< 31 May	2 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of models with the most Vogue covers[edit]

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

I don't really think that the number of covers for a magazine a model gets is a defining characteristic of their career. Only source is a forum. Not really encyclopedic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and WP:OR as well. Where are these numbers coming from? They don't even agree with the forum list, which is itself not a reliable source (e.g. Gisele Bündchen is credited with 118 there and 125 on this list). What a hot mess posing as a suitable Wikipedia page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Per above arguments - frankly a waste of Wikipedia space. Mabalu (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above but mainly per Mabalu - frankly a waste of Wikipedia space. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'd like sources for this, but if these are reliable numbers, I think the information could find a place on List of Vogue cover models, which is a hot mess in and of itself and I have no idea what they were going for with the formatting, but this is information that people find interesting. I don't think we need to delete the information from wikipedia. However, I don't think it needs its own page. Bali88 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 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 delete, deletion requested by sole contributor to article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JMemCache(software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:59, 1 June 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 Keep. (Non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn, three Keep votes, no outstanding Delete votes. Anarchangel (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrared interferometer spectrometer and radiometer[edit]

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

Appears to be an individual part of a space probe that is not supported by multiple, credible, independent sources that cover the subject in-depth. CorporateM (Talk) 22:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article appears in Template:Satellite and spacecraft instruments (IRIS, under Voyager 1 and 2). The Voyager 1 section Voyager_1#Scientific_instruments links to NASA here and I'm certain there's more. It seems like a pretty significant instrument to the program. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (if necessary, WP:IAR) We could talk about breakout articles, and WP:ATD, but the simple answer IMO is that a standalone article is a good organization within the encyclopedia for this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by the responses here. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It is shown through multiple, reliable sources where this piece of the space probe is the subject of the article. No one has provided any sources that would remotely validate that this subject meets notability criterion. The keep votes are based on criteria like a link to a primary source on the NASA website and the fact that the page is linked to in a template, but these arguments have no basis in Wikipedia policy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your nomination is a WP:IAR argument, and WP:IAR is a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Took me about ten minutes but I've added two sources that I hope satisfy your concerns. There's about a dozen scientific articles about discoveries from the instrument but I don't have the technical knowledge to describe it in detail. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see several reliable sources in the article and aside from sourcing the nominator gave no convincing arguments for deletion. The claim that it is not notable because it is an "individual part" of something else is utter nonsense. --W. D. Graham 18:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated the article it didn't have a single good source. Now it does. Nomination withdrawn. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 3 June 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goson Sakai[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Japanese version of article is well referenced. This does not address the underlying notability concerns. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Football Lab, Sakai is currently playing for the J-22 team that plays in J-League Division 3 (J3 League) and has appeared in at least 2 matches. The J-22 team is made up of the best U-22 players on J-1 and J-2 teams. The J3 League started this year and my understanding is that it is fully professional, but WikiProject Football has still not included it in their list of fully professional leagues WP:FPL. Perhaps the Project hasn't gotten around to it? Michitaro (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. J3 may be fully pro, but there is no consensus to date that it is. Fenix down (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - After researching this some more, it seems that J3 League is more complicated than I thought. While all the teams are members of the Japan Professional Football League, and are thus professional teams, the rules are more relaxed compared to J1 and J2, so some teams can have amateurs, even though most of the players are professional. J3 is thus a more complex phenomenon than can be dealt with here. As the rules now stand, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. It is a bit more complicated with regard to WP:GNG. Since he comes from a famous family of soccer and judo players, he has gotten more coverage than one would expect of someone at this stage in his career. Some of the following are significant RS, and even those that are not significant coverage use his name in the headline: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I even found this YouTube video of a TV show featuring him: [9]. My concern is that his notability at this stage is, in a sense, inherited from his family. So far, he has not yet shown independent notability. That is the reason I am voting "weak delete". Michitaro (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Michitaro's extensive list of references makes me think more weak keep than delete. Bottom line is it is more than he's got extensive media coverage for just being related to famous people. If he wasn't playing on a mostly-professional team he wouldn't be getting this level of coverage. But he does, much of it meets WP:GNG and it's not difficult to find even more examples such as [10]. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited, so lots of mentions without significant coverage doesn't pass WP:GNG. Add article when he is on a fully qualifying team, or when he has depth of coverage, not breath. --Bejnar (talk) 22:45, 13 June 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 01:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jair Bogaerts[edit]

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

According to this article's only reference, this guy isn't even a player anymore, having not even played in the minor leagues since 2011 and never having made it to the majors. Instead, he has apparently become an agent, but due to his very small number of clients (four according to the reference), he obviously is nowhere near as notable as an agent like Scott Boras, for example. I definitely do not believe that he is notable enough to have an article, at least at this time. If he becomes a major agent representing a lot of clients, his article can be recreated, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and he does not meet notability requirements at this time. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the IP.--Yankees10 16:53, 10 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Jesus Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG, most Google hits seems to be address-books, Wikipedia or releated websites The Banner talk 19:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: If you are new to Wikipedia and are unsure how to vote, please click on this link to write down your opinion and vote whether to keep or delete the article). --C.Z. Lee (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have access to the paper sources, but none of them look to be an address book, Wikipedia, or a related article. I've no idea how deeply, if at all, this topic is covered in those sources, but it certainly looks notable and I am familiar with at least one of the authors. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Verifiability does not require that sources be online. This appears to be a well-referenced and written article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep At least two of the references are from reliable sources and available online (now linked). I've also added the Chinese name and discovered there are a vast number of inter-wiki language links, many of which are referenced in their specific language. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What a strange article! Quote (with emphases added): Holy Communion — The Holy Communion is the sacrament to commemorate the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. It enables us to partake of the flesh and blood of our Lord and to be in communion with Him so that we can have eternal life and be raised on the last day. This sacrament shall be held as often as possible. Only one unleavened bread and grape juice shall be used. This seems curiously "in-universe". I had an odd hunch about it, too. Sure enough, Google shows that tjc.org serves up: The Holy Communion is the sacrament to commemorate the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. It enables us to partake of the flesh and blood of our Lord and to be in communion with Him so that we can have eternal life and be raised on the last day. This sacrament shall be held as often as possible. Only one unleavened bread and grape juice shall be used. At the bottom of that page, we read "Copyright © 2014 True Jesus Church" together with a link to the site's legal mumbo jumbo page. The latter has nothing about "public domain", "Creative Commons", "GFDL", "copyleft", etc; to the contrary, it says: any use of these materials on any other Web sites or networked computer environment for any purpose is expressly prohibited. I infer that much of this article should be deleted as a copyright violation. As for the rest, it makes some non-trivial claims. Among these, that TJC is currently one of the largest Christian groups in China and Taiwan. This claim about 2014 is attributed to a book published seven years previously and titled The Future of Pentecostalism in the United States. We're not told the publisher but we are told the ISBN. Amazon hasn't heard of it. Copac hasn't heard of it. Worldcat says it's an ebook, published by Lexington, which looks legitimate. It's a collection of papers; who wrote this paper and what's its title? All in all, if an article on this subject is warranted, then given how recently its predecessor was deleted, this new version seems very slapdash. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strange indeed, but I'm not sure that the quoted text can be a copyvio since it is a summary of the communion rites of Christian religion and no doubt recorded in hundreds of documents throughout history. In other words, TJC don't hold the copyright in the first place. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But even when ideas are centuries old, their expression can't be assumed to be in the public domain. Google for the string Only one unleavened bread and grape juice shall be used, and you just get a three-figure total of hits, all seemingly derived from TJC. (In view of this, I'm about to delete the material.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Perhaps if the 10 beliefs are each summarized in 1-3 sentences then it would be acceptable? For example, the Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are summarized based on their 28 Fundamental Beliefs and at the bottom of that pdf document it reads: "Copyright © 2013, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists". --Jose77 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ii) User:Hoary mentioned the statement "given how recently its predecessor was deleted...". Not all readers of Wikipedia understand how to edit a page and where to leave their opinions. If you looked at the first afd of this article, you would see that someone had left his remarks Here instead of on the main afd page and as a result it had gone unnoticed by other readers. Had he known where to properly place his comments then the outcome may have been different today. --Jose77 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And an additional comment. Above, C.Z. Lee advises people "new to Wikipedia" on "how to vote". C.Z. Lee's own contributions are new and few (for admins only, here's the first), which may explain why he/she doesn't realize that it's not a matter of voting. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hmm, so it appears that the deletion No. 1 was a poorly attended reaction to the global puffery Jose77 has invested in these semi-spam articles and the AFD ignoring the opinion of User:Peterkingiron who in the past I have found qualified in these subjects. Nevertheless the benchmark isn't how articles are but what is in Google Books. Enough references like Melton (anything in Melton is notable) or sources like Francis Khek Gee Lim - Christianity in Contemporary China 2013 - Page 186 "The main congregations are the 'True Jesus Church' (Zhen Yesujiao) and the 'Group of the Shouters' (Huhanpai)... etc. mean this article should be kept, but kept on Watchlists to stop it turning into giant peacock piece again. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this article has been dodgy in the past and may become so again in the future. But now its claims are decently sourced. Incidentally, is this the true church of Jesus (真[[耶稣][教会]], cf all the fake churches); or is it instead the church of the true Jesus [真[耶稣]]教会, cf all the fake Jesuses)? -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from Melton in 1917 it meant the church as compared to other churches. Now we know this AFD is closing as keep, I've watchlisted it, added more sources, started Talk:True Jesus Church and notified WP Christianity looking for a couple of other watchlisters. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep -- " TJC is currently one of the largest Christian groups in China and Taiwan". This is a denomination, not a local congregation (such as we often delete). With churches other than Three Self (and Catholics) existing on the margins of legality, or even beyond it, the chances of finding on-line sources on it must be limited. I understand there to be about 5 networks of underground (illicit) house churches in China that are to some extent tolerated, but strongly discouraged from uniting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see problem with this article or any reasons that it would require deletion. OccultZone (Talk) 14:07, 10 June 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 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mills (musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICIAN. Note that this is not the member of R.E.M. TheLongTone (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His main claim to fame seems to be being a member of Toehider, a band of very unclear notability whose article just leads back here. Coverage provided is pretty much either not independent of Mills or his band, or comes from blogs or other sources that don't meet WP:RS. There looks like some session work there, and there's enough that he's probably pretty good at what he does, but I'm not seeing how he passes any of the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC or WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and despite working with notable acts like Ayreon, the subject doesn't appear to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria at this time. Gongshow talk 16:57, 7 June 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 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visakhapatnam - Chennai central Super Fast Express[edit]

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

Non-notable service. No refs. I see lots of hits in google, but none of the independent ones seem to have in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 17 May 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 00:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not demonstrated, 32.75 kilometres per hour (20.35 mph) does not quality as "super fast". High Speed Rail is generally over 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph). Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 31 May 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Looks like a directory than anything: WP:NOTDIR aycliffe^talk 15:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Official reason is a combination of inadequate references and WP:NOTDIR. Unofficial reason is "Oh, for goodness sake, what on earth made you think this was an appropriate article for an encyclopedia?". RomanSpa (talk) 11:46, 7 June 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 00:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media determinism[edit]

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

Duplicates technological determinism. The source the article relies on most, McLuhan, doesn't use the term, and I'm not finding sufficient reliable sources to establish notability through use anywhere. Most of the ghits I saw were using it in a synonymous sense with technological determinism. WP:OR, fails WP:GNG, neologism, duplicate. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect per nom. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 16 May 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 06:48, 24 May 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, Go Phightins! 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of copyright. Each sentence is taken, word for word, from the given sources.Paisarepa (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term appears fairly often at Google scholar, but not so often in secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 3 June 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Inkster[edit]

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

Non notable individual. No reliable sources to prove notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unrefernced BLP and as such procedurally should be WP:PRODded. He might meet WP:PROF#C3, as a fellow of the Royal Historical Society but it is unreferenced and I can't find him in Who's Who or Debrett's which is the first place to look. here is his academic directory page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Not eligible from BLPPROD, due to the byline in the linked Taipei Times article near the end.. BLPPROD's remit is very narrow. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't believe Fellow of Royal Historical Society meets WP:PROF#C3; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzannah Lipscomb for why. (The short version is that their membership requirements say you only have to write one monograph to be a fellow and I don't think that's the sort of distinguished academic level we're looking for with C3.) No opinion yet on Inkster specifically. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 24 May 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, Go Phightins! 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The book reviews quoted in the article could possibly be enough for notability but this would need a ground-up rewrite to become encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a horrid article, but that is curable. My more major concern is thay the books are still work in progress. F.R.Hist S. should not in itslef be enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 6 June 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire Stagg[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. All the sources in the article are primary, and a Google search does not turn up any obvious reliable sources. Could optionally be redirected to Metamorpho. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DC Comics Universe. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Her background and importance to Metamorpho are described in Metamorpho#Fictional character biography, which is why I suggested that. List of DC Comics characters: S and DC Universe are valid targets, I suppose, but they're kind of non-specific, and they don't contain any information about who she is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 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, Go Phightins! 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick look at Google books shows plenty of references. Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Could you list those sources here? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 2 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orville Tiamson[edit]

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

As per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:IRS, and especially WP:NOTE, I'm nominating it for deletion. Orville Tiamson does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (no major exhibitions or citations, 64 likes on Facebook (not the most official measure of notability, but still significant)), and the article is almost all self-written, with his own website and Facebook as two of the five citations. Pcwendland (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only independent, reliable source making mention of him is the Philippine Star. Not enough coverage to write an article with or demonstrate notability. 舎利弗 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 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 00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One more paywalled source available via Highbeam, it's the Manila Bulletin, 2010, [11], the text is the same as [12], which wouldn't be a reliable source itself, of course, but it does match the official copy at Highbeam. That it's largely an interview hits the independence issue, though. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 1 June 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, Go Phightins! 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, IMO; also some SPIP going on here, I think. Quis separabit? 20:40, 6 June 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kurzon[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, at present only a candidate for office. TheLongTone (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by reliable press coverage, namely as a rootstriker activist. Being a no-lobbyist money candidate makes him apparently unique. Or maybe Merge to Rootstrikers though his notable points are not all linked to this movement --MikaBesac (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, I probably should not have used the template politician since this person would rather fall in the category of activist (but had no template for this category). Holding office should only be only an indication for notability, which in this case was established with his well-known law school and Huffington Post class actions.--Valedictorii (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some edition has been done to improve content and format from AfD version --LaFayettePolitico (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous independent sources meet the WP:GNG. Was it Tocqueville who said the most dangerous types of activists were attorneys?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 11 June 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe Restaurants[edit]

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

Not notable beyond its affiliation with Tesco. (If this must be kept, can someone please scrub it for copyright violations if it hasn't already been cleaned because its creator, Animal91X, has been indefinitely blocked for creating copyright violations.)Laun chba ller 17:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent coverage in The Times plus one ref I've added to the BBC news site makes it pass notability for companies. I don't see that there is enough text in the article for copyright to be an issue. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The takeover by Tesco was widely covered in British media, and seen as an important milestone in the development of the supermarket industry.[13][14][15] There's also a wide variety of other news stories about their actions, with coverage in national publications[16][17] and store openings being reported in local/regional press.[18][19][20][21] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough, although more info should be added. Caterer and Hotelkeeper could be handy for that. The Banner talk 10:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been clearly demonstrated above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula who's found alot of reliable sources, Clearly notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:34, 3 June 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 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Sheehan[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG with no significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's only source is not about him, just a passing mention. Fails to meet the notability criteria for either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 4 June 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 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maxie Shapiro[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, a good number of fights some with notable people but no title fights. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and he does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good record but doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and the only links are to his fight record. Fails WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 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 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Sarnoi[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX as either an amateur or professional.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 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 16:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Ares[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Autobiography/resume of U.N. employee who operates non-notable website. The website has no Alexa ranking due to insufficient data.[22] Her books are self-published and not notable, and awards recorded in article are vanity awards. What isn't original research is sourced to her website. AfD failed in 2009 based on alleged chapter about her in non-notable "Romanian encyclopedia," but the link provided ([23]) does not mention her, and only mention ofto her on the site[24] is an item on a vanity award. Link to alleged Romanian writers directory redirects to Chinese site. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 May 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 14:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am inclined to agree that she and her work are non-notable and what little evidence does exist links to vanity publishing. Longwayround (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see enough coverage for notability. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 22:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a case where an assumption of notability was run by people who claimed to know what was going on against most people who did not understand the sources. No clear indication of notability was show, we should remove the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the amount of publishing and public activities establishes her notability.--Codrin.B (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite some reliable sources for her notability? I have yet to find any. Longwayround (talk) 11:33, 7 June 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 'procedural close. There are two AfDs currently open for this article and as the second has received more editor attention, I'm going to copy the data here and add it to the other AfD. The closure of this AfD is not meant to signify that the article should be kept or deleted and is only being done so the AfD discussion will be kept in one area as opposed to two concurrent AfDs. As they were both opened on the same day, this should not affect the admin decision unless it is closed early. Any further discussion should be held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak (2nd nomination). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not have any useful information and violates and should be deleted upon patent nonsense, under the Wikipedia deletion policy filed under A1 (patent nonsense) as it has no useful or relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjacksonjohn (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 May 2014‎

Keep. as the reference links and articles points to a real incident. This has nothing to do with the patent-nonsense. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Real incident, referenced, and discussed in media. --Ragib (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its may real incident, but a lot of problem may happen out there. Its a country internal matter, let them solved it and this information dont have any other use beside political harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyscript (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. It cannot be accepted working for the interest of specific people or country as per WP:NOTCENSORED - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 21:54, 26 May 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 1 June 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 00:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ora Railsback[edit]

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

Several searches have failed to turn up detailed discussion of this person, although there are a number of very brief mentions of him. I've found no indication that he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:PEOPLE. The article also says he invented the Stroconn but this seems inaccurate although it was based in part on his work.[25] (which is the sort of brief mention I'm finding). Without coverage in depth I'm not sure that the brief, mainly one sentence mentions of him establish notability. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 13:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all you've found, you haven't even followed up on the information already there. And you can't spell StroboConn. Funfree (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my explanation more carefully about what you need to show notability. I've read all the sources, they are among the trivial mentions I said exist. And I can spell Stroboconn (lowercase 'C' in the source I linked), that was a typo. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm reluctant to give up on this character, but the lengthiest source I have found is in a thesis or dissertation, and is on his being largely responsible for starting the Eastern Illinois band. For the Stroboconn (which may merit an article, but for now I have created a redirect), I see him given joint credit for the idea behind it, and I find a patent issued to him and cited in several subsequent patents. He appears to have taught at Eastern Illinois, completed his doctorate at Chicago while there and eventually become head of the physics department, done military service in WWII and returned to his job, and I see him as a faculty member at Brevard in the mid-1960s. But I suspect some of the colleges named in the article as it stands are erroneous, and I am not finding enough coverage to establish a solid biography, let alone enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. And neither the work leading to the Stroboconn nor starting the band are sufficient to meet more specialized notability guidelines. Please ping me if more substantial coverage is found, and I will then edit the article for coherence, tone, and reference identification. I'd like this to be saved, but our notability requirements are either that the person be of obvious importance (e.g.: won a Nobel) or that there is substantial independent coverage, and I have to concur with the nominator, I can't find it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not notable; Wikipedia is not a directory. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:19, 1 June 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 delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MobilePoint[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a company. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The contributing editor's user page indicates that he is involved in this firm - indeed that "I "own" a wiki page that I'm responsible for keeping up to date", i.e. this one. No evidence of notability; indeed I am seeing no credible evidence that this does not meet CSD A7. I'm also tempted to take a view that the User Page is more about business for the firm than for the benefit of Wikipedia. AllyD (talk) 12:10, 1 June 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 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citybus route 12A[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator with a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This seems to be an entirely unremarkable bus route. TheLongTone (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of hundreds of bus routes in Hong Kong and no more notable than any of the other non-notable routes. Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a travel guide. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ..... Bloody hell!, Philg88's beaten me to it :), Non notable shite fails NOTDIR. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely un-notable bus route. I'm not even sure I can imagine what a notable bus route would be. RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 7 June 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly[edit]

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

There should be no confusion created if redirect page was removed and traffic sent to California_Polytechnic_State_University instead, given that there is a link at the top of the page to the other similarly named school. (i.e. WP:PTM) Ostronomer (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ostronomer (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is definitely a need to disambiguate between the two and I have added the missing link. But WP:2DABS is generally invoked on the basis that one subject is the "primary" subject and the other is the secondary, thus making a redirect to one and disambig to the other okay. California Polytechnic State University is probably the "bigger" college with more money and more land, but both have a student body of about the same size and an academic staff of about the same size too. The "community" likely looking for either institution would probably be about the same size I'm guessing. This would seem to be exactly the sort of exception that guideline refers to - "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but neither one is the primary topic, or if both topics are obscure, then it is appropriate to have a disambiguation page at the base name". Both have references verifying the fact that each is referred to as "Cal Poly". With regard to the nomination, you could equally argue that traffic should be sent to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona which now includes a link to the other university. Stalwart111 11:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per • Gene93k --MAG, Ch.E. (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see no strong basis for deeming one or the other to be the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both campuses are referred to as "Cal Poly"; both are large and notable; neither is primary. It would be arbitrary to use Cal Poly as a redirect to either of them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 5 June 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 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labe Safro[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer or football player Peter Rehse (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:NGRIDIRON. Playing football for a team that later became an NFL team is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a boxer or football player.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for either boxers or football players. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 4 June 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 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khan (Pakistani boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 09:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 13:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer who fails GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer. There is also name conflation issue with the more well known: Amir Khan (British boxer) who also has Pakistani background. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 7 June 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc PenPen B. Takipsilim[edit]

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

Very dubious notability. The best claim to notability in the article is this award at the "Peace Poetathon" in Canada. No idea how notable that is, I'm not into poetry, but it does not sound very important, and in any case the page is only a passing mention, not the required in-depth coverage. Spinning Spark 07:49, 1 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RU-58841[edit]

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

Article still needs sources JacobiJonesJr (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does and I've added a couple. Did you look for sources WP:BEFORE nominating this for deletion? Stalwart111 14:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. "Still needs sources" is not a reason for deletion. AFD is not for cleanup. --do ncr am 14:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete absolutely. This is bullshit promotion for yet another product sold as a drug that is not approved. See here and many forums where people discuss it as a treatment for hair loss (!) (classic snake oil). The guy who created the page says "this is a real commercial product" here. argh. There are no pubmed reviews that discuss RU 58841; no reason to think it is notable except for people shilling it. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I've added a couple of sources from seemingly reliable medical journals. If it's a sham and reliable sources have said so then we should say so too - no argument there. But is it a notable sham? Stalwart111 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for talking! those sources were there when i made my comment. :) they are primary sources, and all Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources - we need secondary sources to judge notability. as I wrote, i didn't find any reviews (secondary sources) on pubmed. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no "bullshit promotion" present. I've never seen a chemical article at AFD before, and I don't know what , but it is ... a chemical... it is something in nature... and there is a "CAS number" and if you click on that and go further, you get to 4 patents related to this chemical, and a number of papers in the literature studying it. For example, i found: "Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995 Jun 12;761:56-65. Local inhibition of sebaceous gland growth by topically applied RU 58841. Matias JR1, Gaillard M....the abstract for this paper is:

The biological activity of a series of nonsteroidal, pure androgen receptor inhibitors was compared using the Syrian hamster ear skin sebaceous gland model. RU 58841, RU 56187, RU 38882 and cyproterone acetate were applied topically for 4 weeks on the ventral ear pinna of sexually mature male Syrian hamsters. Their order of efficacy was as follows: RU 58841 > RU 56187 > RU 38882 > cyproterone acetate. Maximal reduction of 60% in the size of the sebaceous glands was observed in hamsters treated with RU 58841 at a dose of 10 micrograms per day. This degree of inhibition occurred without any systemic side effects as shown by the absence of inhibition on the contralateral untreated ear pinna. Longer treatment did not produce greater inhibition since extending the treatment period from 4 weeks to 12 weeks showed similar data. The effect of RU 58841 was reversible since the inhibited sebaceous glands returned to normal size within 4 weeks after the cessation of the topical applications. The potent localized inhibition of sebaceous glands by RU 58841 demonstrates the excellent potential of this compound as a topical drug for the treatment of acne and other androgen-mediated disorders.

Frankly i don't know or care whether the research is right or wrong in its assessment of properties of this chemical, like whether or not it likely to be effective as acne treatment. But it is a basic thing, a chemical, and it is something that is studied. So it seems to me that it is obviously notable. Is there a wp:CHEMICAL-NOTABILITY standard or some other relevant guideline? Again i am not familiar with Wikipedia practices with respect to chemicals, but it seems to me that if a chemical exists, has a name, has been studied in literature, then it would seem obviously notable. So I stick with my "vote!" of "Speedy Keep" above, unless and until someone educates me differently. --do ncr am 05:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, doncram, i acknowledge that there was not and is not any bullshit promotion present. i was crabby when i wrote that, argh. sorry all. my point was that this is stuff is only "notable" for its being sold in a schlocky way as a hair growth product. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know if those sources are of any value (there is some suggestion they are primary sources but I don't really understand that claim either) but I think there needs to be some separation between the the chemical and the pharmaceuticals subsequently created with that chemical as an active ingredient (or whatever term is used). We shouldn't be promoting the pharmaceutical applications with claims not supported by WP:MEDRS. But coverage of the chemical itself would seem to be okay. I think it's the former Jytdog objects to but the latter that doncram suggests should remain. Stalwart111 08:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was invented as a drug candidate, and apparently picked up by internet shillers. As a drug candidate, it is health-related so we turn to MEDRS. The notability standard for anything health-related in WP:MEDRS is discussion in a peer-reviewed review article (secondary source), and as I said, we have nothing there.... Basic research articles, like the two that you found, Stalwart111, are primary sources and MEDRS warns against basing content (much less whole articles) on primary sources, even more strongly than WP:RS does. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at cross purposes a bit. I get that they are primary sources insofar as they provide conclusions about the pharmaceutical applications of the chemical and those conclusions would need interpretation. I agree we couldn't use those as sources for any medical claims which rely on our interpretation of those documents. But for the purposes of providing significant coverage in independent sources for the chemical itself (without any medical application claims) they are okay aren't they? I mean for the purposes of confirming the chemical exists and has a real-world application (as doncram suggests) those sources are okay? They can be used to create an article about the chemical with its basic facts but we couldn't use them as the basis of an article that makes any treatment claims. Have I got that right? (If not, where have I gone wrong?) Stalwart111 13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the general notability guideline, although what can be mentioned in the article partly depends on WP:MEDRS as mentioned. The first result in a PubMed search is described as a review, although not specifically about it, and there are others that appear to be similar[26][27] and mentions in a few books. I haven't searched very thoroughly, so it's likely that more can be found. Peter James (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being discussed in the review article "Investigational medications in the treatment of alopecia" and being the subject of several primary sources is sufficient evidence of notability in my opinion. ChemNerd (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google Scholar search finds at least one paper about this compound that gets 63 citations, so the chemical is of some interest to scientists. We can stay on the good side of WP:MEDRS by keeping medical claims out of the article. Even if this compound has no value in medicine it is biologically active and it sticks to androgen receptors. At present we can't even say that it has *applications* in medicine; such applications would require drug approval which has not been given. Note that we already have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Antiandrogens, which has entries for both drugs and non-drugs. It's hard to see an argument for deletion of the non-drugs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 June 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 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Bay Geography Summative[edit]

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

Original research. Statements include, "Thunder Bay Geography Summative By Ella Sabourin", "...Thunder bay that I was able to locate is Future Shop" and. "This is my collage of images. I photographed each image". What isn't original research can be found on Thunder Bay page or copied from thunderbay web site. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as duplicate of Thunder Bay. This article looks very much like a college project.TheLongTone (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete I tagged the article up (how come there's no maintenance template ((reads like homework))?) and intended to come back to do something about it later. Definitely comes across as homework. If the homework had inline references, perhaps some of the information could be incorporated into Thunder Bay, but alas, it duz not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete OR, school project Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:57, 2 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudwear[edit]

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

Initial review-- this company doesn't seem notable, it's very small, a search yields this page and the website of this company, and a Facebook page. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previously rejected at AfC on Notability grounds, but with the addition of a couple of unreferenced sentences now uploaded into main article space anyway. AllyD (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of curiosity, how would I go about proving the notability of the company to the guidelines' satisfaction? Redfhendrix (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you say salt, User:Xxanthippe? Is there any evidence that this article has been created multiple times? I couldn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prescience. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

LOL! --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find this press release in which Samsung list the company's product in a list of apps for their device, but that would be insufficient to establish the "iwunta" product as notable, and I can find nothing that shows the company to be notable. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 22:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP. To answer your question, User:Redfhendrix, the way to prove the notability of a company is to show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. That means that the company has been significantly written about by third parties (newspapers, etc.) with a reputation for reliability. Things like blogs, press releases, etc. don't count; the company must have attracted significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If that coverage does not exist, then there is no amount of rewriting or adding unreliable sources that will get the article into shape to meet the guideline of WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Personally, I think that the references posted: 1) Coverage as CBS partner at Comic-Con (Just added) and 2) Coverage as a funded/partnered business with Telefonica (Previously Cited) are sufficient proofs of notability. Granted, I am relatively new to the wikipedia creation crowd so I don't have the insight you all may have. If on last look you guys decide to delete, I'm not going to throw a fit and re-post as some may predict. However, if you could let me know the process for re-review once I feel like Cloudwear has received enough coverage to be "notable," I'd appreciate it since I don't want to self-salt out of fear someone may actually salt. Redfhendrix (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any WP:COI in this matter, such as editing for reward? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- As you can probably see from my public profile, this is my first real foray into creating Wiki content. I'd rather not have it be a failure. Is there anything particularly biased in the article? Redfhendrix (talk) 3:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Redfhendrix, you could request the closing administrator to "userfy" it to you. If they agree, that means it would be put in your own space, not part of the encyclopedia, where you could develop it. Once you think you have enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORP (consensus seems to be that you don't now; and I agree with that assessment; all you have from third-party sources is a few passing mentions, not significant coverage), you could ask that same closing administrator if it is sufficiently improved for you to repost it. --MelanieN (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the insight MelanieN, I will probably do that. Redfhendrix (talk) 3:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You can make that request here at this discussion, if you like. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can copy the source of the article and paste it into your own sandbox. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Userfy: If this article is chosen to be deleted, please userfy it back to me so I can keep an eye on the subject matter and request a review in the future. Redfhendrix (talk) 1:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rauf Asghar[edit]

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

Completely incoherent Gazkthul (talk) 05:09, 1 June 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 June 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is badly done, but this man is a wanted terrorist with a violent background. Copyediting and more inline citations are needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains an incredible amount of errors (grammar, spelling and structure). Many will need to be redone, and references added. Most of it is likely to have been written by someone without a solid understanding of English. He (Abdul Rauf Asghar) is often referred to as 'it'. TheTallSomething(talk) 20:16, 1 June 2014 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 13:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is the nominator for real? You do not use AfD to get improvements at an article which is obviously notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD's are not for articles that are simply in bad shape. — dain omite 16:11, 6 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mbonu[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources meeting WP:BASIC. Originally taken from a no-doubt copyrighted alumni association obituary, as can be seen at [28]. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obits are not suitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 2 June 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When My Name Was Keoko[edit]

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

Delete: This article is about a novel that is not notable. The article is almost entirely a summery of the novel. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know... I see where the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center has a record of it and where it looks to be a part of at least one college course. So far I think it would probably pass WP:NBOOK as something that is taught in classrooms. I do remember this being a frequent school purchase back when I was working in a bookstore, but I'll try to find the sources here to prove it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence here as I find it: ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], this one appears to be a senior teaching project, [35], [36], [37]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found multiple reviews after some digging, and these along with the Smithsonian APAC note (they don't list each and every book out there, mind you) and the usage in classrooms shows that it passes NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tokyogirl79's evidence demonstrates notability.Eustachiusz (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request to delete the article: Significant progress has been made to this page. Here is the old revision. More sources have been added, an info box was added, a reception section and an awards section has been added. Furthermore, notability seems to have been proven. -- Kndimov (talk) 20:55, 4 June 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 00:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andover Wheelers[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it has quite a few references, none of them are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article hasn't been developed much since 2010, but it had significant coverage then. A new search in British sources (not easily available to me) would round up more, I expect. Could someone search? Notability is not temporary, either. --do ncr am 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 12:26, 2 June 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. for something that has existed for over 75 years you'd expect it to get wider than local coverage. Not one hit in BBC. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --A NN amateur sporting club. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 6 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

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

This WP:TWODABS page does not list any unrelated topics; rather, it lists the general topic of the Cuisine of Hawaii, and a subtopic of that general topic, the Native cuisine of Hawaii. These topics are not ambiguous to one another in the way that, for example, the mythical phoenix is ambiguous to the Arizona city, Phoenix. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that Native Hawaiian cuisine is itself discussed in the general article on the Cuisine of Hawaii. Delete and redirect to Cuisine of Hawaii. bd2412 T 01:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it may be contradictory to say both delete and redirect, I agree redirect to "Cuisinie of Hawaii", with a hatnote to the other article, not sure we needed to bring this to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean delete the current disambiguation page and create a redirect in its place. I think AfD is appropriate for this because the current content must still be deleted. bd2412 T 01:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you can just withdraw this AfD and revert to the previous version. Unless there's a reason why we need an AfD instead of a revert? Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The edit summary for the creation of this page implies that it is discussion-based. For the sake of finality, I think we are better served by generating a clear consensus in favor of the proposed reversion. This will make it easier to address future shenanigans. bd2412 T 01:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, a large community discussion from 2012 which generated a consensus that was recently overturned by a disruptive sockpuppet based on no discussion for the sole purpose of creating a content fork based on material copy and pasted from other articles, in effect, overturning the previous community consensus based on a whim. There's a good reason this account is currently blocked. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and previous stable version before the Candleabracadabra sock puppet returned to disrupt Wikipedia once again with the creation of this unneeded dab page. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Viriditas, also worth noting that any edit by a banned user can be reverted without discussion, so you are free to revert this article back to the redirect that it was.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Andrew (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew, I have no dispute, and have not engaged in this manner at all until I saw this clearly unambiguous topic show up on our list of problematic disambiguation pages. Please assume good faith with respect to my motives, and please consider the issue at hand - whether we need a "disambiguation page" that pretty clearly violates WP:TWODABS and WP:DABCONCEPT, and which creates errors that disambiguators must address. bd2412 T 14:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are proposing that the page be changed from being a dab page to being a redirect page. Deletion would be quite redundant and unnecessary in making this edit and so AFD is not an appropriate process and this discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK. As for ambiguity, the current page content seems quite correct. The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink states that "Food of Hawaii can be separated into two categories: Hawaiian food, the food of the native islanders, and local food, the eclectic blend of the cuisines of later settlers." The Pacific Region states that "Two parallel cuisines developed: Hawaiian food associated with the Polynesians and haole food associated with the settlers from New England." As we have good sources supporting this content, it should be retained per our editing policy. If your real objection is some technical point about dab pages, then this may be resolved by ordinary editing as I shall demonstrate. Andrew (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - For what it's worth, those sources are a bit confused, but almost accurate. Food historians who write about Hawaii generally break down the two categories listed above into three, and the three categories into five, so when we talk about the cuisine of Hawaii, we are talking about five distinct styles, one of which is Polynesian or Native Hawaiian. The term "haole food" is not actually used. Post-contact cuisine includes that of the British, Americans, missionaries and whalers. The New England influence came from the American missionaries. "Local food" actually does not refer to the New England influence as your source seems to suggest, but to the later ethnic immigrant influence that arose in the plantations. "Local food" therefore, has a distinctive ethnic component, often Asian, sometimes Portuguese. New England influence may be found in "local food" but it plays a smaller role. "Local food" isn't "settler food" however, it is another type entirely, and it is one that evolved in Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion is now WP:TLDR, it seems too late for a speedy close. Andrew (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - with respect to Andrew, I see this more as an effort to dispel ambiguity and confirm a strong consensus rather than to end a dispute (doesn't look like much of a dispute). I don't think anyone is trying to game anything. As pointed out above, the nominator could simply have reversed the actions of a blocked/banned editor but chose to come here to seek consensus. On the issue of the disambiguation itself, the nominators rationale seems sound. Stalwart111 12:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian cuisine seems to be a better title than Cuisine of Hawaii, just as we have French cuisine, Chinese cuisine, African cuisine, &c. Note also that these cuisines are divided into more detailed cuisines, such as Provencal cuisine, Cantonese cuisine and Ghanaian cuisine. As Hawaaian cuisine contains different sub-cuisines with particular names, traditions and heritages, it seems appropriate to have a multi-level structure as we do for other complex cases. Andrew (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd have no objection to the primary topic being at that title with appropriate links and ((main)) tags to Native cuisine of Hawaii which is a sub-topic. I've spent quite a bit of time working on Christmas Island cuisine which has a similar issue. Australian cuisine is the primary topic. You could accurately describe Christmas Island cuisine as "Australian cuisine" but a disambiguation page wouldn't make any sense. People looking for native Hawaiian cuisine will likely include the word "native" in their search or will be directed to the primary cuisine topic with links from history and native cuisine sections. While "two parallel cuisines developed", it's not true to say that only one should be dealt with at Hawaiian cuisine. That article should deal with both and all other sub-cuisines too - anything that forms part of historical or modern cuisine in Hawaii. From there we should have sub-articles dealing with each of the notable sub-cuisines. The Hawaiian cuisine article shouldn't be limited to "food associated with the settlers from New England" with all others relegated to sub-articles.

Cuisine of the United States
(Parent topic)

~~Hawaiian cuisine~~
Cuisine of Hawaii
(Primary topic)

~~Cuisine of Hawaii~~
Hawaiian cuisine
(Redirect)

Native cuisine of Hawaii

New-England origin
Hawaiian food

Other sub-topic

I've created a little flow chart to illustrate what I mean. Stalwart111 00:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that this is the best solution, for consistency. I can see no reason for Hawaiian cuisine to contain content different from Cuisine of Hawaii. bd2412 T 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Stalwart111, and BD2412 make good points, but I believe they are mistaken, and the above flow chart is incorrect. Hawaii, a former Kingdom and sovereign nation, is home to the Native Hawaiians, and their food is discussed in terms of the cuisine of Ancient Hawaii, but this is not the primary topic. The primary topic of this article is the cuisine of Hawaii. "Hawaiian" specifically refers to a native person of Hawaiian descent. If we talk about "Hawaiian cuisine" we are talking about Polynesian, Ancient Hawaiian, or Native Hawaiian food. The cuisine of Hawaii is composed of Native Hawaiian cuisine, immigrant cuisine, and contemporary cuisine. Immigrant cuisine can be further broken down into subcategories leading to a total of five overall distinct types of food in Hawaii (Polynesian, Native Hawaiian; European, American, Missionary, and Whalers; Plantation immigrant, ethnic foods; Local food of Hawaii; Hawaii Regional Cuisine). This has been discussed extensively in the past, and community consensus determined "that Cuisine of Hawaii is a preferable name for the general article." Therefore, "Hawaiian cuisine" is not a better title than "Cuisine of Hawaii". "Hawaiian cuisine" has been a stable redirect for this reason. Clearly, there is an argument here for that redirect to do one of many things: 1) remain as before, a redirect to the primary cuisine article; 2) become a dab page 3) redirect to "Native cuisine of Hawaii". As for the flow chart, the primary topic here is "Cuisine of Hawaii". Native cuisine of Hawaii is a possible subtopic. There is no such possible topic as "New-England origin Hawaiian food" since that topic is Cuisine of New England, a related topic. It is discussed in the sources as a post-contact, "Kama'aina" food, one of many. This AfD should not be used in place of a requested move discussion. I recommend that the nominator withdraw the nomination and that a discussion take place on the talk page(s) to determine the course of action for the current redirect. We are not discussing a deletion topic here so this AfD serves no purpose but to muddy the water. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my flow-chart was just to illustrate what I wasn't able to explain properly in prose. Your rationale with regard to the primary topic title makes sense and there does seem to be an existing consensus for that. The "New England" title was just a place-holder to explain where in that arrangement Andrew's suggestion would fit. I've amended the flow-chart to reflect your comment (I think). Stalwart111 07:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most important point, I think, is that Hawaiian cuisine does not mean anything different from Cuisine of Hawaii, and that (as the flow chart indicates) there should be one general article on all the kinds of cuisine associated with Hawaii, with specific kinds of Hawaiian cuisine being treated as subtopics. bd2412 T 13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hawaiian cuisine" does mean something different, as I explained up above. "Hawaiian" refers to "Native Hawaiian" or "Ancient Hawaiian" cuisine. People who live in Hawaii are not "Hawaiians", they are either Native Hawaiian by ethnicity or they are residents of Hawaii. Long-term residents are called kama'aina or locals, however locals generally means that you are born and raised in Hawaii, whereas Kama'aina is often used for someone who was not. We already have a stable, general article on "all kinds of cuisine" associated with Hawaii, and it is appropriately titled, "Cuisine of Hawaii" for good reason. Whether we need to treat specific kinds of cuisine as subtopics depends on factors that have nothing to do with this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a distinction in the sources between "Hawaiian food" and "local food", and between "Hawaiian food" and "haole food", but no source makes a distinction between the phrase "Hawaiian cuisine" and the phrase "Cuisine of Hawaii". Since these are the titles at issue, please provide a source making this specific distinction. bd2412 T 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hawaiian food" is a synonym for "Hawaiian cuisine". Therefore, you have already acknowledged the distinction. Are you making an argument from ignorance here? Are you seriously claiming that the term "Hawaiian food" and "Hawaiian cuisine" mean different things on Wikipedia? We don't call our articles "Food of X", we call them "Cuisine of Y" by definition and naming convention. I've already discussed how the word "Hawaiian" is generally used to refer to the Native people of Hawaii, not to the cuisine of Hawaii. Since you've already demonstrated the distinction, can you please stop with the fallacies and withdraw this poorly nominated AfD? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd position to take given how easy it is to find sources which describe "Hawaiian cuisine" as an umbrella term with the same meaning as you proffer for "Cuisine of Hawaii", encompassing both native and imported cuisines - for example:

Bree Kessler, Moon Big Island of Hawai'i: Including Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park (2012): Hawaiian cuisine consists of several genres: “plantation foods," “local foods," and “Hawaii Regional Cuisine."
Xiaojian Zhao, ‎Edward J.W. Park, PH.D., Asian Americans: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History (2013), p. 485: Hawaiian cuisine can be split into two categories: Native Hawaiian and “local.”
Corey Sandler, ‎Michael Roney, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hawaii (2007), p. 26: Because of its history as a melting pot of cultures, Hawaiian cuisine borrows the best of many world cuisines, from Japanese, Chinese, Korean, native Hawaiian, and even Portuguese, to a fusion of them all.

I will therefore elect to follow the sources. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another fallacy, this time the search engine test fallacy. Will the fallacies ever end? "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement can mean." BIG FAIL. You did a Google search on your preferred term and then decide, based on three instances of erroneous usage in non-specialist sources, that your search results are accurate. Are you kidding me? Moon Big Island of Hawai'i isn't a book about the cuisine of Hawaii. It's a tertiary travel guide about the Big Island. The author writes about the Big Island and uses the term "Hawaiian cuisine" loosely and without regard to how sources about the cuisine of Hawaii actually use it. Why does Arnonld Hura, for example, name his 178 page book,Kau Kau: Cuisine & Culture in the Hawaiian Islands, rather than "Hawaiian cuisine"? Is it because he recognizes the distinction between traditional Native Hawaiian cuisine and the cuisine of Hawaii in general? As if one tertiary source that isn't about cuisine in Hawaii wasn't enough, now you point to a second tertiary sources that isn't about food in Hawaii to support your cherry picked fallacy, this time Zhao & Park's Asian Americans: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History. Zhao & Park list their references at the bottom, Laudan 1996 and Takaki 1983, neither one of which use the term "Hawaiian cuisine" in this matter. So, as it turns out "Hawaiian cuisine" in Zhao & Park's tertiary sources was a naming convention that they chose to use for their encyclopedia about Asian-Americans, but not an actual term used in the literature about the cuisine in Hawaii. BD2412, this is not how we use sources. The sources about the cuisine of Hawaii, written by historians and food specialists, do not use the term "Hawaiian cuisine" to refer to the general food of Hawaii. That you found two tertiary sources who chose to use this term even though the sources they cite do not is not a big surprise. What's surprising is that you actually think that the fallacy of the search engine result is actually how we choose titles and write articles. It's not. First of all, we rely on secondary sources about the topic. Second of all, we choose authoritative sources about the topic. Third of all, we do the research and read the actual sources. I hope this is clear and that I've corrected your misunderstanding. Rachel Laudan provides an extensive bibliography on pp. 277-288 that you should pursue if you are interested in what the sources actually say. The next time you respond to this discussion please respond only with sources about the cuisine of Hawaii. Please do not try to cherry pick your preferred search term from sources about other topics. We use the title "Cuisine of Hawaii" because 1) that is an acceptable naming convention on Wikipedia, and 2) there is an acknowledged ambiguity with the term "Hawaiian", which is reserved for the Native Hawaiian people, not for the cuisine of Hawaii in general. This is the same reason why "Hawaii Regional Cuisine" is not named "Hawaiian Regional Cuisine". Given that the most contemporary style of Hawaii-related cuisine does not use the term "Hawaiian" in its name, I can still find many sources that use this name erroneously.[38] The fact that you can find this usage, does not imply it is acceptable or correct. It merely shows that many authors and editors are ignorant on the subject. If we were to follow your argument, we should now change the title of our article on Hawaii Regional Cuisine to "Hawaiian Regional Cuisine". Of course, this change would be wrong. I believe this counterargument directly refutes your central point. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address this to the content of the article? At the time that I nominated this page for deletion, it was a WP:TWODABS page indicating that the phrase "Hawaiian cuisine" may refer equally to Native Hawaiian cuisine or to Cuisine of Hawaii. TWODABS requires the page to point to the primary topic if there is one, so the existence of a disambiguation page at all indicates that the term can have either meaning, which is particularly problematic where one meaning is a subtopic of the other, as is clearly the case with Native Hawaiian cuisine, one kind of Cuisine of Hawaii. Currently, the article states: "Hawaiian cuisine is the food and distinctive dishes of the Hawaiian islands. This is divided into two main strands:- native Hawaiian cuisine — the Polynesian food eaten on the islands prior to European contact — and the foods imported and eaten by more recent immigrants such as the settlers from New England". This would seem to differ from your above suggestion that "Hawaiian cuisine" does not encompass "the foods imported and eaten by more recent immigrants". If the current content is wrong, then the page should redirect to Native cuisine of Hawaii; if the current content is right, then all we have is a content fork of the existing Cuisine of Hawaii. The question is not whether it is wrong, but how it is wrong. bd2412 T 02:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another false dilemma. This isn't an either/or situation, and the ambiguity of the term "Hawaiian" leads to the primary topic not to the Native Hawaiian fork. If that fork is ever to evolve, then with the existence of two pages, we would have a hatnote on the cuisine article, because that is the primary topic. You keep seeing this as a black and white situation when it is not. To recap yet again, previous move discussions left the article under discussion as a redirect to "Cuisine of Hawaii". Recently, a sockpuppet deliberately ignored this consensus and began disrupting the entire topic area and made a complete mess of the policies and guidelines in the process. This included removing the redirect and replacing it with a dab page, without any discussion, and forking content out of the main cuisine article into a new article. We already have a stable article on the "Cuisine of Hawaii', appropriately sourced to secondary sources about the subject. The latest version of the nominated dab page has forked the stable topic version, using two tertiary sources that cite the secondary sources incorrectly. Furthermore, those particular sources use the term "food of Hawaii" which is synonymous with the term "Cuisine of Hawaii'. And while it may seem logical to simply split this into pre-contact and post-contact foods as these tertiary sources do, by identifying two main strands, that's only a top-level perspective. Food historians like Laudan split the two types further into five distinct types (although at the time of her book, HRC was new, so she mostly focused on only four, but still acknowledged HRC). This is because each type builds upon the other, with HRC incorporating all four previous styles. As I said before, this nomination should be withdrawn, the redirect should be restored, and the discussion should continue on the appropriate talk page. We don't fork stable articles, we don't create them with tertiary sources that differ from the secondary sources, and we don't use AfD as a substitute for article talk discussion. There's a hell of a lot of disruption going on here, and it really needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we agree that the current content needs to go, and a redirect should exist in its place, which is the point of the AfD. Please note that my proposal was to delete the disambiguation page (which you seem to agree should not be at this title) and redirect this title elsewhere (which you have just advocated). I have no objection to the page redirecting to Native cuisine of Hawaii; I just don't think that it is a title requiring a disambiguation page. Turning a page with content into a redirect still requires deletion of that content, so I believe that an AfD is required in such a circumstance (and, indeed, we often have AfDs that result in redirects). bd2412 T 03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is deletion required when all one has to do is revert to the previous redirect? I said before, there is an argument for a dab page, but it is a poor one at best. We could create a dab page that lists many different types of Hawaii-related food articles. But again, I think at present, the dab should be reverted back to the redirect before the commotion began and a hatnote placed on the primary. Again, a dab page is one solution to this issue, but perhaps not the best solution. Still, I don't see anything requiring deletion. At the end of the day this is a reqmove/dab discussion, not an AfD. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a disamb page. Native cuisine of Hawaii, Cuisine of Hawaii, and Hawaii regional cuisine make three pages that people could be searching for. Dream Focus 00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you review WP:DABCONCEPT, you will see that this is the textbook example of a collection of related terms. bd2412 T 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you search for "Hawaiian cuisine" you are looking for one of those three things. Dream Focus 05:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What if you're looking for all kinds of cuisine found in Hawaii, collectively? bd2412 T 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Add anything else to the list then. Do you plan on making all the listed articles merged together as one somehow? Dream Focus 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, since that is what WP:DABCONCEPT requires where the purportedly ambiguous topics are not unrelated. The newly added topics are also not title matches. There seems to be some confusion here between disambiguation pages, which list articles having the same title (like Mercury (planet) and Mercury (god)), and articles that happen to be subtopics of the same topic. This is why we don't have a disambiguation page at the title, Bill Clinton listing Presidency of Bill Clinton as an ambiguous topic. The latter is one aspect of the former, just as all of the topics listed on this page are aspects of the cuisine of Hawaii, but are not all title matches. bd2412 T 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: This is a topic for a move request or another discussion on the article's talk page. Since this is a plausible search term, deletion is off the table and the only possible outcomes are keeping the dab page or redirecting to one of the articles p b p 04:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is proposing a deletion by redirect (see policy WP:ATD-R). The policy says "If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus". Like talk pages, AfD is a forum for consensus, which the nom probably has a right to choose. -- GreenC 05:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a general talk page for any and every article. If people want to attract comment to an article's talk page, there are other processes including WP:RfC and WP:THIRD. Andrew (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have the right to start an AfD, is my point. It's a type of consensus discussion, just like talk page discussions. The policy says "talk page" but again, that is a generic way of saying "work it out through consensus" which is what an AfD is. I may propose the policy be amended to better reflect as it's too restricting as-is, editors have the right to deal with WP:ATD-R in any consensus-building way. -- GreenC 16:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm swayed by the arguments for redirection. The current page is neither fish nor fowl: article, list or dab page. A search on "Hawaiian cuisine" should redirect to the main article which then provides pathways to sub and related articles via See Also's, hatnotes, Main article:, and/or Categories: -- GreenC 05:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process of ordinary editing is proving productive. The page is back to being a dab page and now has six plausible entries. This addresses the original complaint of WP:TWODABS. Andrew (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a disambiguation page. With three viable articles (Cuisine of Hawaii, Native Hawaiian cuisine and Hawaii Regional Cuisine), along with the list article, it's a functional disambig page. Further discussion can always occur on the talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 5 June 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 01:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kea Wong[edit]

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

Her most notable role according to the article is a cameo, barely noticeable. JDDJS (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 May 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, czar ♔ 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears to fail WP:NACTOR. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 26 May 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 00:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her IMDB profile appears to list enough roles to meet the notability threshold for an actress. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick points... First IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly WP:ACTOR requires multiple significant roles. I don't see any. If RS sources can be found that point to those multiple significant roles I will happily change my !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But weak delete. My take is Wong is a competent actor who works rather steadily, who has not had major roles, has zero contact with the press, or does not cultivate the press. I looked through twenty (20) SERP pages, using the minimal "web" filter (not the "news" filter) and basically found a few filmography-like sources from the NY Times, a film database, but not much else. No film reviewers commenting on how well she acted, no comments by her about film or TV or anything really, almost like she is an invisible actor? Does that make sense? So I am sensing she does not meet the general notability guideline, although her filmography suggests she is a steady actor. Still, any admin closing this debate ought to take a good look at these pageview statistics, with eyeball counts over 1000 in one day recently, so there may be protest from fans if this article gets axed. Glad I'm not making the final call.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Admins get those big salaries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 11 June 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 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arti Film[edit]

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

Advertising, fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 14:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can't prove that foreign language RSes don't exist, in its current state (1 sentence of content, redlink list farm, and many useless bluelinks which don't reference these folks), this is IMO a good WP:DYNAMITE candidate. Roberticus talk 15:04, 24 May 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 00:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:SPA article setting out material that can comfortably sit on the firm's own website. No claim or evidence of notability; I agree with User:Roberticus's assessment. AllyD (talk) 05:03, 1 June 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) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gausur Rahman[edit]

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

Not enough sources to establish notability. This is the only thing I could find. 舎利弗 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 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 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is substantially copied from that solitary Daily Star piece, so if it survives this AfD the WP:COPYVIO will need to be removed. AllyD (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that. I forgot to check. 舎利弗 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Foundational copyvio and not enough sources to rewrite into an independent article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to establish the Bengali name "গাউসুর রহমান" .. but there's nothing of substance on Google. Other than a single article in the Daily Star, there isn't much to build a case for Keep. -- GreenC 00:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, IMO; also some SPIP going on here, I think. Quis separabit? 20:39, 6 June 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 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Whitney (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. The one reference is about another boxer who used his nickname first. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 06:24, 27 May 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 00:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 2 June 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badi Door Se Aaye Hain[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and is covered by WP:CRYSTAL. Creator is a now blocked sockpuppeteer so I haven't notified them of this nomination. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 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 00:39, 1 June 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 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Mayhem 2008[edit]

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

The event is itself notable but as an individual race, it isn't. The inclusion of this is like allowing individual school cross country contests to be included, which is hardly notable itself. Donnie Park (talk) 01:40, 24 May 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 May 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any compelling reason why this specific year should have its own page. Bali88 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of cycling-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 24 May 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 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- None of the articipants have articles, which suggests that none are notable sportpeople. From that I deduce this this is an amateur race (or event). If so, it is clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 6 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Feerick[edit]

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

I don't see that the sources demonstrates that this person meets WP:PERP. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:VER and WP:BIO1E.Blue Riband► 12:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that she is an attorney and was a defendant are both verifiable. Neither makes her notable according to my usual standards or WP:GNG. The stub appears to be some kind of hatchet job. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 3 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bone Clocks[edit]

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

WP:SPECULATION about a future novel. Only reference is publisher's page, no independent reviews or announcements. Mikeblas (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Given the author's track record, I believe the novel will be notable, assuming it is published. But for now, this is WP:CRYSTAL. There's pretty much nothing in the article other than a quote from the author's web site (which may or may not be a WP:COPYVIO), so there's no real loss in deleting it now. BTW, I notified the editor who created the article, but this has pretty much been his only Wikipedia activity, so I don't know whether he'll comment. TJRC (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best way for an encyclopedia to find out what will happen in the future is to wait. Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has just enough coverage from disparate news sources to merit a keep. So long as GNG is met, that is all that matters. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't quite get past the sense that the Bookseller ref is a warmed over press release, the Guardian is cute but doesn't really provide "coverage" that can be written for, and that as a result, we're not there yet. I have no doubt this will be notable, but I don't think it is .. yet. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:05, 11 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FACET[edit]

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

Non-notable; no indication of significance; very short and not human-edited for several years Listroiderbob^talk _edits ^more 00:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If worthy of encyclopaedic coverage at all, this surely belongs at the university page, possibly under Indiana_University#Awards. That doesn't currently mention FACET, and nor am I finding any external coverage of what appears to be simply an in-institution arrangement. AllyD (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This seems to just be an acronym that would be better defined on their website somewhere. Perhaps appropriate for an internal wiki if they have one, but not appropriate here. Zell Faze (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simple definition of an acronym. This is swell, but not WP's function. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, Very short & somewhat useless. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:26, 3 June 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.