The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nanny McPhee#Cast. I forgot to say below but I never had any objections to redirecting - Redirecting to the cast sounds a better idea so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable actress fails GNG - I'm finding everything on a " Professor Holly Gibbs of the University of Wisconsin" but absolutely nothing on this BLP at all. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Nanny McPhee#Cast as this is obviously her best known role (two awards both for the film) and News and Books (searching "Holly Gibbs Nanny McPhee") immediately found results for the movie. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football players with 50 or more goals in a season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that 50 goals in a season is a really notable achievement, the numbers in the table and the sources appear to be different as well. Fails WP:LISTN, should be merged/redirected to some relevant football list. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this,I dont think it is notable at all..because what makes 50 is a special number not 40 or 45 for an example ? and plus it seem lacks sources for sure . Adnan (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, the number 50 appears to be an arbitrary one (as stated above), a google search of the article title brings up nothing relevent. Indeeed, it brings up numerous sites which highlights the arbitrariness(?) and trivial nature of the number 50 eg.'Top 50 world players in the world for 2013-14', 'Best soccer players of all time - top 10', 'Top ten goalscorers in a single year', 'The List: The 50 best African players in history'. It might be good for a trivia night but is not encyclopedic.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly rename List of association football players with the most goals in a season? That would answer the arbitrary 50 boundary. It should also be sorted by goals, not last name. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, although that would need better definition, as the 2 sources seem to give different goalscoring tallies (I guess due to different counting criteria). Also, WP:NOTSTATS makes me think delete is maybe just better. I seem to remember some countries in Africa didn't used to count their goalscoring very officially, and so some players in those leagues actually got about 70-80 goals a season, but aren't on this list. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the title of the article is inherently misleading, as the content states that only players in a country's highest-level league are considered/included. I bet even if we exclude lowly amateur/semi-pro leagues there are dozens more players who scored 50+ goals in lower-level professional leagues.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That was kind of my point above, this list only includes people who scored 50+ goals in a season in Europe or South America. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates WP:LISTCRUFT. – Michael (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While fifty goals in football season is a relatively rare achievement, it does violate LISTCRUFT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page fails on the following WP standards under Wikipedia:DEL

4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content The article is serving primarily as an advertising platform for the church.

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Very few articles from reliable sources

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline Due to the lack of reliable sources or large-scale impact.

The page has had a notability notification since May 2012 and has since provided multiple instances of notability from many reliable sources since that time. As such. the article should be not be deleted. 5minutes (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cyberbot. It's my first nomination. 5minutes (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - a lot of effort was made, but no evidence of meeting GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Oh, dear. This appears to be from a parallel world of parochial/evangelical home schooling, so RS and especially independent ones are going to be very, very difficult. This is made worse by the similarity of the name with other (secular and at-risk) programs. Delete per nomination. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteHeyyouoverthere (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: MULTIPLE and varied historical and cultural references have been added and updated. This page is of great historical and cultural interest to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.126.12 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) — 70.61.126.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: This page has needed modifications to meet the notability guidelines required for WP and the only links are to its own site or advertising for the church. This does not qualify as notable. 5minutes (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 5minutes commented: the only links are to its own site or advertising for the church. That is not correct. There are at least a dozen links included that are NOT in any way the church links or advertising or published due to the church (not that anything is wrong with including them as a solid reference, anyway). I hope that the recommended deletion is not a part of a greater conspiracy to eliminate references to successful black-owned businesses and multi-cultural community organizations. That would be very sad. The progression shown in this entry is very significant to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.126.12 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I am not sure what conspiracy you are referring to. There are significant problems with the article in question. The links on the page are to, in numerical order: NC Secretary of State referencing name change (not notable news source); broken link to News and Record article on remodeling (debatable as to establishing notability of article on a global basis); Youtube (nope); Pastor's CD Baby page (nope); ditto (nope); a broken link (nope); The church's website, next 4 links - (nope); Church Rater (not a notable news source); ad for party at church (nope), Youtube (again, nope); church's website (nope); Youtube (nope); an article on the history of Dunlap Springs (would be notable on an article on the mineral springs, but not the church); manual of the church that was formerly at the site (does not establish notability for this church); 2 articles that establish the existence of the former Bible college, but doesn't establish notability of this church (nope); and finally, an article about the closure of the cosmetology school that doesn't establish the notability of this church (nope). All in all, there is exactly maybe one article on this page - a broken link - that may actually establish notability for this congregation, and all it really does is announce that the church is remodeling. That does not establish notability and therefore, the article should be deleted. 5minutes (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject is not notable, based on the references supplied and my own searching. The article reads like an advertisement "Warm friendly people who are on a journey together to learn how to live the way God intended. … A cafe so you can get a beverage." That could be fixed, but notability cannot. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdresGezgini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I see that Google thinks they will make lots of money together. Does this make them notable? There does not seem to be the sort of coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. ubiquity (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find anything that indicates notability. Also note their Turkish WP article has been repeatedly removed and was considered non-notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - I consider it a sign that Turkish Wiki deleted multiple times (mostly G11) and this makes sense because my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing aside from minor mentions at News. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - purely promotional advert. Kraxler (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Its a federal reservation and not a BLP. Consensus appears clear, hence the need for early closure. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Rancheria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article with extensive BLP content, based only on entirely unreliable source for BLP. I think the intent is promotional. See adjoining AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - This is absurd. Why would you want to delete an article about a federal reservation? Are you aware you don't have to propose deletion for every article that strikes you as promotional? [1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, it's a federally-recognized Native American tribal reservation, not a BLP. If there are BLP issues in the article, then fix it. No grounds for deletion. Skyerise (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the two subsections were however clearly copyright violations, copy/pasted from the source. I've removed them. Skyerise (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skyerise thanks, but I noticed that text has been on the Wikipedia article since 2008, while the official website looks like it was setup around 2012. I'm pretty sure it originally came from WP. Not that it needed to be kept, but FYI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you tell it was set up around 2012? And how could you know whether or not there were a previous page located on another website which may have been the previous source. Frequently pages like that are initially on a tribal or community website prior to the purchasing of a domain name, and then get moved. Wikipedia and that site might both copy an older source. Skyerise (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skyerise: Just from poking around the Internet Archive. This was their old website from 2004, and that text is still on there in 2008 version. Same angle as in WP article, but different text. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep BLP violations and promotional tone are fixable (and already fixed) and not an argument for deletion. Federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations, and therefore inherently notable. Toohool (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It's a nation-state within the United States, for heaven's sake. How can there be BLP for a Federal Reservation? Ogress _smash! 09:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Media Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This may be a case of WP:ENN. If one looks through the very long list of credits in the IMDb reference -- which of course should not be used as a reference at all -- one sees a huge list of programs on which they appear to have provided technical services. Moreover, I can't find a single reliable source mentioning the company. It seems to fail WP:NCORP completely. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just cannot see any sources that say anything more than they exist, no WP:ORGDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I should add that the article creator has added a long list of "productions." If you go to their corporate website, http://www.evergreenmediaeurope.com/index.php?option=com_joomdragdrop&view=custom&Itemid=156, you will see a long list of programs on which they've offered what they call "directorial services." And IMDb does also list a lot of "productions," I see. So in that respect my nomination statement was in error. There is an article on a 1-hour TV drama produced by them, Murad (film) as well as the series Ariel Mothers. And the SPA editor has also just created a somewhat spammy article on producer Kamran Qureshi - omitting that he is employed by Evergreen. This company appears to be a prolific UK-based producer/re-packager of programming for the India/Pakistan markets. An Urdu/Hindi language search may be necessary to see whether it does indeed meet WP:NCORP, per Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs. I'll tag it to those deletion sorting pages now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete Comment: I'm thinking there may be enough to write about the Evergreen Media Group, but not for something specifically IMDB titled "Evergreen Media Europe". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right and it seems to be a completely different outfit, even if there may be some corporate connection. The credits look different. The article creator seems to be interested in the India/Pakistan market at least so far. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with deleting this one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a useless listing of non-notable TV productions, see also WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRUFT. Kraxler (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Emery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, and resting entirely on unreliable sources. I note from the edit history that this is a significantly trimmed-back redaction of an original version that fell on the wrong side of the advertorial line, but even the more detailed version was unsourced and didn't claim anything that would satisfy NMUSIC. There's already a declined speedy as well, which is the only reason I didn't just speedy this on sight. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged it as A7 before as no claim of importance was made and I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate WP:NMUSIC was met. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be a self-written article. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete & salt. Makes no claimsof significance whatsoever. Purely promotional, Delete & salt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He's not even locally notable and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from browser. I strongly suggest the author to use articles for creation when the subject is then considered notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @SwisterTwister:It looks like AFC was used, and someone somehow passed it... Pax Verbum 05:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Can't find anything on the guy. Surprised this even made it through...Pax Verbum 05:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity Enhanced Transfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

8 year old proposed extension to BitTorrent that went nowhere. Only sources are the original academic paper and one speculative BBC segment (referencing the paper). This was somebody's science project...

• Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Blaxthos, Tokyogirl79, and Wikimandia: I've recreated the AfD to point to the article instead of its talk page. ansh666 23:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software research project of unclear notability. As above, no evidence of real-world applications and thin sourcing. I also found this ars technica article from 2007, but like the bbc ref, it is just repeating the research group's findings. Dialectric (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay beaches in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. reddogsix (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, also those beaches have not self-identified as gay in WP:RS —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: question - how would a beach self-identify as gay? VQuakr (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: It would be either something the beach has just always known about itself, or possibly came after a period of self-questioning about its attractions to other ecosystems. But until the beach has come out as gay, we should not just make assumptions about its orientation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Ogress _smash! 09:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm trying hard to AGF but for me this looks like refspam, and in any case it's impossible to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt if these places are "gay beaches" or what exactly a "gay beach" is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 09:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unclear/not RS-supported definition of "gay beach". The absence of the more general Gay beach or List of notable gay beaches makes this very hard to be definitively kept. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as refspam - Well I even to the extra effort & searched "Gay beach" but found absolutely nothing [2], Meh was worth a shot, Nothing on Google either. –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Orangemike per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Allen (murder victim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. No lasting coverage in reliable sources beyond the initial news article. The author removed my prod because it was a "historical event notable enough for coverage in its own page in the maryland state archives", butthat page does not cover Allen in any detail. Google Books found some results about an unrelated James Allen that was also lynched in 1894, but not a shred of coverage of this one. Huon (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: That the Maryland State Archives believes it is notable enough to devote a web page to this heinous crime should be enough. Most activities in 1894 are not googleable, but one could easily argue that every documented lynching is notable. Is there such a thing as a non-notable lynching? Black lives matter. The Dissident Aggressor 19:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: as the only contributor to this article. Upon further research, it appears that this man was not lynched, but rather legally executed by hanging. I've added a newspaper article that gives a detailed account of this execution and dispels the myth that his death was a lynching. The Dissident Aggressor 22:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I really hate to say this, but...from what I can tell, Mr Allen was just (!!!) another murder victim; like so many who died in the Holocaust, or during the Reign of Terror, or in the Killing Fields, or on 9/11, he does not automatically meet notability criteria solely because of the horrific and unjust circumstances under which he was killed. If we have a list of lynching victims, he can be included on that, but the meager information provided is really not enough to support an article. Regretful delete, unless more information can be provided. DS (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean his lynching wasn't popular enough? We're talking about a documented, racially motivated murder of a targeted individual. Quite an encyclopedia you are here to build. The Dissident Aggressor 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (although I agree with DS that it's regretful...) - The page at the Maryland State Archives lists his death as a "possible lynching." It appears that they are basing that off a passing mention in this article about a different lynching, where it states that James Allen was "recently hanged for a similar offense." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's all we have in the way of information about this event. The fact that James Allen doesn't meet notability standards is not a reflection of the importance of his death. Rather, our content needs to be verifiable and the subject's notability goes hand in hand with being able to write verifiable articles. We regretfully don't have enough information in the form of reliable sources to publish an article about Allen's death. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 21:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin submachine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable prototype that never made it to production Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was going to say "merge to KB-ST, which is the parent company that made the design, but there is no article. In other words, the author of this and two other gun model articles thought it worthwhile to make an article about specific models of gun -- even one that never went into production -- from a defunct Ukranian arms manufacturer, but not that the arms manufacturer was sufficiently notable for an article itself. Obviously, if people are really, really, really interested in guns, then there can be an article on the arms maker that designed these weapons. If there isn't enough notability for that, there surely isn't enough for a single weapon. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Agree and that's what I would have done if the article on the parent company existed.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cool name but not worthy of any article. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILNG.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For the reasons stated above...Also, the references appear to be nothing more than a photo and specs. Plus, the only sources of information on this gun appear to be Wikipedia or Wiki mirrors.--RAF910 (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I couldn't find much in the way of sources for this one, as such the subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and fails notability under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and hoping I'm not treading in any merde with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Big Bang Japan Dome Tour X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's a tour and it happened, but the only reliable source saying anything about the tour as a tour is this--and what it verifies is minimal. Certainly it does not provide the kind of in-depth discussion required per GNG. Drmies (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Obviously there's not going to be much English press about a Korean band's tour in Japan. Here's an article about adding a second show in Tokyo, review of the second show in Tokyo, one here about the last stop and the tour total, this one talks about how they used the world's largest LED screen, and this one is about how the concert DVD they filmed is No. 1. I didn't look for Korean news but I assume based on the numbers there is going to be enough press to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but these are hardly reliable sources. Oricon might count, but that's about the DVD--and it's short, very short. Drmies (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies: I don't understand your claim here. Why would Sports Nippon, a newspaper that has been around since the 1940s, not be a reliable source? Is it a sports tabloid? Model Press might cover celebrities and pop culture and seem cheesy, but there's no indication it's not a reliable source. They have video interviews with Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, etc - why would their Japanese publicity representative have them sit down for interviews with a non-reliable magazine? And Excite faded away in English, but Japanese portal is massive [3]. So please help me understand why these are not reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, perhaps the Sponichi article is acceptable--so we can verify a statement about a screen? We're looking for in-depth discussion of a tour, remember. And Excite--"a collection of web sites" or whatever is just not the same as a decent print magazine. I mean, can we have at least one single impeccable source that actually discusses the tour, not a plethora of websites with advertisements and moving pictures all over the place that mention this aspect or that? Drmies (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure Not all the sources are good, such as soompi those are garbage. And updates from the groups company site while factual are first source only. However kpopstarz and the koreanherald are reliable third sources and I can see articles from them talking about events that seem like they could provide notability for the tour. Like having the most fans attend their concerts for that year in Japan. But when reading the articles further the article becomes unclear, I would actually prefer to see multiple reports on the claim rather than just the one since it is written strangely. At the very least a cleanup is needed for the page but I ca't say at this time it does or doesn't have notability.Peachywink (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article seeks to document an event, correct? That event is the 2014-5 tour of Japan by the band "BigBang," correct? Look at the article title. We're fretting over preserving a confused article with very weak verification that is improperly lodged in the first place, so, if it were golden, it would need an immediate set of redirects (multiple) to be useful. This is in addition to the fact that it is attempting to make a case for notability of a single band's single tour of a single country, which is terribly promotional/memorabilia tinged. For the assemblage of these weaknesses and the lack of strengths, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merde or Week delete. We are talking about the event? Then we have a lot of redundant information. It is a sub-section of another article, or just a set of facts. Shad Innet (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:since i am participating for the first time i will keep short There are enough articles to show that big bang has successfully completed its tour i think they have discussed about concert in detail here ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neenamallireddy (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to indicate notability as an independent article.Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cultural Competency Organizational Assessment-360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This looks like a promotional page for a service with no external notability. No external references are provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence of notability. And as it appears to be a very specialised software package, it's unlikely that there is any to be found. Maproom (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure specialized tool with neither evidence nor assertion of notability, however useful it might be. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the developer, so likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After 14 days significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has not been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Kushnir (the dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article that wasn't for Alla Kushnir the chess player. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication that she passes the notability guidelines for dancers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is unacceptable with its current state and I'm not finding anything to suggest notability as even News, Books and browser along with searches at Highbeam and thefreelibrary all give social media posts and nothing even close to actual coverage. Because I'm not fluent with Ukrainian, I'd like to invite Wikimandia to comment. SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's quite a few articles that mention her in Russian and Ukrainian, mostly in regards to appearances or TV shows. One also mentioned that she is a world champion in bellydancing, which would imply notability, but I don't know if this is a legit world championships. I can't find anything about it. She also won a TV show contest in Egypt but I don't know how to translate her name in Arabic.... —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codesign studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Here are two sources: [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• More likely delete - The two sources above are from News and frankly it seems like the only ones because Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing else. Considering this is a fairly recent company, it's unlikely there's that much coverage from the past years. SwisterTwister talk 16:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - In addition to the two sources above (which both cover the same story from May 2015), here's an interview at SMH's "The Zone" in 2012: [6]. But for me, a mention in the news every couple of years doesn't make the company notable. Adpete (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability under WP:NFOOTY, as has only ever been signed by clubs lower than League Two- and even then never actually playing a whole game. Sole claim to fame seems to have been not doing anything except being the son of one man and annoying another. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he made 3 appearances for Peterborough between 2002 and 2007, and they play in a fully professional league. So passes WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not then it wasn't! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Find a source for your claim then, because according to [7] he made 3 appearances in League One in 2004/05, which is a fully-professional league. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passed WP:NFOOTY if he played for Peterborough. The claim above that League One was not fully professional at the time of Fry's appearances is both bizarre and wrong. Number 57 20:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This shouldn't even be up for discussion. He clearly pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Da Drewster (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure how there's a claim that Peterborough wasn't fully professional back then, given it's played no lower than the 4th tier in over 50 years. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Would you consider withdrawing this? He played in League One with Peterborough United F.C., so passes WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update @Joseph2302: Of course. I would have done it yesterday, but I got slightly distracted by politics- and the consequences of shouting one's mouth off after a swifty on a Friday night. Consider it caped. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. (non-admin closure)

RightClickToWin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not finding the sort of individual significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:BIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from him being hired by a notable team. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't meet our notability requirements. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:GEOFEAT#1. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peckwater Quadrangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of independent notability from ChristChurch college.

Most of the sources are about a Bullingdon club event that occured here rather than the Quad itself Bosstopher (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as a separately-designated Grade I listed building [8]. As Christ Church, Oxford contains several other Grade I buildings and this is one of the relatively less well-known ones, I would have no objection to merging it as a section in a more general article (though Christ Church, Oxford is probably already long enough, so a separate article on the college buildings would probably be sensible). PWilkinson (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Science (game development studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enougn coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Coverage seems to focus on the app, which has an article, rather than the company. Notability is not inherited. Jbh^Talk 14:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. App doesn't have an article—the link's about its namesake. The game dev, as a subject, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 20:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: does the app really have its own article? Because the wikilink in article-space goes to an article with the same name on an unrelated topic. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @CorporateM: no the app does not have an article. The sources being used as refs in the article talk about the app rather than the makers though. I suppose an article on the app could be written assuming the notability standards for video games are low enough. Jbh^Talk 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the current article; no objection to someone creating an article on the app. CorporateM (Talk) 00:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Perhaps written for promotion as it's the only edit of its author.  sami  ^talk 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Feeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · (2nd Nomination) Stats)

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

Non-notable local politician. Feeney holds a position as a county councillor, with no evidence of ever having held any more significant office. Feeney received some media coverage a year ago in connection with her association with Mary Hanafin this coverage was a once off and does not mark subject as notable. Quirinus X (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Quirinus X (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Quirinus X (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. County councillor is not a position that automatically satisfies WP:NPOL, so she's not entitled to keep an article just because she exists — and the "internal party fight" just makes her a WP:BLP1E, so the article is not making a sufficient claim of notability to deem her more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Feeney was first elected president of Fianna Fail youth wing, first female also elected to position. Aside from battle of Blackrock as referenced above she has achieved notability from her work as president as the youth wing of Ireland's main opposition party. She was profiled in the Irish Independent [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggiegal (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being president of a political party's youth wing, even if one is the first person of colour, woman or LGBT person to hold that position, is not a claim that satisfies WP:NPOL in and of itself. Thousands of people around the world have held such a role without qualifying for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. Snappy (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Bearcat and Quirinus X. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or SIGCOV requirement under WP:GNG. If in future seeks/attains higher office may be scope recreation - until then also possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books That Grow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable. Antigng (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep An award and a showcase listing by two fairly substantial bodies. Poor article, but it's an interesting idea (Disclaimer: Some years ago I was a published researcher in this same field) and the coverage paid so far seems to scrape our bar for WP:N. Can you expand upon the "It's just not notable" rationale? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Gee whiz, taking 5 minutes to read beyond the poorly written-poorly sourced article to determine whether or not Books That Grow was notable reveals - via coverage in the fields of education, ed-tech, crowdsourcing, literature, and mainstream media - it is. I've edited the article and provided citations that support my KEEP recommendation.
• Keep: The present article is still promotional. It has testimonials in it, for one thing. If the nomination got the article improved, that's a good thing. Articles that advertise and don't substantiate their claims are a bad thing. (And yes, it's not very controversial to say that low literacy adults are an underserved population.) Hithladaeus (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Biofuel. All this is already at Biofuel so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuels technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Need more information and citation for article. Rahulgemawath (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Biofuel. VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Biofuel Shad Innet (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Biofuel; the content is already covered there. This is a reasonable search query, so redirection is appropriate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OCEAN Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created as an Elance job by an undisclosed paid editor [10], and the quality of it shows. So much spam, and no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - low-quality sources that show borderline notability at best, and very little substantiation of the article content. WP:TNT applies - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete few independent sources and the ones we have are passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete The article contains multiple sources from what looks like legitimate newspapers in Jamaica, where Ocean is the subject of the article. There is no policy instructing us to delete articles in response to Terms of Use violations, especially when no apparent effort has been made to educate the user on these requirements, or any warning provided. That being said, we do revert edits made by block-evading editors and a quick look at the circumstance seems to suggest it is almost certainly a sock. In a case like this, we should lean towards delete in borderline cases. I don't think the article is actually worse in quality or in strength of sources as many volunteer-written pages. CorporateM (Talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources struck me as advertorial or barely-rewritten press releases - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be an ad for a non-notable publication which is itself basically a collection of ads. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Glen 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shatika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't have verifiable citations for verification. Mohith:) 10:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Shatika is a campaign that is used to promote the Indian Handloom Industry in India. Page will have all the information regarding Indian Handlooms and the Weavers of India which will make Indians to fall in love with the age old attire of India. Haritha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harithaseo (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising. So tagged • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence interval for maximin effects in inhomogeneous data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:OR, all the sources support other papers which this article builds upon. There are no sources for this material itself. Bazj (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this preprint corroborates at least part of what is being claimed in the article; some sentences have actually been copied verbatim from it. However, it's just a preprint, so delete for lack of notability (and copyright violation). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely original research, except for the bit that's a copyvio. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pretty much WP:NOT PAPERS. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the world’s biggest airports by gates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT. Also has no sourcing, and doesn't appear to be accurate. The list includes airports with only 11 gates, but somehow has excluded Tijuana International Airport which has 23 gates. I only looked for one omission as I was suspicious that the list contained obvious errors. However, there's a good chance further inspection would reveal more. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

• The article is about Gates, but Specifically ones with Aerobridges, Tijuana International Airport may have 23 gates, but only has 10 Aerobridges.
• Like most statistics on Wikipedia, this one refrains from being a complete list, and airports having 10 or less Aerobridges, in my opinion, are less significant to the individuals interested in this subject.

But if you feel that it is not, than by all means complete the list. Mannytzohar (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, trivial and non-notable —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All lists are listcruft, but this is totally pointless. I can't believe any reader would be interested in this trivia. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Debate here maintains that the list is by a criterion not announced in the list title, when the list's title explicitly announces a criterion. I.e. if the justification for a list is that it is ranked by size, popularity, height, mass, or date, then its value hinges upon that criterion being of value (and, by extension, notable). Here, the criterion is "gate," but then it's not. The case is made impossible. (And, incidentally, why a "clean" list of this sort would pass is also debatable. Is number of gates a significant selection criterion?) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP People are interested in such subjects. ^{[2] [3] [4]} to name a few. (Mannytzohar (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  Not WP:RS: User content of online forums. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Also struck duplicate !vote. One person can only !vote once but are free to comment as much as they want. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The number of gates is a significant selection criterion, by being a number in itself. References to blogs is the most accurate source when it comes to interest in a subject, many people will have a need for such information. 122.105.193.144 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)— 122.105.193.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Confirms !vote. None of even slightly more prominent reliable publications did airport gate number rankings, as deeply back as I can see. If keepers cannot produce better sources (that is not self-published, unlike forum posts or blogs) to establish the notability, this will be well into the deletion pit. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Hisashiyarouin.Charles (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 04:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 05:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was originally going to say that this should redirect to the character's page since her role on Hollyoaks was notable, but a little digging brought up sources about her acting since then. It looks like she never returned to television but has enjoyed a moderate amount of success on the stage circuit, enough to where it'd show that she passes notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards keep since she has received an acceptable (but not outstandingly significant) amount of coverage. News indeed found results for stage work. I was also going to originally suggest moving since her IMDb only two things but I suppose this coverage is acceptable enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SwisterTwister. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Adelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is simply a working actor who had minor roles in a few movies and shorts, most of which themselves are so minor they don't even have Wikipedia pages, and a couple of TV roles, but nothing since 2003 — a dozen years ago.

There's an uncited claim about an MTV award, but searches, including on [+"MTV video music award" "jason adelman"] and [+"MTV award" "jason adelman"], fail to verify this.

His only claim to fame is that he once was engaged to Karina Smirnoff, and including an article for that reason runs afoul of the precept "notability is not inherited." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mazel tov on the upcoming wedding, but no inherited or married notability, and the acting roles were in music videos (except one, apparently). Hithladaeus (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would've suggested moving to Karina Smirnoff as he's going to receive the most attention for that but it seems the engagement ended in March. The low amount at his IMDb and my first searches found nothing to suggest independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Bijeljina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article arose (partly) from discussion on Talk:Bijeljina massacre, but the "new" content (ostensibly about the "fighting/resistance" in the town prior to the massacre) in this article is not reliably sourced. While I originally suggested that any reliably sourced content on the "fighting/resistance" be merged into Bijeljina massacre, it is clear there isn't any. This is essentially a POVFORK attempting to justify the massacre using reporting of uncorroborated testimony of defence witnesses in the ICTY case against Radovan Karadžić, which is ongoing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is well sourced by the BBC & CNN.

attempting to justify the massacre, keep politics & ad hominem comments out of the discussion, please. All I ever said I am doing & am doing is balancing the article & including facts, etc. Citadel48 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. I'm ignoring the wikilawyering. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm ignoring the biased & ad hominem accusations and actions. Citadel48 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia major portion of the article has simply been copy and pasted from parent article with zero attribution. This editor seems to have a copy and pasting problem in general. Could apply Template:Copied but the editors involved at the parent article seem to agree the sourcing is a problem..... that is new info sourced to copyrighted videos. (Thus not much to save that is new) As i have suggested before to Citadel48, he needs to uses scholarly publications over news stories and linking to copy vios on youtube. --Moxy (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK. 23 editor (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination (the small amount of additional material, where relevant and supported by RS, could be merged into the original article, but this looks mostly like a POVFORK to me). Anotherclown (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Verifiability is an issue according to all commenters. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rata'ii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems more like a dictionary definition than an article RES2773 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also fails WP:N and a very short unreferenced stub. The Snowager-is awake 03:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any reliable source to verify the information. If someone can find one, I'm happy to consider changing my recommendation. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems more like a dictionary definition than an article RES2773 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)RES2773[reply]
• Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this were properly sourced, we could at least merge and redirect it to a table of unusual weights and measures in which it could be cross-listed among others. But without sources, we don't even have that option. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A unit of measurement is not a dictionary topic. Although Rata'ii is referred to by Mithqal and Mithqaal, I couldn't verify the contents of this article. We do need to find some sourcing but I don't think deletion is the best way to get there. ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Kogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted back in 2013, this article still fails to meet any notability guidelines, while making promotional claims failing WP:MEDRS. Delete per WP:BIO guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From the talk page, the creator of the article said it best, "there is an incredibly small amount of third party literature out there about his work. Many people do notable work that is not documented by third parties." That statement is absolutely true; however, Wikipedia is not a third party source. Wikipedia is based on third party sources. If there is nothing to document his notability, then he quite simply will continue to fail WP:GNG despite how many times the article is created. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TTTommy111: I did not imply that wikipedia is a third party source, I only said that the third party sources are limited, but they suffice. I also am assuming that "significant coverage" does not mean by quantity, but significance. I have provided three sources where Lex Kogan is central to the article, from reliable third-party sources, where they explain his significance. Ibogaine is significant, as you can read about in the article about ibogaine, and someone who is mentioned by an industry magazine as its foremost proponent and having been the first to establish clinics around the world, Lex Kogan is significant. There are three other articles that are centered around Lex Kogan in the article, also from third party sources. NittyG (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article itself states that the "pioneering" work is fringe. It hides peer-review and academic discussion behind a passive voice "was found," and then goes on to continue promoting a particular cure for addiction, PTSD, and symptomatic depression. Maybe medicine will validate all of this. When it does, there will need to be an article. Until then, Wikipedia is not a jury and cannot promote. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Lex Kogan is not in the medical efficacy of his clinics as independently verified by the modern/Western medical community. Ibogaine may be fringe, but is significant enough to warrant an article about ibogaine. As Lex Kogan is the first to widely proliferate clinics around the world where ibogaine is administered, as mentioned in the reliable, third party sources I provided, he is notable enough to warrant an article. NittyG (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedirect to Ibogaine#Research: a fringe topic or alternative medicine practicioner can be notable, but this subject appears to fail the notability criteria outlined at WP:BASIC and WP:ACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: upon reflection, this is a plausible search term and should be a redirect instead of a redlink. Changed my !vote accordingly. VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly addressed Lex Kogan's notability. You have thus far failed to address what I have written in response. You will need to do that before a deletion is justified. NittyG (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NittyG: what are, in your opinion, the two sources that best demonstrate the subject's notability (as described at WP:BASIC)? VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unambiguously fails WP:GNG. I do not agree with a redirect either. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Woah, I apologize, I did not realize that there were two discussions going on about deletion. I have thoroughly addressed these concerns. I suppose I will move the discussion here. Please address these concerns before deleting.

I understand that this article was started before. I can certainly understand why this article has issues. Problem is, Lex Kogan is certainly notable, but there is an incredibly small amount of third party literature out there about his work. Many people do notable work that is not documented by third parties.

• Notability: As I mentioned in the article: "Kogan and his partner, Eric Taub, were the first to develop ibogaine clinics which provide treatments..."

One of the sources was Treatment Magazine, which is a reliable third-party industry publication. This is a crucial exerpt:

"... Lex Kogan, arguably the leading proponent of Ibogaine treatment, along with his partner Eric Taub."

This can all be inferred from the literature - Eric Taub was among the first to bring ibogaine into use in the Americas. And Lex Kogan formalized it with the expansion of clinics, which is the central focus of the article from Treatment Magazine. People are administering ibogaine in very haphazard ways, and people have even died while being treated; Lex Kogan has formalized the treatments professionally, with well-developed methods, protocols and routines, while also expanding it beyond any other person. Ibogaine is significant - think of any early medical pioneer in any field, and how significant that is - the notability of Lex Kogan is along these lines.

• Reliability: All articles are third party, and they are all reliable. A couple are interviews with people directly associated with Lex Kogan, but they are only to reference the claims they make about being attacked, and mundane details about how they administer treatments. I never added any of their websites, which of course give far more biographical information about Lex Kogan and the history of their centers.

• Neutrality: If you would like to know why I started this article - ibogaine is an important subject, and frankly, there is a ton of confusion and misinformation about ibogaine online, much of which is deliberate. Wikipedia is an excellent place for providing clear and reliable information free of bias. I have gained the knowledge of the importance of Eric Taub and Lex Kogan by gleaning information from peoples first hand experiences, which are not reliable third party references, so I have done my best to establish this on solid ground. I believe that what I have provided suffices. As for any issues about promoting their work, again, I have done my best to mention everything I could find in reliable third-party sources, including criticisms.

NittyG (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will also address the concerns each of you have individually above.NittyG (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely with your assessment. He simply is not notable, according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

• "but there is an incredibly small amount of third party literature out there about his work." --> exactly!.
• "Many people do notable work that is not documented by third parties" --> not according to how Wikipedia works. Please read the relevant guidelines, most importantly WP:GNG.

The only way to address this is by providing extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is clearly not available at this point in time. Not that it matters at this point, but the article is also very poorly written, and heavily promotional and full of unencyclopaedic language. Finally, understand that the first nomination's outcome was also delete, and no substantial changes have occured hence. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. A bunch of brief mentions, even to state that he is the leading propopenent of something or the first to do something, is not sufficient. Several of the sources in the article do not even mention the subject, and only one is even arguably significant coverage. Certainly not significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. (BTW, even if the article is kept, it seems to need some clean up as it appears at least somewhat promotional. For example, the statement that he and Taub are "employing staff that people claim were trained with knowledge and nuanced understanding they developed over several years, carefully administering ibogaine, along with medical staff that monitor patients" [emphasis added] contains a number of statements, such as those I bolded, that are not supported by the source, not to mention the weasel wording around "that people claim...") Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a redirect is necessary because the target does not mention Kogan. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skysignature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that reliable sources have taken notice of this organization. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately, Crunchbase is not a reliable source. Outside of that, there is nothing that I can find to support notability.--TTTommy111 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find anything as well, not notable either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RES2773 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately I've found no good third-party coverage to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Everything I'm finding is just auto-generated company data gathered by robots, nothing verifiable or notable. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McKenna (restaurateur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have no doubt that the subject of this article is notable but this autobiography is so overly promotional in just about every sentence that it's hard to see how anything encyclopaedic can be made of it. I just stopped short of nominating it for WP:G11 speedy deletion in case anyone thinks it can be salvaged but as it stands it probably qualifies. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article cites many sources, from which a respectable article can be built. I've already taken first steps at cleaning it up. More help is necessary and appreciated. This is a clear case of WP:SOFIXIT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's fixed up then great. I have no doubt that a good article could be created and have no reservations about notability but I'm not sure the original autobiography is anything like a good starting point which is why I proposed deletion for a completely clean rewrite. It's hard to argue with SOFIXIT but this is not a subject I feel particularly expert in or motivated by. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if the ongoing cleanup improves the article but right now it's a textbook example of the pitfalls that WP:Autobiography lists - and deletion would clearly resolve them. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether RichardOSmith feels up to the task of fixing the article or not, it is fixable, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What WikiDan61 said. Sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: coverage in several sources, meets WP:BASIC. This article, although it can certainly be more neutral, is far from WP:CSD#G11. The problems are certainly fixable via editing; be bold. Esquivalience ^t 02:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just get rid of the promotions, and it's pretty good. RES2773 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)RES2773[reply]
• Keep. I have removed some of the self-promotion from the article. It's certainly annoying, but should not prejudice us into deleting the article, the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Livingston High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable high school with only one source (Tumblr) and my searches at News, Books, Newspapers Archive found nothing to suggest this is notable or to simply support the article. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It exists [11], [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTommy111 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, User TTTommy111 has provided independent sources showing that the institution did indeed exist. Abierma3 (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu fiorella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My searches found nothing to suggest this is notable as a game player or outside being notable as a game player, with there only being primary sources (Wizards of the Coast). Granted, the article is neat and sourced but I'm not convinced with notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. I'm pretty good at monopoly, could I write an article about myself? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm the 10-time world champion at CUPS! —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I had the highest winning percentage at 2-deck Spider Solitaire at two different schools I taught at. (The others were cheating.) Tallest man in the world in the county. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: looks like a mere WP:HOAX to me. If you use the Ctrl+F thing across the sources, you'll find no mentions of him whatsoever. Refined Google searches returned nothing relevant. Information on his nationality and birth date are contradicting; infobox says one thing, paragraph says another. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nothing to do with afd. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, As described earlier, TheRedball posted positive and Sitush removed the positive because he is from other team. Then Leoaugust posted negative and when I checked the reference link, there was nothing about this article but still a new member Bentogoa restored the content. I think it is enough to prove Vandalism here because the article is already semi protected because of previous vandalism activities. I also submitted this link for speedy deletion but these guys from both team are restricting Aarvig (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)to do so.[reply]

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