basically, if the film was released in English-speaking countries, then the name of the article should be the name used for the English release — and that name is as likely to be Derivas as Drifts. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Northamerica1000,

I made up my mind and decided it would be reasonable to put an end to an un-existent dispute about this article caused by an unpredictable takeoff of user Bovineboy once again. I’m not sure that if doing so I’m violating any particular WiKipedia rule or principle. I´m nevertheless sure that doing so would be the only choice I had. Please feel free to correct my decision if you think it is wrong. I’ll soon remove the AfD message for deletion. I’ll be waiting for your advice in the meantime.

My best,

Tertulius (talk):00:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: message for you above. Tertulius, you can call this page to the attention of specific users by using the {{ping|username}} tag, as I have done in this comment.

@Tertulius: please don't remove AFD tags from articles unless there is a clear consensus to keep the article and you're willing to close the AFD discussion. The nominator can also withdraw it. Otherwise, an administrator is responsible for removing the tag and closing the discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't contributed to this discussion other than relisting it. It appears that my username was misread for Amatulic's. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kattradhu Thirai[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Unreferenced. RJFJR (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree entirely with RJFJR. They haven't even attempted to elaborate as to why the website might be noteworthy and have provided no citations. Pupsbunch (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)pupsbunch[reply]

Delete the website is less than six months old, and the article makes no notability claim; it also fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage, much less significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Almost all I found were their own posts. --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philaesthoism[edit]

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

Non-notable art term. This term is used solely by a single artist (Sasikrishnan). No other artist has ever used this term to define their art. As such, this article should be deleted and replace with a redirect to the article about the author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a terrible neologism for "love of beauty" (philocaly) that doesn't even deserve a redirect to Sasikrishnan. Per WP:NEO. Mduvekot (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable and possibly used to promote the artist. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also encountered this when it started and this may simply need to be restarted when better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST ⋅ Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen sakhinana[edit]

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

Kangaroge (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As no deletion rationale has (as yet) been added, I'll just say that this autobio article is a speedy delete per WP:A7. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. Case of WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Drm310 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As non-notable fringe technology. Sandstein 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transpositional modulation[edit]

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

Despite several patents granted to the inventor of this technology, no articles about it have appeared in any peer-reviewed technical journals and, to date, no saleable products have been produced based on this technology. My own belief is that the technology is not feasible (see the "Dubious" section of the talk page), but it would be WP:OR to disprove the technology (again, since no peer review has yet occurred for this technology). However, the lack of any reliable sources argues that Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without pronouncing on the merits of the technology, that article is insufficiently sourced (cutting out the homegrown stuff, it comes down to two newspaper puff pieces) and overly promotional (how often is Gerdes' name mentioned?).-- Elmidae (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would encourage keeping the stub because examiners at the USPTO have determined that the technology is within the real of possibility Chapter 2100. Scroll down to: 2143.02 "Reasonable Expectation of Success Is Required [R-08.2012]" for more detail. In addition, the subject is non-trivial. Specific reasons for skepticism about the technology could be added to the entry. The question of whether the technology will work is still unsettled by either the company or technology skeptics. Gerdes is mentioned frequently because he is the inventor and so far represents most of the verifiable public sources about the subject. That is an editing issue that can be corrected. CosmicEngineMan (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have mentioned at User talk:CosmicEngineMan, patent examiners are not generally experts in the fields of the patents they examine, and for them, the "realm of possibility" is pretty wide. Many patents have been granted for inventions that could not actually work, and no requirement exists for the invention to actually work to be granted a patent. Since Wikipedia requires reliable sources (and for technology issues such as this, those sources would generally entail technical journals), and since no such sources exist for this technology, it seems that we should delete this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is pure WP:FRINGE. Notice that the granting of a patents does not amount to peer-review (see WP:PATENTS). Tigraan (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sendi Ian[edit]

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG - insufficient independent coverage. The clubs given do not play in a fully professional competition. C 679 15:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NFOOTY/WP:GNG – lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Henly[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the he Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never played at a fully-professional level of football. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright not my fault he's pish ;) Andrew Henderson 17:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Andrew Hendo
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – falls short of benchmarks as noted above. C 679 12:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Raj (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Nothing to disambiguate - just one listed article exists. Notability of the second is questionable and not proved yet. Also, in the existing article Rajkumar (actor) the name "Dr Raj" is not mentioned at all. So thisdisambig is useless. XXN, 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are a few people with wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&profile=default&search=%22dr+raj%22) that I imagine can be referred to by Dr Raj, this seems unlikely to be a general use appellation for any of them except Rajkumar (who's referred to as Dr Raj in at least one place on wikipedia, so keeping Dr Raj as a redirect, which it is at present, seems reasonable enough.) Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no need for this dab page; have now added a sourced mention of the nickname to the actor's article, previously lacking. PamD 16:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by Sphilbrick. Article was tagged with CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse TV (Philippines)[edit]

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

Fantasy TV station. Corus Entertainment shows appear to be limited to Canada, and unlikely to be aired on ABS-CBN. Shirt58 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Filipino fantasy TV vandalism; all the alleged programs aren't licensed to the Canadian Treehouse and seem awfully out of format for a preschool channel. If you're going to hoax (and please don't) at least throw in an actual show for five year-olds. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, might as well include Element Animation (Philippines).--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above as a hoax, not only the article being discussed here but all of the pages that were created by the creator. Consider blocking him and salting the page as well. Sixth o f March 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax, and so tagged. I have deleted two other pages with similar hoaxes by this editor today. DES ^(talk) 01:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation as per Drm310. BethNaught (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Meri Jodi[edit]

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

I think this article is about a television show— article isn't entirely clear. Whatever the subject is, there is no evidence provided of its notability. KDS4444^Talk 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G12 of http://harpalgeo.tv/all-programs/tera-mera-rishta/. --Drm310 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by JohnCD, copyright violation. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Janoon Mera Khuda Janay[edit]

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

Article includes no references and shows no evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 14:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G12 of http://harpalgeo.tv/all-programs/main-janoon-mera-khuda-janay/. --Drm310 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Drysdale (moderator)[edit]

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

Listings from post office directories, biographical indices, and evidence of connections to other possibly notable people do not qualify this person as independently notable. Article needs to show evidence of this person being the subject of multiple, reliable, independent, SIGNIFICANT instances of coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. KDS4444^Talk 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bio here[3], Encyclopedia entry here[4], another longer substantial encyclopedia article here (which includes discussion of his theological views), [5], an entry in the "Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen"[6], etc. It is also to be noted that his book of sermons, which was posthumously published includes a biography.[7], --Jahaza (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Jahaza has adequately established that the article subject would meet the 2nd criterion of WP:ANYBIO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DNB entry, etc. But I would also say that the Moderator of the CoS is inherently notable, and equivalent to a bishop. St Anselm (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm:, I'm inclined to think so too, but it's perhaps not crucial to make that connection. With bishops you're possibly in a situation in which there are almost certainly sources, but they may be difficult to access or in a foreign language. This is less likely to be so with the moderator of the Church of S, since it's an Anglophone country and a more recently established position.--Jahaza (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and Dean of the Chapel Royal for over twenty years. Plus an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. Obvious keep. We always keep everyone with an entry in the DNB for starters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet jahazi[edit]

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

The news articles mentioned here do not appear to match the titles provided in the article. Subject does not appear to qualify as notable per WP:NACTOR. KDS4444^Talk 13:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woah, this is the fifth time the page has been recreated [8]. I had tagged it for speedy deletion previously. The whole article is a blatant hoax (or a test page, assuming good faith). The news articles do not match the titles and the claims are atrocious. It says "Born 26 June 2000" and yet "For his role in 's romantic drama (1999), Jahazi was awarded the Entertainer". Seriously, just delete and preferably stop the creation of another article with the same title.

As an afterthought, please consider taking some action against the article creator Abhijeet jahazi. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:SELFPROMOTION if nothing else. Also please note the editor has created this Template:Abhijeet Jahazi in another attempt to keep their article on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Selfpromotion and badly made to boot.*Treker (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as this is obvious enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Fargo Tornado[edit]

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

Non-notable natural disaster, no references, no evidence of notability, fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and does not appear to meet the requirements of any of the subject-specific guidelines. KDS4444^Talk 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1957 Fargo tornado. They appear to be the same tornado. The existing article has some sources, and there are more sources available, including this photo series by North Dakota State University, this report from the National Weather Service, this scan of a report compiled by Ted Fujita (developer of the Fujita Scale) and this USA Today story. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to 1957 Fargo tornado. A GF first edit, but the article already exists. — Maile (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1957 Fargo tornado. A quick search results in many sources, including many articles noting its 50th anniversary. It's clear to me that any storm that destroyed 1,300 homes and killed 13 is notable enough for its own article. —LinkTiger (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per LinkTiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berti118 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as no one has avidly commented about deleting entirely exactly and this can be improved if need be (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SoftXpand[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the 2008 blog-post and review identified in the previous AfD, the most substantial coverage I can find is a 2009 Jerusalem Post article ([9] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), which also mentions a Red Herring award that year. There are also a couple of PR announcement items from 2011. These pieces are sufficient to provide verification, but feel too flimsy to demonstrate WP:NSOFT / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see significant coverage: [10] from Softpedia, [11] from v3.co.uk (no, I never heard of it, either, but it looks reliable), [12] from IT Pro, [13] from ZDNet, [14] from Chip (German), and [15] from TechRadar. I couldn't find anything at PC Magazine or PC World, which is a bit odd for notable PC software, but these other sites all did reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources found by NinjaRobotPirate. The number of in-depth reviews is enough for this to pass GNG. sst✈ 05:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete itpro.co.uk, zdnet.com are good. SoftPedia and chip.de fail RS as they have no author. v3.co.uk fails GNG because it's not significant coverage. techradar.com is short and the author (PC Plus) is questionable. I couldn't find any better sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What? A full-length article in Chip magazine fails RS because they didn't credit the author? Where is that part of the guideline? And the v3 article is not significant? How is it not significant? It's a full-length review that spans multiple pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" is kind of a shorthand for "let's wait until we possibly hear from the subject, since for now it is not clear whether we have a valid BLPREQUESTDELETE and the subject seems to be notable by our standard, though the previous version(s) of the article were unacceptably puffy. If we do hear from the subject we'll act on it then. Closing this, with thanks to IP 86.17.222.157 for their efforts." Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Yarmush[edit]

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

While the subject of this article may meet notability guidelines (and I only say "may" as the previous versions of the article read mainly like a CV dump), the major contributor to this article, User:Timjm, has deleted the article's content twice, stating that the subject of the article "asked for a majority of the material to be removed" and, upon reverting that mass-blanking, "Dr. Yarmush asked for only the first sentence to remain. Please do not undue [sic] my changes". What remains does not show how any notability criterion is met; as I do not wish to edit war, and as other editors have edited this, WP:CSD#G7 does not appear to apply, so it is brought here for discussion. Kinu ^t/_c 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject does appear to be notable, and justified in having an article. WP:PROF appears to be met by number of published papers Though there is a content dispute. The subject of the article though should not determine the content. What is in there should be determined by what the references say. The style of the writing at maximum size has some puffery and peacock terms, so I can see that could lead to embarrassment. Can Timjm please disclose if they have a WP:COI on this topic? If they work for Martin Yarmush then this may explain the content addition and removal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes multiple counts of WP:PROF. I'm not surprised that the subject might be embarrassed by the hagiographical nature of the article before it was stubbed, but that's something that should be fixed by editing rather than deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE -- yes, he's a pass of WP:PROF for distinguished professor title among many others, but he is a non-famous person who has requested deletion and the major contributor to the article also wishes deletion. He's not so famous that we don't take the subject's wishes into account. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE & Michael Scott Cuthbert Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent the following email to Professor Yarmush to clarify whether he is actually requesting deletion:

Professor Yarmush,
I don't know if you are aware that there is a discussion taking place about whether the Wikipedia article about you should be deleted. Is your objection to the existence of an article in any form, or to the specific form that the article took before it was cut back to one sentence?
Regards,
[redacted],
Volunteer Wikipedia editor

86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this -- it is important to be sure of the subject's wishes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pause to see if there is a response to the IP's query to the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reply yet, but let's remember that Professor Yarmush is under no obligation to reply promptly, or at all. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient participation. No prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong | gossip _ 21:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers[edit]

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

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, cleanup and improve – Which of the seven points of WP:NOTDIR does this supposedly fail? The article actually passes all seven points of WP:DIRECTORY. Furthermore, it clearly passes WP:LISTPURP. It's a useful navigational aid with a discriminate topic focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTDIR #0: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed". The scope of this article essentially extends it to every vendor of wireless broadband in the world, which is hardly a smaller scope than the deleted List of Internet service providers. The only practical solution here is the category system: keeping this would be mindless busywork. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make some points here that are valid. Unfortunately, the nomination for deletion is not particularly correct. I've modified my !vote above (added "leaning"). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For comparison, here's an example of an article that (in my opinion) actually fails WP:DIRECTORY: List of United Parcel Service hubs. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila Review[edit]

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

New magazine, too soon to have generated substantial coverage. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In India, speculative fiction is new compared to mythology. The magazine has been active since November 2015, and has over 100 followers on Twitter and Facebook. Compare this to AfroSF project--SF from Africa--which has two book volumes out in the last two years (I think), but only 200 followers.

The first "issue" came out in February, but the magazine has been active for many months now. That's why it was "noted" by Strange Horizons, a leading SF magazine. When there are hardy any platform for SF in the region, this is already significant. It has been talked about by Hugo-winning authors (Ken Liu) and editors (Jason Heller) and Bram Stoker-winning authors for the last few months. (See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Mithila Review has a critical and serious SF community on Facebook with almost all major SF writers and scholars from the region, including Usman T. Malik, Indrapramit Das, Anil Menon, Mimi Mondal, etc. The group was started in December.

This is the first time a science fiction story set in Nepal was published for free, and it has generated an impact. Major writers and editors in Nepal (Rabi Thapa, Kanak Mani Dixit) have spoken about it on their social media platforms. (See 1, 2) With nearly 5000 website views and over 10,000 social media impressions in the first week, if this not a significant coverage for a niche project from South Asia, then what is? Even if there are no future "volumes", the effort has already paid off and should be noted and has been noted by SF community.

I hope Wikipedia community will consider the niche audience, the absence of SF culture in the region, and redefine the "impact" parameters for such a project before taking a decision. I encourage other members to introduce pages on Indian SF, or South Asian SF (I'm planning to write in a few months). My belief is that people need to know about these kind of initiatives. What better place to start to know other than Wikipedia? Even the about page of Mithila Review links to Wikipedia because the goal is to help people learn and discover speculative fiction and poetry. Even a prominent writer such as Indrapramit Das didn't have a page, and I created it with links to his works so that people could just go and read them. But it was deleted. I used to work in advertising, but haven't felt the need to promote anyone on Wikipedia that I didn't think deserve writing about. I would have appreciated if the editor had removed the links--if it was violating our guidelines--or in some way improved the page, but simply deleting the page was a huge setback.

I'm new here. You're the best judge. I will accept your decision, and look forward to contributing to a field of literature that I am passionate abut. It would be easier if we had someone who know the context to make the final decision. Salikshah (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but some tweets and Facebook posts are not the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources that we need to show notability. And insofar a negative can be proven, a paltry 100 followers on Twitter/Facebook really comes close to proving something is not notable... This simply is too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete it.Salikshah (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:Too soon. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopefully, it'll be more notable some day. But as of today, it fails WP:GNG. utcursch | talk 20:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. OR, CV, nonsense, how-to etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes, sexuality and pregnancy[edit]

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

clearly an original research with no significance and sourcing Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:FORUM Definitely a rambling personal essay based on OR, with the "resource" at the bottom being, according to Google, a site in Turkey whose registration has expired. — Maile (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This appears to be a translation (a bad machine translation) of a Turkish pamphlet on the stated topic. At best, it violates WP:NOTHOW. At worst, it's a WP:COPYVIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further, based on information at User:Namun01/sandbox, the article appears to be little more than a WP:COATRACK upon which to hang links to the author's own website in an attempt to drive traffic to his site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question What may be criteria for Speedy in this case? My A7 had been declined, so I've nominated it for deletion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, none of the standard speedy deletion criteria apply (although, given the extremely low quality of the translation, G1 (patent nonsense or gibberish) might apply). However, an AFD can conclude that speedy deletion (per the WP:SNOWBALL] clause) applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rambling nonsense. I can't see any way to 'rescue' this and turn it into a proper article - I can't even fathom what it's about! Neiltonks (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, appears to be a front to have the user link to their web page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Previously deleted recretion of a badly translated mix of plagiarism )from the linked PDF), original research, and nonsense from the scam site that was originally linked (links now removed). JamesG5 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting he edited his user page to remove the Speedy notice from the original posting of this, which was removed. JamesG5 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will userfy the article upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ferreira[edit]

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

non notable. This amounts to an advertisement for his various non-notable projects. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! not notable? interviews in huffington post, The State Press, AZ Business Magazine, and Forbes.--27century (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy perhaps as he may be best known for the company which I've also suggested drafting and userfying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySocialCloud. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this person (as a person) in independent, reliable sources. I am sorry, 27century, but interviews are not independent sources and therefore do not contribute to notability. No objection to userfying and resubmission if truly independent sources are provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody seems to really support the deletion proposal, and the impression I get from this discussion is that while the sources are a bit sketchy and the article needs work, people think that we have enough sourcing for an article. Sandstein 10:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Hermann Geib[edit]

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

Inadequate references, so notability is not established. Two of the references are broken (unviewable), and the other three are to the individual's own works. There is a declined draft at Draft:Karl-Hermann Geib which should used to improve the article. The author may have been trying to userfy this draft, but it appears to be an article space and is inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I have changed this article, Karl-Hermann Geib taking into account all remarks should. What shall I do more? --Nordosm (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Nordosm: is this article your translation of ru:Гейб,_Карл-Германн? It is okay to translate, it is even encouraged, but for licensing reasons attribution must be given. You may do this with an edit summary such as Content in prior edits is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article at [[:ru:%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B1,_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB-%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD]]; see its history for attribution.. See WP:ATTSIT for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the history, Nordosm appears to be the originator and main author of the Russian article as well. --Hegvald (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm and Robert McClenon: I’ve edited this article providing a RS to its subject had how instrumental he was to Germany’s heavy water production. Hopes this helps, and as time allows I’ll provide a few more RS references I’ve found on him too. ThanksPicomtn (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm and Robert McClenon: I’ve done some more editing on this article and have created an article for Jerome S. Spevack linking back to Karl-Hermann Geib and have revised the lead at Girdler sulfide process so that it now links back to both of them. Hope this helps. ThanksPicomtn (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm and Robert McClenon: I’ve added Karl-Hermann Geib to the Russian Alsos article highlighting his association with Max Vollmer. Though the 1955 CIA report reference is ok, I believe the reference I’ve citied is superior in both its scope and knowledge, and which does itself reference the 1955 CIA report. Thanks.Picomtn (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It is going to be difficult to get reliable sources on matter that was at the time a military secret. Germany heavy water production was something suspected to be important in WWII. Accordingly the people involved are potentially notable. I have not attempted get at the sources to see if they support it. The fact that Nordosm is citing his own work, should not rule the article out, but it would be better if he was citing the sources for that work as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is he citing his own work? --Hegvald (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Picomtn and Peterkingiron:

Content in this edit is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article ru:Гейб,_Карл-Германн The basis for the Russian article was declassified materials in Russian. References to them in the English text would not be useful. In scientific literature in English at the mention of Geib often referred to ^[1] Link to it was an early version of the article Karl-Hermann Geib , but was removed as (fails WP:RS, WP:EL) 19:32, March 17, 2013 Jayjg --Nordosm (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Irving, David (1967). The Virus House. Parforce UK Ltd. p. 397.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm: Here is an excellent english language source on this articles topic from the University of British Columbia that I used to include information about him in the article and says:

Although never used in Germany, Karl-Hermann Geib in Leuna in 1943 developed what we now regard as the most cost-effective process for producing heavy water: the dual temperature exchange sulphide process (see appendix and fig. 10). Contemporaneously, the process was also developed by J. S. Spevack at Columbia University[37], and his process became the basis of the post-war North American plants under the name of the Girdler Process, named after the company which first exploited it. North American scientists were not aware of Geib’s work for many years after the war; Maloney et al. in their book “The Production of Heavy Water” (1955)[38] complain that relevant German wartime work was still classified.

Unfortunately Geib was not able to benefit from his work; in 1945 he was taken to the USSR, along with many others, who were given a 10-year contract to work on fission and aerodynamics. Many German scientists found this very congenial and some even went as far as to describe these 10 years as the time of their lives. However, Geib was not so happy and he made the mistake of applying for asylum in Canada, giving the name of Professor E. W. R. Steacie as a reference. Officials at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow did not know what to do with him and told him to come back the next day. That was the last time he was seen. His wife in Germany received his effects in the mail.^[1]

Hope this helps. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Waltham, Chris (August 1998). An Early History of Heavy Water (PDF) (Report). University of British Columbia. Retrieved March 18, 2016.

Hi @Nordosm: I still can't clear up one thing about Geib, Russian declassified sources say he was brought to the USSR on October 21, 1946 and are very specific about that date and time. US-Canadian sources though give a date of 1945 (no month or day), which I believe they dervive from the 1955 CIA report. Which one is right? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm: I have further cross referenced this articles subject with Heavy water#Production and Heavy water#Soviet Union. Hope this helps. Picomtn (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Picomtn:

Your quote from Chris Waltham is not complete. Once the point has to be a link [33] . It link to the mentioned book “The Virus House» by David Irving, the mention of which is not recommended to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is in the the source.^[1]

Thanks. Nordosm (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sadovsky A.S., Pietsch Barbara. Heavy water. History of one priority. Part 3. SW J o u r n a l History, Volume J11505-001, May 2015 http://sworld.com.ua/e-journal/j11505.pdf#page=3

Hi @Nordosm: Thank you for this journal report! There are now 3 firm references to 1946 instead of the one in 1945. Also, from the information in this report I was able to build out on his family in this article. Picomtn (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sandstein: With the substantial work done on this article, do you believe it should be deleted? If so, why? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on that. Sandstein 10:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks like he played a significant role in the development of heavy water. The sources are adequate, but appear stronger than they actually are, as they are padded with ones that describe the general background but don't mention Geib specifically. On the other hand, that may be the best we can do for this subject. The article still copyediting needs, as whoever wrote it has many verbs at the ends of their sentences placed, a sign of being translated from German. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important figure in German history. Sources adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – This^[1] is a strong reference for such a spooky period and can be built upon. Geib is notable. Keep plugging away at it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pietsch, Barbara; Sadovsky, A.S. (May 2015). Heavywater. History of One Priority. Part 3 (PDF) (Report). Vol. J11505. Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry. ISSN 2227-6920. Retrieved March 21, 2016 – via International periodic scientific journal (SWorld).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps also redirect, but not clear where to from this discussion. Sandstein 18:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rechargeable energy storage system[edit]

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

As it stands this article is a WP:DICDEF. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep not a dicdef. And the definition within is of a thing, not of a word. And the thing is a notable technical concept. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it distinct from kinetic energy recovery system? Based on what reliable independent sources? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, no indication that it is a thing rather than a word, as User:Altenmann said above. As far as I can tell, it's just a very specific type of battery. -IagoQnsi (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You got it upside down. This is not a very specific type of battery, but exactly opposite: a very broad type of energy storage, which patent writers love to use, to cover as much ground as possible. For example, in addition to classical batteries, the definition of "RESS" covers capacitor banks and other fancy rocket science gadgets. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "no indication of notability", did you try to search google 63,000 hits? Discussion aplenty. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a textbook example of WP:GOOGLEHITS. Providing a single but adequate source would be more helpful... Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant bits to Hybrid vehicle#Power This is a term used in the hybrid vehicle field to encompass the many forms of rechargeable energy storage used in these vehicles. A simple Google search shows that the term is verifiable e.g., SAE standard. The term was probably created by GM. While the field of rechargeable energy sources is huge, it isn't clear to me that this term is the mainstream term for it and I have not found in-depth RS discussing the term itself. Nonetheless, it is used in the HV field and I think it fits nicely as at least one of the standard terms used to describe the varied RESS listed in the section Hybrid vehicle#Power, which is just a bare list at the moment. --Mark viking (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, or possibly redirect to some appropriate energy-storage title, but I'm not sure what that would be. As it stands now, this is a classic WP:DICTDEF. It may be an interesting topic, it's just not an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DjSonny[edit]

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

CSD declined due to claimed large discography, I believe that this person fails GNG - unable to find reliable sources as well Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There aren't any inline references used in the article. Some external links are included, two are for websites promoting upcoming ticketed events, the others are self-published websites. I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing here suggests that he would pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I note a similar-titled article DJ Sonny was speedily deleted in 2010. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable musicians notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -doesn't look like it was notable when it was speedy deleted as DJ Sonny and doesn't have the press to back it up now, nor other qualifications for notability for musicians/artists Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scarah Screams (Monster High)[edit]

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

Not notable character and article only has one source, which is from twitter.*Treker (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Monster High characters. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect Two speaking roles for a character, nothing further, no notability established. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only perhaps as this is still questionably solid for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious A7 per the nomination. A friends five a side team who have never achieved anything of any note that would begin to satisfy GNG. Nothing more than using wp as a Web host. No need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berroca Juniors[edit]

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

Article about an amateur five or six-a-side football team. Prod removed by article's creator with edit summary "Removed incorrect information". This should be speedily deleted. Number 5 7 09:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Both "keep"s are by editors with 30-ish edits, so, yeah, no. Sandstein 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjan Contractor[edit]

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

Blatant self-promotion (see [16] and [[17]]) and ludicrous claims that he "commercialised" 3D printing, as if no-one else was active in the field. Also a significant lack of robust sources that go beyond the slack-news-day junk about 3D-printed pizza to solve food shortages. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will remove "commercialised" which is taken totally out of context, but no need to debate it. Simply will remove it. Will also add all media coverage.3Dnasa (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Subject is in a broad spectrum of coverage from Wired on down, all RS, and has made a significant contribution to the field. 3D printing page info was removed and isn't relevant here.3Dnasa (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am generally an inclusionist and he may have some notability, however, the close relationship thing bothers me a bit.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO in general; and as above, advertorial. No indication of much contemporary notability, let alone long-yerm. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep | GNews shows a wealth of RS starting in 2013. Subject is notable. I took a look at the article after a request-- and cut down a few of the adverbs and promo which I see as an actual problem, now flagged. Moresie (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unattributed intra-wiki copy by a non-author, and thus a copyright violation, without prejudice towards the original draft itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter)[edit]

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

This page appears to be a copy (without attribution, and therefore a copyright violation) of Draft:Alex Gilbert which has twice been declined at AFC review. David Biddulph (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)A[reply]

Why delete my article? Please keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ SG Gayashan (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What are you doing? Please don't touch the draft I am working on. You moved this to an article. Just leave it please. Just to add to that. I have always believed that this article is notable after 2 years of improving etc, but I never wanted another editor to simply copy and paste and add the draft up again. Makes me look bad, though I do keep saying.. Look at the sources etc, but yes I gave up on trying to get this anywhere but I am allowed to keep the draft active at Draft:Alex Gilbert for improvements so please don't delete that. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, as per WP:CWW, copying from within wikipedia without attribution is a problem, but not an unfixable problem, so it is a bit strong to say that it is a copyright violation. But if it has been refused at AfC recently, then I can't see that there is a good reason why a page can be allowed - surely it should go back to the AfC process if/when it is improved sufficiently for inclusion. I can't see that we're discussing deleting the draft, are we? JMWt (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some further thoughts: Looking at the draft, I'm not so sure that the subject isn't notable and therefore maybe the conclusions of the most AfC are wrong (which to me suggests a wikipedia process problem which I have no idea how to resolve. How does one judge the conclusions of a an AfC vs a AfD process?). The normal practice of WP:GNG requires us to find WP:RS from independent secondary sources to give notability. This HuffPo report was written by a staff reporter and is fairly extensive. Also this SBS report, this Northern Advocate report, this Mirror report and so on. This all seems to me to enough give notability. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassatt Crossing[edit]

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

Non-notable office building in a town of 3600 people. Began life as a copyvio of an architect's description. Having a good idea of this building's history is one thing, but actually being notable is another. BDD (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would prod delete or CSD if it's possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely would've A7'd if it were an organization. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would would personally have speedied this. Dschslava (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable office building, plus it is unsourced. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not to have an article. Whether to redirect and where to is a separate matter for which we have no clear consensus here. Sandstein 19:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toil (concept)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. In its current status it reminds me a dictionary entry:

"toil. (from Greek ponos) is a concept of... 1. antiquity. Concept 2. Judaism and Christianity. Concept 3. economics. Concept"

If required it can be merged into wikt:toil or splitted into Toil (manual work), Toil (religion) and Toil (economics), but its current status must go. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, "toil" clearly exists as concept in philosophy and religion - including some content related to economics doesn't justify splitting the article; the economics is covered also in Paradox of toil. And why is AFD being used for an article split? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usign AFD for an article split, I solely suggested it. If nothing is relevant nowhere, it'll go with the page if deleted. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a classic COATRACK --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any salvageable material to other articles. This is a WP:DICDEF and a WP:COATRACK, covering multiple concepts under one term.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. That an article is difficult to write due to the level of abstraction inherent in the concept is more reason to have it, not less. bd2412 T 00:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"That an article is difficult to write" denotes by itself the article may not be within Wikipedia policies. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to redirect since it is about Manual labour -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manual labour as the topics are broadly equivalent. This article was only created because In ictu oculi wanted to rename an article about an album named Toil. sst✈ 12:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article was created because someone above inserted an article for a non-charting album called Toil (by a band whose better-known albums get 3 hits a day, this one suspiciously gets more hits, why?) in the redspace for toil thereby blocking up search results for 2,479 uses of "toil" on en.wp, (or was toil originally a redirect to manual labour?), and the argument was made by several mainly pop editors that because manual labour wasn't the same as Toil therefore those searching "toil" must be looking for the non-charting album; see the current RM at Talk:Toil (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Calidum ¤ 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trinidadians. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 04:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trini[edit]

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

redirect to Trinidadians. This word is non-notable in usage. Or, is Trinidadian Creole, and we don't need articles about words in other languages, but redirects work fine for that. Cf. francais redirects to the French disambiguation page. JesseRafe (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Trinidadians. I tagged this when it first went up, a short entry about a slang term for a single group of people should be on that page, it doesn't warrant its own article.JamesG5 (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though this should be rewritten to define Trini as an asian first name of sorts. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that doesn't sound like a "keep" vote, that sounds like you want an entirely different article to exist in its place.

Redirect. Since the above comment is not exactly clarifying what should happen to the article, this can be redirected for now as mentioned above until there's enough for a particularly better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wildlife Improvisations[edit]

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

Non notable (yet?) piano compositions. Fails WP:GNG

The creator's only contribution to WP has been this article Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no third-party coverage about this subject, let alone reliable sources. Mind matrix 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Never heard of such music. No broader coverage to support the article's stay. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now until there's better convincing coverage available. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Forum of Deposit Insurers[edit]

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

Exclusively promotional advert which is based on the organisations own website, which is where this sort of material belongs, not here. This is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Blow it away. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and be restarted as there's nothing imaginably convincing for companies and organizations notability here, nothing of it is solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Taglieri[edit]

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

Bloated lovefest for non notable musician. (Even if he is notable some major TNT is in order.)
Albums are self released. Claimed billboard charting does not verify [18]. Other claimed charts are bad charts. Awards are not major. Touring lacks coverage. Article has a lot of sources but none are independent reliable sources that give him any depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article seems to be inflated and none of what is listed is solid enough for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Sources are indie or funky; most info taken from interviews; no mention of charting; and music published on a very small label (which appears to not be independent of the subject of the article). LaMona (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ray (Brazilian singer)[edit]

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

Orphan article that fails to establish notability and lacks sources. giso6150 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not qualifying an article; subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, obviously. Speedy deleted per CSD A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content (consists only of chat like comments). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

89-09%[edit]

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

This obviously doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Fdizile (developer) 02:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:Speedy keep#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Mattison[edit]

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

Fails NCOLLATH, and GRIDIRON. Some coverage from his High School career, but not enough to make GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, having played 19 NFL games between 2010 and 2012, as reflected in the NFL.com source cited in the infobox. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Forgot to look at that. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At the current time, it appears that the article's subject lacks the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Evanson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and no reliable source coverage to get her over WP:GNG. The strongest notability claim here is her winning of a minor literary award which isn't notable enough to make its winners notable just for winning it, and except for two reviews of her work in a non-notable publication, the referencing is otherwise entirely to primary sources which cannot support notability. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because her staff or member profiles on the websites of directly-affiliated organizations verify that she exists -- she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. My sweeps of Canadian news found a few listings of poetry events but not the in-depth coverage which is needed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found more info in some sources that were below the references. I also checked the award and her position at Banff. Both are significant in the area of spoken word (admittedly a very small area!). Her works are mainly self-published, which is a negative, but spoken word is generally live, not published, so I can't ding her too much on that. It's a performance art, and she seems to have reached a high position in that art in Canada. LaMona (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, are there newspaper articles out there reviewing her live performances, surely even a number of local sources might count towards notability? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please add sources if you can find them, and they can be reviewed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Mindfulness[edit]

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

None of the references illustrate actual notability. The Psychology Today reference doesn't even mention "Dancing Mindfulness", and the rest are actually affiliated with "Dancing Mindfulness." This whole article is a subtle advertisement for Mindful Ohio. Dharmalion76 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per OP. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources are nearly all background ones that don't mention the subject or non-independent ones: Dancing Mindfulness, Marich (its creator), and someone who runs a DM class. There is one article in the trade journal Addiction Professional, published by Vendome Group. Searching for additional sources turned up a brief piece from a local TV station [19] and an article in Spirituality & Health [20]. I don't find the three convincing proof of notability. If kept, the article should be stubbed down to the point where independent sources support the bulk of the content. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per CSD A9: Article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where no articles exist for the artists, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maek Pandamonium[edit]

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

Notability. The lede contains a startling claim of notability, but since the library where I use the internet blocks the source I assume its flaky. Other refs do not look at all solid. TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that works creator Jason Maek is currently a second-time-around at AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A9 as there is no article for band and the articles for the two artists have been deleted via AfD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Scipta[edit]

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

Kangaroge (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per low participation). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park Yoon-ha[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Alicia leo86 (talk) 09:52, 29 February 2016 (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/2016 February 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- she collaborated on two songs that charted in the top 100 and there is a good source for that. Usually that is enough to give notability to a musical artist.Peachywink (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Foundation[edit]

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

The Huffington Post sources don't mention the word "Iman". Rest sources are mostly from their website. Captain Spark (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some brief mention in few sources in search result, but this article fails WP:ORG. And the two sources used in this article www.iman-worldwide.org and www.culturaldiplomacy.org are not third party, independent sources.--Greek Legend (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Captain Spark's comments... True Huffington Post articles don't mention word Iman but they give context to what the chairman does. Incorrect that rest of the sources are mostly from own site -- 8 of 26 is less than 1/3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrus the Jerk (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Greek Legend (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently satisfies the applicable notability, best deleted until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -the little available press seems somewhat promotional and so does the format of the article. Comes off more so promoting the organization that also doesn't meet notability Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Wish the movie[edit]

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

I'm hesitant to nominate this article for deletion since one of its stars has a Wikipedia article, and coverage for non-Bollywood films can be pretty spotty, but searching for sources and finding at most insignificant mentions, as well as the article admitting that filming only started last week, suggest that at best it's too soon to have an article on this. Also note that the article creator may have some COI issues. I might have missed some sources (the film's title is difficult to search for) so ping me if anyone sees more. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although probably is to be renamed/moved to I Wish (movie) or I Wish (Gujarati movie) or some other title. The article (without source?) states that filming began in late February. That would be consistent with This source from the article, and another source, both state there is a July 2016 release date. When principal filming has begun, a movie project is real, and it is no longer "too soon" according to practice or some specific guideline about upcoming films. --do ncr am 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see evidence that this film meets WP:NOTFILM, unless more reliable sources can be provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not significant coverage of this future movie. All I see are copied press releases. I also found nothing searching in Gujurati. Cordless Larry is correct, it fails WP:NOTFILM. Also it fails to make a notability claim. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lead actress Monal Gajjar, her self confirmed the movie on her official twitter account^[1].There are several interviews of the director released in newspapers like Divya Bhaskar ^[2], DNA ^[3].--— Krunalpanchal99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/Gajjarmonal/status/709638771533176832
^ http://digitalimages.bhaskar.com/gujarat/epaperimages/18032016/ahm-a1753075-large.jpg
^ http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?eddate=2016-01-01&edcode=1310005

Delete per failing WP:NFILM, the articles above provide nothing of substance about the film. Also obvious COI and promotional issues which do not help the cause. It's just too soon, let's wait the film being released and receiving reviews as a minimum. To be clear, whatever principal filming has begun or not, I am a bit skeptical the film will be ever notable. Cavarrone 06:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable films notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Keast[edit]

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

Person with very little notability to be found-not sure how the founder of a blog is notable to be honest. Looking around online I can really only find people with similar names or mirror sites of this. Wgolf (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dschslava (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations asserting notability in the article, no apparent sources as demonstrated by nominator. — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nonsense it was. Speedy deleted under criteria CSD G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google it[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonsense Kangaroge (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should not even be discussed WP:CSD G1 should apply. Eagleash (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Irving, David (1967). The Virus House. Parforce UK Ltd. p. 397.

[2] Waltham, Chris (August 1998). An Early History of Heavy Water (PDF) (Report). University of British Columbia. Retrieved March 18, 2016.

[3] Sadovsky A.S., Pietsch Barbara. Heavy water. History of one priority. Part 3. SW J o u r n a l History, Volume J11505-001, May 2015 http://sworld.com.ua/e-journal/j11505.pdf#page=3

[KG-4] Pietsch, Barbara; Sadovsky, A.S. (May 2015). Heavywater. History of One Priority. Part 3 (PDF) (Report). Vol. J11505. Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry. ISSN 2227-6920. Retrieved March 21, 2016 – via International periodic scientific journal (SWorld).

[5] ttps://twitter.com/Gajjarmonal/status/709638771533176832

[6] ttp://digitalimages.bhaskar.com/gujarat/epaperimages/18032016/ahm-a1753075-large.jpg

[7] ttp://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?eddate=2016-01-01&edcode=1310005

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]