< 16 April	18 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:RHaworth per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Organizing Institute[edit]

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

With only seven Google News hits, mostly blogs and PRs, and only a few relevant Google Book hits that I could see, there are very limited sources to work with (about this or RootsCamp, which might be the more notable of the two). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Huffington Post has a specific New Organizing Institute tag, and the organization has over 8,000 followers on Facebook. N1ugl (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the four HuffPost stories are about RootsCamp; the other two barely mention that New Organizing Institute had involvement in http://866ourvote.org/ and http://2012for2012.org/ , which do not amount to much for notability purposes.(see special:linksearch/www.866ourvote.org and special:linksearch/www.2012for2012.org). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Non-profit groups rarely have a large number of Google News hits, a better view of the scope is quoted Google Search hits, of which there are 350,000 Jjensenmike (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The New Organizing Institute has created a culture in the progressive movement of sharing best practices and training an entire community with the skills in organizing, data, and digital to win campaigns and advocate for change. NOI is so successful at that that the right/GOP has taken notice by attending RootsCamp the last few years and trying to copy the model with their own organizations. See this article in Red Mass Group titled "Why the New Organizing Institute is The Left's New Death Star Aimed at the Republican Party". Ninasin (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: New Organizing Institute appears in Slate, HuffPo, The Atlantic, Washington Post, and the National Journal as well as frequent hits on Campaigns and Elections and TechPresident. Examples 1) Slate: "A Vast Left Wing Competency" by Sasha Issenberg 2) TechPresident: "Republican National Committee's Biggest Challenge Isn't Tech, It's Culture" by Sarah Lai Stirland 3) Washington Post: "How Republicans intend to close the tech talent gap" by Brian Fung 4) Campaigns and Elections: "Moving Forward" by Sean Miller
Delete Based on the information currently in this article, the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are some "oppose" arguments above which are making arguments which I feel have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. N1ugl, Ninasin, and Jjensenmike, how did you hear about this deletion discussion? Please check out Wikipedia's guidelines - this deletion discussion is not a critique on the good work or reputation of the organization, and it is not clear to me that you understand that Wikipedia has guidelines. Ask questions if something is not clear. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Naked advertisement created by what appears to be a squad of sock puppets. Evidence of notability is thin at best. Sources do not provide the in depth coverage required of WP:CORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed verification test implies lack of notability. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect woman (expression)[edit]

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

Comment I fail to see how this is a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia article. Qua 'expression', it's surely a trivial dictionary definition, no more noteworthy than The perfect cheeseburger or The perfect holiday. Any straying into the territory of what is meant by the expression probably belongs in an article with another name. TheLongTone (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to be careful what I'm about to say, because I don't want to offend you, but this is rubbish. The expression "the perfect woman" is widely used in popular culture. I'm sure most, if not everybody, including yourself, have heard it on countless occasions. Comparing it to "the perfect cheeseburger" or "the perfect holiday" is simply not reasonable. Since it's an expression it should only be removed if it's considered unremarkable neologism, and considering there is articles for expressions like "Is the glass half empty or half full?" it should defiantly remain an article. Also, just because you haven't heard of it, in case you haven't, doesn't mean it's unremarkable neologism or a non-used expression. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does the expression differ from The perfect gin and tonic or whatever?TheLongTone (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "the perfect woman" or "the perfect man" for the sake of the argument, is commonly used as an expression. "the perfect cheeseburger" or "the perfect gin and tonic" (good one by the way) is not commonly used and is not an expression, friend. Had the phrase "the perfect gin and tonic" being used commonly and famously known as an expression or saying, it would be different, but it's not. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no way to build an encyclopaedia article around a term which has no definition whatsoever. We could also have articles on The perfect city, The perfect colour of the sky and The perfect misogynist and they'd be equally unsuitable for inclusion here. The encyclopaedic aspects of the factors humans find attractive in one another (and why) are dealt with in Interpersonal attraction and similar articles, so this serves no useful purpose. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt would very possible to build an encyclopedia article around the definition of "the perfect woman" in the sense of expressing extremely broad subjects. My main ace in keeping the article would again be that when articles such as "Is the glass half empty or half full?" exist, this one should too. It would actually be relatively easy to make a definition based on the articles name in itself. And welcome home from vacation, hope jetlag isn't bogging you too much, in case you traveled by air. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote repeatedly: I've just struck your second 'keep'. I wasn't on vacation BTW. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the...? Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect delete. Nothing particularly notable (or things to say) about this expression over millions of other common phrases. This would open the floodgates to "the perfect [insert noun of your choice]", e.g. hamburger, quarterback, hotel, etc. (Joan Crawford?! Ewwww.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ewww"??!! What about Grand Hotel? What about Mildred Pierce?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, for God's sake. First of all, this expression doesn't only mean what this article says it means, it means a zillion things depending on context. Read Betty Friedan or Carol Gilligan for distinctly different uses of this phrase. Secondly, in the meaning discussed in this article, the phrase is not notable. Third, even if there were some way using reliable sources to pin down the topic to what this article wants to discuss, it would fail because it's strongly time-dependent. It might be possible to write an encyclopedic article on changing social conceptions of perfection in women, but this isn't it, and the article wouldn't be called this if it were. TL;DR: WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly, the discussion is lost, so going to "drop the stick" as Wikipedia puts it. Regarding Joan Crawford Clarityfiend, I would not personally categorize her as "a perfect women". I wanted to have 2 color photos and 2 black-and-white photos. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this phrase, and any discussion of historical views of beauty and attraction would be better discussed in other articles, such as Beauty, Physical attractiveness, and Sexual attraction. Common phrases do not automatically get encyclopedia articles or else we'd end up a near-infinite catalog of cliched stock phrases used by lazy journalists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary definition, at best, and highly subjective at that. A good excuse to run graphics of cute girls, of course... Now, The perfect cup of coffee or The perfect day at the beach, that I could support... Carrite (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was more or less trying to talk myself into a keep !vote, as this does seem to be a fairly set phrase. However, a search of Google books finds no published work about "the perfect woman" qua phrase. (Sources may be out there, but so far I can't find them.) There are many books that use the phrase, but so far I have not found any that discuss the meaning, history, or other encyclopedic information about it. The title notwithstanding, there is also nothing in article currently about the expression, beyond a (flawed) definition. Therefore, delete the article as insufficiently notable or at best a perma-stub. And now I want to re-watch Mildred Pierce. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Cnilep above. That is the most damning point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited use the phrase. To be included into Wikipedia, there have to be sources discussing the concept of the phrase itself per WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and a subjective dictionary term at that. KonveyorBelt 19:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creates inherent and systemic bias, which is undesirable on an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't think this "article" can or should be kept, that is not a credible reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you're being bold enough. It would be possible to create a full-length article about the expression by covering subjects like the expressions origins, use in popular culture, famous celebrities dubbed "perfect women", and it's definition. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a POV dictionary term. Kierzek (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Freeman[edit]

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

If she is notable, the article doesnt show that, and Google News doesnt bring much to the table. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited are not about the subject of the article. The article fails to meet WP:BIO. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helicoptek[edit]

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

Google finds no reliable sources to establish notability for this person, and few uses of "helicoptek" at all in a verbatim search. No refs in the article besides a PDF from a file upload site that I won't download. Possible hoax? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Supposedly the inventor of Rave Parties in Europe. "It's at the end of the 80s that he kicked off the movement of the free party in Europe and with the creation of the Heretics, Helicoptek Crew, Spiral Tribe, Network 23, Rave On. Thanks to his presence and his drive, he imposed on the government of France the first Teknival, then spread its spirit throughout Europe. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The "real" name "Vintetroy" seems suspect. I can't find evidence of it as a surname; it seems to be a fanciful homonym for "vingt-trois" (sometimes mispronounced "vingt-te-trois), French for "23". —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It seems people are unable to decide whether these non-English sources constitute "significant coverage." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg (military unit)[edit]

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

This unit is mentioned only incidentally or trivially by the sources used in the article. Extensive searches have failed to identify any source that has provided more than a passing mention. It certainly does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. It therefore does not meet WP:MILUNIT. It is already mentioned in the Uprising in Montenegro article, and could even be mentioned in the article for the Italian Corps that commanded it, but doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 9 April 2014 (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/2014 April 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to meet WP:MILUNIT. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources prove it existed and with four battalions it was certainly a significant enough formation for an article. Should probably be renamed Skanderbeg Group or Skenderbeg Group, however, as that seems to have been its actual name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Proving it existed is not enough for WP:GNG. It needs significant coverage in secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:MILUNIT: "Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations (including combat, combat support and combat service support units). Examples include battalion-level or equivalent units[3] such as 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry;" This unit was four battalion-level unit which is four times "battalion-level or equivalent units".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not have significant coverage in secondary sources (unlike the units you quoted), so it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, let alone MILUNIT, regardless of its supposed size (which is unclear if you actually look at the references). The mentions it does have are in snippets of sentences, it is merely mentioned in passing. There is no detail on it, such as when it was raised and disbanded, who commanded it, how it was equipped or even where and how it was formed, and there is no reasonable likelihood that this information will be available or be added to the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why exactly is there "no reasonable likelihood that this information will be available or be added to the article"? Are you aware for a fact that there are no sources, or are you just going on a Google search? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have looked on Google Books, Google Scholar, and in my own reasonably large collection of books on WWII in the Balkans and came up with nothing that wasn't already in the article. Antidiskriminator has obviously also looked, and has come up with a series of brief mentions in passing in a few non-English sources. It just isn't enough. We know next to nothing about this unit, it just doesn't meet WP:GNG. Have you looked? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you have lots of books in Italian, Albanian or Serbo-Croat? Personally, I believe that a unit of this size is notable, whether substantial sources can be found or not. And I also suspect that better sources can be found, just not in English. Ask yourself this: would a brigade-sized unit/formation in the English-speaking world be considered pretty much inherently notable? I think the answer is quite clearly yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The answer is no. However, I know the Italian and Serbo-Croat terms around this and haven't been able to find any more references to it. What is notable is notable, per WP:GNG. Either there is "significant coverage in secondary sources" or there isn't. There is NO evidence there is more to find. My theory is that this is in fact the Albanian Blackshirt Legion (of four battalions), but there aren't even enough sources to prove that. They just aren't there, and wishing it don't make it so. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails the general notability guideline. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure There are twelve sources cited here. They seem all to be in non-English languages. What do all these sources say? Why are they being dismissed? Can others here read them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: others can read them, there may some issues with verification. But the point is that what is there is all there is, unless the article creator can find more in those works. My point is that none of them constitutes "significant coverage", even if there are multiple sources, that is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uprising in Montenegro. 23 editor (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I created this article which deletion is proposed and supported only by small group of editors (Peacemaker67, PRODUCER, Bobrayner and 23 editor) who are frequently involved in disputes against my position (link to editor's interaction search results). All uninvolved editors did not support this deletion. This kind of involvement should be considered to make appropriate decision if there is a valid consensus for deletion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scurrilous smear. I would have no problem with this article, and would expand it myself if I could find one source that provides significant coverage of it. We don't have a commander, a clear structure, even a clear name. No idea when it was raised, when it was disestablished, where it served (other than during the Uprising), or what weapons it had. From a military perspective we know almost nothing about it from the sources used thus far. I can't find significant coverage, and I've spent quite some time looking before nominating it for deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't chased me away from this article also, I would add its official local name based on additional source:

Vojnoistorijski institut (Belgrade, Serbia) (1982). The National liberation war and revolution in Yugoslavia (1941-1945): selected documents. Military History Institute of the Yugoslav People's Army. pp. 630, 732. ...the Albanian quisling group Skenderbey were brought In to crush the armed rising.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't chase you anywhere. And "Albanian quisling group Skenderbey" is no more the "official local name" than any of the others. There is nothing in that quote that says it was the official name, local or otherwise. What about a commander, weapons, date of creation or disestablishment, other battles, clear structure? Nothing. This source is the same as the others, it is a passing mention with no significant coverage, which is what WP:GNG mandates. So we have plenty of passing mentions (which largely repeat the exact same superficial information), and that's it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source, p 732, puts "Skanderbey" under quotation. That was only to reply to your unjustified claim that "We" don't have a clear name. Everybody can look at article's talkpage and see if you chased me away from this article or not. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a translation with Skanderbey in quotes. How am I supposed to work that out, by the vibe? I might as well be talking to a wall. Regardless, the name is the least of the problems this article has with WP:GNG. Commanders, weapons, dates? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for translation because the source I presented is written on English language.
I don't think that military unit of four battalions was unarmed and without commanders or that it remained unnoticed.
As I explained on the talkpage, your unnecessarily harsh comments made editing of many articles, including this one, unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment I decided not to edit this article. I noticed that you began commuicating with me on Serbian language (diff), so I guess it won't be too difficult for you to find some additional Serbian language sources about this unit. This is my last comment in this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your responses completely avoid my questions about the lack of significant coverage this unit receives in sources. There are no quotation marks on "Skanderbey" in your quotation, so how are we to know that "Skanderbey" is the official name? For the benefit of other editors reading this, it is very tiresome having to deal with you on multiple pages at once when you consistently fail to comprehend sources in English. When challenged, you retreat, you don't RfC the issue, which is what you would do if you had the slightest idea you might be right. I hate to think how you interpret sources in your native tongue. After dealing with you for a couple of years, my conclusion from probably hundreds if not thousands of interactions is that you are only marginally competent in English to be editing on en WP. What weapons did they have, exactly? Were they German, Yugoslav, Italian rifles or machine guns? Did they have any medium or heavy weapons? Artillery? Mortars? What type were they? What were the names of the commanders? You don't know any of this, because you haven't produced any sources whatsoever that provide that information. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss something as simple as WP:GNG with you, because either you just don't understand it, or you pretend you don't because it suits your purposes. And when you are pulled up on inconsistencies or policy issues, you claim I'm being too harsh on you and you bail out, claiming you are being scared away by my failure to AGF despite all the interactions we've had when you've failed to comprehend even basic information. Either way, you are not progressing this discussion (like many other discussions I've had with you). So you won't be missed. Au revoir. (PS I don't speak French either...). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandee Westgate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Not a Playboy Playmate, although sometimes misidentified as one. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. GBooks search turns up only passing mentions without nontrivial biographical content. Initial deletion was noncontroversial; recreation based on later nominations survived based in part on now-deprecated nominations standard and in part on no-longer-relevant procedural issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the notability requirements for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominators analysis. Finnegas (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Vinson[edit]

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

Delete- I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing. . It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what it is he does, or is notable for. The opening sentence appears to be asserting his notability rather than proving it. . I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Happydit (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : all search results seem to note his candidacy for mayor of Los Angeles Fife~ 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FifeStarMedia (talk • contribs) — FifeStarMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This AFD was never listed properly. I have just added it to the AFD log today, so it needs discussing for 7 days from now. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject and a search in factiva for better references has turned up nothing for this particular Robert Vinson. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find that he was candidate for a member of the City Council, not for Mayor. (not that he would have been notable as a candidate for mayor, but there is a difference--I see he worked on someone else's campaign for mayor--perhaps that's the source of the confusion). DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note This semi-automated edit of mine unlisted it again straight after I added it back in March... I guess it needs another seven days from now. SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia standards is neither provided nor found in the usual searches. Note: others of the same name may well be notable, especially the Robert Vinson who was president of the University of Texas 1916-1923. [1][2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither his business career nor his unsuccessful candidacy for local office provide notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quran and the Modern Science[edit]

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

Duplicates Quran, Islam and science and Maurice Bucaille, but much less NPOV. It reads like a personal essay extolling the very disputable assertion that the Quran agrees with science and contained scientific foreknowledge. It contains no encyclopaedic content except perhaps one statement about Bucaille. BethNaught (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reasons BethNaught mentioned, and because the sources are unreliable. Consider, for example, the section in The Amazing Quran where the author consults with an embryologist, "who was so surprised at what he found that he changed his textbooks." An example of what he found? "In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Quran's description of the human being as a 'leech-like clot' ('alaqah) [Ghafir 40:67] - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book." RockMagnetist (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay that isn't salvageable. No need at this point for a separate article from Islam and science, and nothing here worth merging. Moswento ^talky 19:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as duplication of Islam and science#Scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith.TheLongTone (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clearly duplicates Islam and science#Scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copied from: Islam and science. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 14:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY. It seems like the article's creator is using the page as some kind of a blog or journal on his/her personal musings. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of Islam and science. Heaviness on the POV, and short content, makes this unsalvagable as even a stub. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bitdefender. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BitDefender safego[edit]

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

Facebook application of questionable notability (for instance, the feature is buried well out-of-sight on Bitdefender's website); article is orphaned since late 2010. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bitdefender - The article would be better merged as opposed to being a standalone article. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bitdefender. A selective merger of not more than a couple of lines to Bitdefender article. But not much to be salvaged here. Harsh (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Harsh. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bitdefender. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The American public high school, Sialkot[edit]

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

Article written in promotional WP:PEACOCK terms about a non-notable high school. The school appears in various lists on the internet, and one would think an American high school in Pakistan might have generated some news coverage, but I can't find any. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone is undoubtedly going to chime in here and claim that we don't delete high school articles. This article is a great example of why we should. Relevant policy is WP:NSCHOOL. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Notability isn't so much the problem here as it is a complete lack of any information, at least in English. I get lots of directory sites, but nothing that actually has anything to say about the school. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no sourcing, non-notable. Yes, we often keep high-school-level articles, but this should have been speedied long ago D P 21:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - normally, but not always, we keep HS articles, but this is not much more than a word salad. I note that there are a few weak sources available but more under its formal name. This would need a total re-write to be real article. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of educational institutions in Sialkot (where most every school is a red link waiting for some student to try to make it blue): This is the type of high school article we don't keep (and we keep 99+% plus of them), where there is no sourcing available.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Momento Photo Books[edit]

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

declined speedy, not really sure why when this was created by a single purpose editor with no third party sources, blatant advert LibStar (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the awards that made the closing admin err on the side of caution, as it does give an assertion of notability. It is promotional sounding and I've found enough out there to suggest that the original editor this is MPB's creator. I've pointed him towards the COI policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That said, I wasn't able to find anything to show that the company is really notable. I can't find any true coverage for the company and the awards seem to be minor, not even really the type that we'd use to count towards notability in general. I did a search under the title of the article and also under "Momento Pro", as that seems to be the same company. I couldn't find anything for that either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another spam article on a self publishing company. There's no reason to think that this company would have been the subject of in-depth coverage in independent RS Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Theturquoisesummer/Oramics (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oramics (band)[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7, as the comments on the talk page did suggest there would be some coverage in sources, given the band has one member of a notable band, in as much as Allmusic documents him here. However, that page doesn't mention Oramics and a search for sources came up with nothing. I would have expected at least some local news coverage, but there doesn't appear to be even that. So currently, it is too soon for an article. Maybe next year. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie Ritchie333

Can we please hold. There is going to be a ton of press at the end of the month when a music label publishes some songs they have made. Please hold on deletion. Thank you! Feel free to ask me any further questions.

theturquoisesummer

I'm happy to move this to Articles for Creation, where it can be parked pending sources. However, even with lots of press, it might take six months for it to be suitable for an article. Wikipedia tends to be behind the times. In the meantime, I'll see if there are any further comments. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Alicea[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX. Some success as a junior amateur boxer does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Milinković[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - few fights, none top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looks like many sources are in other languages, but I found some sources and seems to barely psss WP:GNG GOL.hr, Republika EU, vecernji.hr, and Sherdog profile. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fight results and lists of fight results are considered routine sports coverage and not significant in terms of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and there's no significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Boardman[edit]

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

I could be wrong, but, I'm struggling to see how Boardman passes our general notability guidelines. Isaac Asimov was a fan, but that doesn't establish notability. I also can't access the one reference, but struggled to find other references. Perhaps others can help. SarahStierch (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, Asimov discussed him at length in his memoir "I, Asimov". He's also quoted quite a bit in this volume. But apart from this, I can't find much apart from the usual directory entry type of stuff. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep I found some reviews in in Chicago Tribune[3], Kentucky New Era via Google Books[4], Calhoun Times[5]. Local press obits[6][7] and a couple of mentions in the New York Times[8][9]. I don't know that there's yet quite enough material there to keep, but the book seems quite popular and well-cited, and I'm sure a proper newspaper search would turn up more reviews. There also seems to be a review in the Publishers Weekly archive which I don't have access to. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Colapeninsula. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I fail to see which WP:AUTHOR criteria are being clearly met. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. He's a significant literary figure and it's a well-known book. LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time in Bolivia[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:NFILMS. Being shown at various film festivals is not enough to show notability. Article was created by the film's writer/producer/director.Mdtemp (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because his notability is tied to this film's notability.

Comment. The film does seem to have received some coverage in Spanish language newspapers. It's fairly light, but it does discuss the film in general and the awards. Of the awards, I will say that the one from The Indie Fest has always sort of been a bit of a dodgy award for me as far as notability giving goes because the contest is held 3 times a year and they give out about 80-90 prizes each time. It kind of feels like it's one of those awards where they give a prize to anyone willing to pay the $60+ to submit their film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These awards don't seem significant. The one just mentioned is more of a participation award. The London award is for a film festival that specials in low budget British films. Apparently in 2013 there were only two foreign language feature films, which is probably why the international category doesn't exist for the 2014 festival. I have no idea how significant winning the best Andean feature film is at the Pasto film festival, but I'm claiming these awards do not meet the notability standards for films. I'll admit I'm also inclined to look unfavorably on autobiographies. Although that's not sufficient for deletion, I think it puts the burden of proof on the article's creator.Mdtemp (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redircet Patrick L. Cordova to Once Upon a Time in Bolivia. There's some coverage, there's likely to be more in non-internet enabled Bolivian newspapers. But there's probablt not enough for two articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My vote is a little more complicated than I can put in a bullet. First, there's nothing that shows Cordova meets any notability criteria outside of his involvement with this film so a redirect is reasonable--if the film is notable. However, I don't see that the film meets any of the criteria at WP:NFILMS, so I would recommend deleting both articles. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to meet any of the notability criteria for films--such as major awards or major film reviews. I cannot find the original source for the claim of being "the best Bolivian film in a decade"--my search of every mention of this claim involves Cordova, which means it's not independent, or appears as a repeated unsourced claim. I believe that's not enough to show significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The film is more notable than Cordova, who appears to have written both articles, but I don't think it meets any notability standards. You can change my vote if the original source of that claim turns out to be a reliable independent source. I notice that claim isn't mentioned in the film's ad, so I'm wondering if there really is a good source for that claim. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ploszek[edit]

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

Upcoming actor with only one big role. Fails WP:NACTOR Beerest 2 Talk page 16:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tranda[edit]

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

I see no indication this individual passes WP:MUSICBIO. One interview with apropo.ro, a site that doesn't clearly meet WP:RS requirements, is not enough to show notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe in the future. Harsh (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Job scheduler. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workload automation[edit]

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

Non-notable model being retired along with its associated magic quadrant (whatever that was) https://www.gartner.com/doc/2307915/gartner-retire-magic-quadrant-workload U2fanboi (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2014 (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/2014 April 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, and WP:NEO. It is currently completely unsourced. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete GScholar appears to produce nothing but accidental juxtapositions of the two words, and when I add the supposed coiner's last name to the mix I'm reduced to a single paper which appears to be about a different topic entirely. Book hits are even worse. Web hits are more interesting, because they are pretty much all press releases from companies proclaiming how wonderful it is that they are in the most desirable quadrant of Govekar's model. I have found exactly nothing which could be used to define this as a term, much less talk about it at any length; it gives the impression of being, of itself, nothing beyond another square for buzzword bingo. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Job scheduler, where it is already mentioned. This term is sometimes used as a synonym for a job scheduler and is a plausible search term. The article itself is promotional for a particular use of the term by the Gartner group, but rewriting the article to be more neutral would just end up duplicating much of what is in Job scheduler. --Mark viking (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OISE Language Coaching[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources discussing this organisation. Sam Walton (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been edited substantially by several WP:SPA users with the firm name in their usernames: User:Oisesarah, User:Stellaoise, User:Lctoise, the last of whom has identified in a comment that they work for the company. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The article prose is promotional, though that could be resolved by normal editing. I added the one reference that I could find in multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia) though it is just routine coverage noting recent activity (acquisition, AIM listing). A lot hinges on the two press pieces: 2012 Le Point interview with the firm's founder; section in 2006 Management Today article on the sector. The latter does describe the firm as "the largest chain of language schools in the UK"; the question is whether such a point-in-time claim is of lasting encyclopaedic notability? I am borderline on this, but I think more is expected for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing AfD after 20 days and 2 relists; I cannot reasonably find consensus for deletion in light of the potential sources provided both by ansh666 and Hobit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chaos[edit]

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

Fails notability test. Is poorly referenced, with the only reference being the Game Guide itself. M.Jormungand (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment1 - you WP:PROD'd the article, which is a different process - I've changed the template to the proper AfD template pointing here. ansh666 08:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 - I found this: [10]. Not sure if it counts as a WP:RS. ansh666 08:39, 1 April 2014 (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) 01:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any reliable sources, or many hits at all. Allgame has a page for it, but since it's a database a la IDBM/Allmusic, I don't think that counts for notability. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the correction ansh666. I apologize for the oversight. M.Jormungand (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Japanese, but some of the things found here [11] look reliable. In any case, this shouldn't result in deletion--there must be a merge target somewhere appropriate for this subject (if it doesn't meet WP:N). Hobit (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JT Tran[edit]

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

The Article seems to be written in a promotional manner, defying the NPOV rule. All cited sources are consistent with those of other pages, indicating that these articles have been hastily written. Personally, I do not see these entries meeting the Notability rule, and am considering nominating them as multiple Articles for Deletion, but in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I am nominating just one page for now, in order to see how the debate goes. M.Jormungand (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage at ABC News (here and here) and New York (starts on p.6) looks to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow. Kip 78 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Grünwald[edit]

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

The subject of this article doesn't meet the notability creiteria for creative professionals. The subject has created no works of note, is not widely influential, nor has the subject's work gained any particular critical attention. The article also contains original research in the form of commentary from individual's acquainted with the subject, claims not substantiated with secondary sources. Claiming that a minor background character in a comic is named after a person should not be enough reason for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.242.8 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nomination. ansh666 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment - despite the date, this appears to be a serious nomination. Chris857 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of serious nominations mixed in on the log. This one was first "proposed" yesterday, when I reverted the addition of the AfD tag because of a lack of rationale. ansh666 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically, as an editor, she has created plenty of works of note. Still, there are lots of editors out there who don't have Wikipedia articles. I'm trying to find some decent sources out there, but truthfully, there doesn't seem to be much. I'm not sure how to quantify her social media presence, but that seems to be the majority of what links there are. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve - Barely notable but I'm sure someone in the Comic area can improve it. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelus Foundation[edit]

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

This article contains not a single independent reference with in-depth coverage. The guardian article contains no in depth coverage of the organisation outside of a very long quote from the founder. The maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk and www.christian.org.uk articles contain a passing mentions. The petition reference is the work of the founder. Previous tagging about issues with references removed by SPAs. Almost all the article is the work of a pair of WP:SPAs who appear to be using wikipedia as a platform to further the work of the foundation. Redirection to Maryon Stewart is possible. It seems that the article creator failed to get the article through AfC, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Angelus Foundation. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Whitley-Castellarin[edit]

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

The subject of this BLP does not meet notability requirements. 132Sherwood (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor business owner who has not risen to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Business owner does not meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.226 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjan Mayank Garg[edit]

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

I think this article tracks back to Sapne_Suhane_Ladakpan_Ke but I am not sure. There is very little content and limited context. I don't think there is sufficient context to have this article stand-alone per WP:NOPAGE. I propose to delete or to merge with the article regarding the TV show. Rmosler | ● 06:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article on Sapne Suhane Ladakpan Ke has been tagged for notability since February. This is not my last name (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to be salvaged for a merge to the article's tv show or Roopal Tyagi. Should have been PROD'ed instead. Harsh (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable character from a tv show whose notability has not been established. fails WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Valfontis (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Pops[edit]

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

Promotional, no independent sources in the article, a Google search found only blogs and press releases. There's just not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nonsenseferret on IRC did find this, but I don't think it's enough to pass GNG. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn The sources found by Valfontis have me convinced that this probably does meet GNG after all. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ selectively to Leaf Brands, which appears to be the present owner of the brand. Some sources are out there, such as [12], [13], [14], but the depth of coverage does not appear to be enough to support a standalone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now undecided: struck my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the article and added several independent sources and the negative info linked above (lawsuit). Brand appears notable as an example of the current trend of "brand revival", and was the first product mentioned in article about the topic in the Wall Street Journal. It also strikes me as odd that this product would the namesake for a cocktail that has an article, but not have an article itself. It took some diligence to find sources among all the candy and nostalgia blogs and candy store sites. Since this is an old brand there may also be some "Can't Find It On The Internet" bias. I haven't had a chance to check any library archives. Valfontis (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went to a local retro candy and soda shop to see if I could find some Astro Pops to photograph. The 18-year-old clerk had never heard of them... I'll try again, there must be middle-aged people running a retro candy store around here somewhere. Valfontis (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan in the 80s: Volume One[edit]

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

Unsourced; fails to meet WP:NALBUMS. G S Palmer (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can find coverage in Rolling Stone, The Wall Street Journal, and The New Yorker. so I think it should pass WP:GNG MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - upon reviewing the sources presented above by User:MrLinkinPark333, the album meets WP:NALBUMS/WP:GNG. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrLinkinPark333's findings. Topic meets WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 08:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SocialStrap[edit]

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

Non-notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NWEB. Harsh (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sometimes it's very hard to estimate and track the full impact of white-labeled software on the web since webmasters usually remove all the credits (or replace with their own) leaving their users and visitors in ignorance what they are actually using. Anyway, I appreciate this discussion and your input. Alcal (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how frequently it's used; if nobody independent has written about it, it's not notable and doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Alexa/search ranking does not establish notability. A search turns up download pages and forum posts but no additional RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "died of shame" controversy (2nd nomination)

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

The article largely replicates content that's already covered in Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). Almost all the references come from the same seven day period (2-9 Oct). The content and sources are fine, but there just isn't enough to justify a seperate article. RaiderAspect (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RaiderAspect (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. RaiderAspect (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor events do not get their own articles -- and this one includes OR such as Nielsen ratings for two periods which were in different seasons, seeking to make an implicit claim of specific loss of listeners due to the "controversy" etc. This "article" treads on the very edge (possibly passing that edge) of WP:BLP and has undue weight for what is a minor controversy already covered in the main BLP. Collect (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it was not a minor controversy, it had international coverage and a major effect on advertisers on a major Australian radio station. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two years on, this event remains inevitably attached to discussion of both Jones, one of the most significant media presences in Australia, and to any discussion of the public treatment of former Prime Minister Gillard. Destroy the Joint, the group founded in response, also continues to be one of the more significant feminist voices in Australia. Google News still turns up hits for the saga in the last month, two years after the fact. The passage of time reinforces the notability of the saga, and attacking it on the basis that most of the current sources used are from when the article was first written is just lazy behaviour on the part of the nominator. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's intersection with the article Misogyny speech which was spurred by this controversy. Possibly a more general article on Julia Gillard misogyny controversy could be created by merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is definitely a link, but I think merging them would be drawing a long bow (and delving into the edges of original research). They're quite separate but linked events. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ongoing, international coverage from The Guardian and the BBC in the UK and The New York Times in the US. I'm not too keen on these "controversy about <name>" articles, but this one easily satisfies WP:EVENT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above and here's additional coverage well after the event [15], [16], and UK coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article relates to Gillard, Rudd, Jones and Abbott. If we delete it we would have to merge it into all those four articles and hence create several times more material. This is also a part of Australian history which relates to two spills and a change of government, that in itself gives it notability. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Having had some time to review the article in question, I'm convinced that it should be retained. Whilst I do believe it is a little edgy on the BLP matter Collect noted; I tend to agree with NinjaRobotPirate's rationale. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well sourced. Merger would be a mess, per Djapa. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ente Cineme[edit]

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

Film with no indication of notability - this may be an in-progress draft. Would be A7 if films qualified for that criteria. No references at all. Would be a quick-fail at WP:Articles for creation. Okay if result is "Userfy" or "move to Draft:Ente Cineme". Best outcome is that the principal author REQUESTS userfication or moving to Draft: space (without leaving a redirect) so this discussion can be ended early. If it is moved, I have no objection to re-creation or moving the draft back to the main encyclopedia PROVIDED notability criteria are clearly met at or before the time of the move or re-creation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Malayam:(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)

Comment: from the article content, I have added some alternative Find sources. We really do need input from Wikipedians able to read Malayalam to find and translate Malayalam sources. English searches seem to hint that filmmaker Jayan Poduval may have some notability in that part of the world. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NFF, a film that has not yet been released is only notable if the production itself is in some way notable. No indication that that is the case here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Kuruganti[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable individual. Only two third party sources are presented, and one does not discuss Mr. Kuruganti at all. Search for additional coverage has thus far been fruitless. There are several pages worth of Google results, all of which are on social networks and and publicly editable sites (WikiAnswers, Quora, etc.), which indicate a substantial effort at self-promotion, but little else. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two brief mentions in local newspapers should not satisfy WP:BIO. A google search only turns up self-published material (mostly social media profiles). GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictual (website)[edit]

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

The link is dead, the project is not active. The notability template (2010 year) supports my proposal to delete this article. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete short-lived online dictionary project, of no significance. GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources, and nor did I expect to. Non-notable website. Moswento ^talky 09:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NWEB. Harsh (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

René Sarvil[edit]

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

The page has 0 references and I suggest, it be deleted immediately. Shane Cyrus (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2014 (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/2014 April 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wholly unremarkable career as an actor, but searches suggest he had a career in music and vaudeville that attracted some attention. Potential references are almost wholly in French, and mine's a bit rusty, so I've no firm conclusion on notability here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite likely to be notable, but as a lyricist for French operettas and revues (and quite likely standalone songs), not as an actor. However, finding substantial reliable sources online may be difficult - his career as a lyricist seems to have been at its peak during the 1920s and 1930s and, even though his work appears to have been nationally popular in France at that time, it seems always to have been closely tied to Marseilles. While the operettas are still occasionally revived in France, the sources we need are likely to be almost all in French and from several decades ago. Finally note that French Wikipedia has two completely separate articles on the subject: fr:René Sarvil and fr:Sarvil. Neither, unfortunately, is properly sourced by English Wikipedia standards, but both look as if they may be useful to a fluent French-speaker in working out where to look for sources. PWilkinson (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve - per the above. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, French wiki article has more detail, indicates notability, should be possible to expand and but references. Google books has 470 hits for his name. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close. The consensus seems to be clear that this meme hasn't, as of yet, received any coverage. Someone is trying to start a meme, but it doesn't pass WP:NWEB yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A-League Memes God[edit]

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

A facebook 'meme' page is not notable, regardless of if a current A-League footballers has 'liked' the page. Nath1991 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also does not include any sources, that make it relevent, nor notable. Nath1991 (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy. A-league memes is love. A-league memes is life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.85.169 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious trolling. Stalwart111 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Type 2 patent nonsense. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 07:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A1. Harsh (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A1. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete I'm not sure it's patent nonsense in the sense CSD G1 requires (maybe I'm just particularly good at understanding patent nonsense, but it seems to be an attempt at fiction/parody/vandalism/what WP:CSD calls "partisan screeds") but it's clearly not encyclopedic content, is deficient in context if you don't know what the A-League or Antony Golec are, and there's neither assertion of notability nor any subsequent evidence of notability, and no reason to keep it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martin Scorsese#Future films. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Irishman (film)[edit]

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

Film has not started filming yet, and there's no clear sign that they will anytime soon. There have been little coverage of the film. Fails WP:NFF JDDJS (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to WP:NFF GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a film, it's just a script with interest from a few famous people. Moswento ^talky 09:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect partial merge of this information to Martin Scorsese#Future films where it makes sense under policy and guidelines for such sourcable information to be spoken of when a separate article is considered premature. Allow recreation/undeletion when WP:NFF paragraph 3 is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sophie Collombet[edit]

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

Non-notable murder, nothing to indicate lasting significance of the event, WP:N/CA and WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So then are we considering deleting Death of Jill Meagher? Both murders are very similar, so why delete one and not the other?--Empire of War (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meagher case had greater impact: 30 000 people marching, memorials, Hinch in prison etc. If Collombet's death ever achieves such responses, we can consider an article at that time. WWGB (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly agree with Lugnuts here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of enduring notability at this time. This has been a big news story in Australia, but has made few ripples elsewhere and there's no reason to believe it will continue to attract attention in a year's time. Moswento ^talky 09:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS - Sorry to sound harsh but we don't need to list every single murder committed. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oddly, the fact that her alleged killer was caught quickly, makes this less notable. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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