< 22 June 24 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 - page created by a blocked or banned editor Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eushta[edit]

Eushta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a Google search,I can't even find the supposed ethnic group, and the village with the same name is non notable itself. Staglit (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:59, 24 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 deckertalk 03:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Supper Movie 2014[edit]

Last Supper Movie 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of it copyrighted from here:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498590/ Also, I cannot find any evidence of notability. Staglit (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wenche Kjølås[edit]

Wenche Kjølås (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a Norwegian businessperson. I don't see how she has made any significant contributions to the field of business, even with the updated edits. See WP:BIO Gdfusion (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nominated this article for deletion, it has significantly improved, adding reliable third-party sources, specific examples, and removing WP:PEACOCK words and phrases. So I retract my nomination for deletion. Gdfusion (talk) 16:07, 24 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday (Hillsong United album)[edit]

Everyday (Hillsong United album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 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. No policy argument for deleting the material was presented, and a plan for presenting content was put forward. j⚛e deckertalk 03:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC[edit]

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two different court cases here, one from 1980 and another from 2008, which have been combined in this article by people unfamiliar with the differences between CB and ham radio. bleak_fire_ (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment How about instead of deletion, we create a disambiguation page, like this?

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (disambiguation)

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC can refer to either:

K2TRF has stated (see Talk page) that most of the content on the page refers to 1980 with incorrect technical information. We can keep this page, with the changes suggested by K2TRF and I (we are both ham operators, and I am familiar with legal citations). Then we link this article into the 1980 on the disambiguation page, while allowing someone to write the 2008 case later on?

We can use the Talk page of the disambiguation page to store information for later transfer to 2008 when it is made.

-bleak_fire_ (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should post what I did on the Talk page here, for continuity to the AfD. In the first paragraph, three reference links are applied to the end of the date (at the end of the sentence):
    1. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/617/875/41173/
    2. http://www.leagle.com/decision/2008751524F3d227_1727
    3. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12380905032588396714&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
The first link references the 1980 case, whereas the second and third links are entirely about the 2008 case. From this alone, we can assume the article was written with mixed sources, and therefore has multiple problems/inconsistencies in its text. I'm not sure if I'm just incredibly tired (at 11:46pm locally) or if this article is written incorrectly, but I don't see anything even remotely related to Broadband over Power Line systems (BPL), which is what the 2008 case was entirely about. The 1980 case, dealing with the massive influx of CB operations and the unregulated nature of both CB as a service and the mentioned operators, is the only case case I can see mentioned/referenced in this text. Perhaps it is just a very shallow article discussing the 1980 case, and needs to have the irrelevant references removed as well as have the content of the article expanded with the valid, relevant references? Then a new page could be made for the 2008 case, dealing with BPL rather than CB.


If the current article is denied AfD, it should only be because it is/becomes adopted/corrected by someone with the time to (essentially) rewrite the current page using only the 1980 case information (since that is what the article reads about, and has no discussion about the 2008 case present). Then another article could be created for the 2008 case, with those respective references. Sadly, I cannot guarantee I would be able to do this in a timely manner myself, due to other already existing obligations. If I have time later on at some point, I will return to see if the AfD passed or was denied (for adoption & re-creating), however if nobody has the free time to currently take this task on, I have to vote for the AfD, as it is incorrect and confusing in its current state. k2trf (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K2TRF, I am willing to fix the current article once it's moved to 1980 in a disambiguation page. We don't need to create a 2008 article right away, it can just be listed on the disambiguation page and linked once the article is made. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 06:31, 25 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 deckertalk 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Pett[edit]

Tom Pett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested with no explanation. The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played a match in a fully professional league. There is no indication the article passes WP:GNG as no evidence is present to show the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player has signed for League 2 club Stevenage and is guaranteed to be a starting player in next season's league, I would ask the page may be allowed to remain at least until he has played a professional game, which will be within 2 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96jrimmer (talkcontribs)

"is guaranteed to be a starting player in next season's league" - you have no proof of that. If he does play, the article can be un-deleted by an admin with a couple of clicks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 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:G11 too slakrtalk / 01:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpul[edit]

Gumpul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail our notability guidelines. There is a certain amount presence on social media, much of it seemingly written by somebody with the same name as the article's creator, but there is a shortage of independent coverage. The website itself seems to be based on WordPress. The logo was copyvio (uploader took somebody else's image, cropped out a copyright notice, and added "Gumpul.com" to the bottom), so I removed it. bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,..

Gumpul is a independent site the content is not created by it's owner but by users across the globe you can notify the 20000 face book likes for brand "gumpul". it is notable Specially in India. yo can't deny it im not advertising about the site here i just wrote about a brand. deleting is not wise decision, Alexa's Rank is a proof to say that it has notability, as well Gumpul also got Voted by number of users on Top ten's " list of top 10 classified sites " and got 7 most desirable classified site in india the two sources are can't be manipulate by owners.

  • It may help your argument if you add sources to the article. The company's facebook page, etc. are not considered reliable sources. Are there news articles about the company? Do you know how to do inline sources? Bali88 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn (as indicated by blanking this page) without other participation. j⚛e deckertalk 02:40, 1 July 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 deckertalk 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate led recruitment[edit]

Candidate led recruitment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertsing. Expert 2 Care promoting Expert 2 Care. The Banner talk 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacancy led recruitment of the same company. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 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 and redirect to Warped Tour. Most of the "keep" !votes boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, but it is clear that there is no good coverage and without coverage, we cannot have an article. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2012[edit]

Warped Tour 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Warped Tour was undone. My argument: there is no verified content in here, and the only thing this and other articles have is a list of bands that played there. Even if those appearances themselves were verified, that doesn't make them notable, and it certainly doesn't make this particular instance of the tour notable. Whatever is relevant and of encyclopedic value can be stated in the main article--the rest falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With out theses articles, most of the information will be lost for those who want to look back at the list for whatever reason. Wikipedia is for encyclopedia reasons, and this would fall under encyclopedia reasons. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced, and serves as an encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talkcontribs) 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is sourced does not mean it is automatically in need of an article on Wikipedia. Johnny338 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not "sourced". There's a couple of announcements, and announcements of announcements. Some of them might actually in reliable sources, maybe, but that's not the point. I'll cite the relevant guideline from Wikipedia:WikiProject Concert Tours:

Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

This burden has not been met for this or the other articles. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Warped tour HAS received significant coverage in independent reliable sources for all the examples you have listed... Encmetalhead (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't, and the 2012 version (and the others) certainly hasn't. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also like to add the official website only lists bands and dates for the current year, so the information isn't readily available for past years outside of the Wikipedia articles. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not independently notable simply because lots of somewhat well-known bands performed at it. Maybe a list of bands that have performed at every Warped Tour, sectioned off by year, is the right place for the really long list in this article now. Jinkinson talk to me 21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be 20 years worth of bands, and I doubt any band has played every year. The article is independently notable as Warped Tour is a household name and has been around for 20 years. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I myself have never heard of it, not that that provides any weight here, but anyways: I agree that the list of bands who have performed at the Warped Tour is going to be long, but it's better than this article. Also, the amount of time the tour has been around is not enough to keep the article. Johnny338 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jinkinson, Encmetalhead, Johnny338: such a list already exists for every year at List of Warped Tour lineups by year. In light of this, I don't see the point in keeping the article as it essentially duplicates the list and does not impart any additional information. Richard3120 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article is bloated, long, and shouldn't have been made in the first place. Encmetalhead (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly as it has no references. But for Warped Tour 2012 to justify its existence, I do feel we are going to need to see some information (properly sourced) as to why it was "an important year" as some editors suggest – just a list of bands isn't going to cut it. Richard3120 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if we combined all the years into one article there will be a discuss on why the list wasn't broken into separate articles for each year. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Punkrok97: Read what Drmies said above in relation to WikiProject Concert Tours. This article actually doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Also, would you care to link these sources you are discussing? Johnny338 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just from today http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2014/06/mixtapes_ryan_r.html and http://loudwire.com/linkin-park-play-surprise-vans-warped-tour-set-special-guests/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talkcontribs) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. You think that the blog of a Brooklyn vegan is a reliable source, and that the following note is in-depth discussion--"Ryan Rockwell of pop punk band Mixtapes allegedly said something along the lines of 'Fuck Tigers Jaw, kiss whoever you want"'? For realsies? Note the "allegedly said something along the lines of". This constitutes significant discussion of the 2012 tour as a whole and this is why it should stay? (I'm pretending it's about the 2012 tour, which is what this discussion is about.) I think you need to memorize WP:FART. Or start editing K-pop articles. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Wouldn't take the Brooklyn Vegan blog as a source but Alternative Press is certainly noteworthy (http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/vans_warped_tour_2012_announce_stage_lineups). In addition that year itself is noteworthy as a fan actually died at one of the dates. Valid sources for this information can be found here: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/young-woman-collapses-and-dies-at-vans-warped-tour-20120716 and here: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2012/07/15/woman_dead_after_collapsing_at_molson_amphitheatre.html. 2012 was also the first year the the Warped Roadies television show was shot, again making it a notable year. I'm not sure if IMBD counts as a source but if it does the page can be found here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2195454/. If not, other valid sources of this information can be found. I hope that this would be enough to show that the 2012 year is in fact distinct from the tour as a whole and that it deserves its own page. Punkrok97 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Altpress reports the lineup. That's to be expected; no doubt you can find plenty more sources that report the lineup. That's never going to make this pass the GNG requirement. No, IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source, though that TV show itself might be notable--but that doesn't make the tour notable ("notability is not inherited"). That leaves an unfortunate accident, but why is that more than an accident? We're not the news. Someone said that the "shockwaves" were still felt, but there seems to be no evidence of those shockwaves. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if that blog/ezine were a reliable source, it's in-depth coverage consists of this: "It looks as if Warped Tour is laying the law down on no moshing or crowdsurfing due to possible lawsuits that could end the festival. What are your thoughts?" 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown Please see my latest comment. While it isn't in this article currently (although i would be more than happy to add it) there are several things that do make 2012 a particularly notable year for the Vans Warped Tour. These things are sourceable (sources given above) and I think make the page worth keeping. Punkrok97 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah add these sources, that post of the argument against the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encmetalhead (talkcontribs) 12:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much my opinion counts here, but as a friend of an artist who just played this year's Warped dates on the West Coast, I know that 2012 and 2014 are pretty notable amongst the other years' tours. Specific to 2012, that was an important year because Warped briefly left the States and went to England - something that single-headliner tours do, but is almost never done by festival-style tours like this one. Also, there is some coverage of skate events at this Warped that features important names within that world. Perhaps if these points and the death of the teenager in Toronto were expanded upon in the original article, that might lend credence to the validity of the article? http://www.virtualfestivals.com/latest/news/13505 http://sidewalk.mpora.com/skateboarding-videos/vans-warped-tour-2012-uk-vert-championships-highlights.html Riceflour (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that 2012 was the first time the tour had come to the UK in a decade so that would be some kind of significant event in the tour's history (and after one more UK tour in 2013 it has been cancelled again this year), but my problem is that I struggle to see how even including all this information would be enough to create a decent article once the band line-ups have been taken out. I think it would be only be a paragraph or so long, in which case it would be better off as a section in the main Warped Tour article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you say that, all the sources for those bands lists are dead links in the main article. And if the primary source can't get the bands list right, who can you trust? The parent article is a mess of broken links and unreliable sources. It needs an overhaul itself. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are allowed to stay, we can spearhead the overhaul of the main article and all the separate years. Could we do it now? Yes, but with the threat of the page being blanked again its more wise to wait until the decision before putting in that work. In fact, I'll nominate myself as leader of a revitalization project for this subsection of articles pending that they stay active. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Each article is its own island. It must demonstrate its own notability, it can't WP:INHERIT it from the parent article. Personally, I would just worry about the parent article (which is a bloody mess) before I even thought of any year articles, which look likely to get deleted. As for nominating "leaders", this isn't a concept I'm familiar with at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's not entirely true. There are spin-off articles allowed to keep very large articles to become unreadably massive. Judging by the length even of this spin-off article, that would seem to be the situation here. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, such an article as you mention effectively already exists – see List of Warped Tour lineups by year. Which is also completely unreferenced. Richard3120 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as mentioned above, that is a bloated article and would only become more bloated as time goes on. If each year has it's own article, then no single article would be bloated. Encmetalhead (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this perspective. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kanjani Eight. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shota Yasuda[edit]

Shota Yasuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist is wholly non-notable outside of their work in "Johnny & Associates" which later became "Kanjani Eight". There is little in this that cannot be covered under the Kanjani Eight article, and certainly not sufficient article nor notability for a single article on this person alone. Ref's, as expected, are about the band, not the individual the panda ₯’ 20:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 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 deckertalk 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope (band)[edit]

Envelope (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced article about a band whose only substantive claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is criterion #10, the very one that contains the proviso that it supports a redirect to the notable work, not a standalone article, if it's the only substantive claim of notability in the article. In addition, a standalone bio about the lead singer was recently created by User:Envechris — note band's name, note lead singer's name, note conflict of interest rules — with exclusively primary and unreliable commercial sources, and not even the first hint of any more reliable source coverage than the exactly none that is present here. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources can be added, but it can't stand on Wikipedia in this form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 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 deckertalk 03:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Equities Group[edit]

Morningside Equities Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a non-notable company. I am unable to find any references that are not mere mentions or directory type listings. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 19:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:21, 24 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 deckertalk 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Fennell[edit]

David Fennell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary and user-generated sources, of a person whose principal claim of notability is an unsuccessful candidacy in a political party's nomination contest (a notability claim that fails WP:POLITICIAN). While there are things about his business career that might get him past our inclusion rules for businesspeople if they were reliably sourced, as it stands right now they aren't, and thus don't count toward properly demonstrating his notability at all. The article also contains a positively stunning amount of entirely unsourced personal detail for which conflict of interest editing by somebody who knows the topic personally is very nearly the only possible explanation. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources can be added to properly attest that he actually meets one or more of our inclusion rules, but this version is so far from passing muster that it could technically have been speedied G11. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes a person got in any given election is irrelevant to their notability or lack thereof. Either they won or they didn't, and the number of votes they happened to get in the process has no bearing on anything. A person who gets 10 million votes but loses is still just a person who lost — and a person who was acclaimed to a notable office, and thus technically garnered no votes at all in the process, is still a person who held a notable office. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The three new sources cited in the article do not add any notability. The problem with the business citation to Media Bay for notability purposes is that Media Bay is not independent from David Fennell. It is his company. See the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources for a discussion of that term. The Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Notability says in summary Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. This means that outside sources are needed to demonstrate the "attention of the world at large". Similarly, the citation to his Master's thesis is nicely verified by his university, but adds no notability unless it is cited by a substantial number of others. I don't think that David Fennell could quality as an WP:ACADEMIC. Lastly, it doesn't matter how many votes he received, he cannot qualify as a WP:POLITICIAN unless he has won public office. You need to look for independent, reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the events of his life. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Most venture capitalists do not receive the kind of attention that provides the notability that Wikipedia requires in a topic for an article. But one does not have to be a Donald Trump; for example, take a look at the article about Marc Andreessen and the sources that are cited about him. --Bejnar (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I seems as thought the guidelines are justifiably vague when considering the notability of a candidate, winning or losing. In terms of significance on the political front, I will work to gather more sources related to notability. I was under some impression from the guidelines that it would be somewhat of a given that a politician that earned a very large number of votes would obviously have substantial notability among their constituents as well as in the media. I will cite additional sources that I hope will help clear that issue up as soon as possible. He certainly qualifies under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", and I will help support that with additional citations. In terms of the business and the academic side, those references were put there to establish general credibility and further inform about a person who continues to be politically active in California. Respectfully Jschimpf (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are now aware that with regards to Wikipedia notability that "earned a very large number of votes would obviously have substantial notability" is not true. Also with regard to coverage remember that mere mention is not relevant for notability, it needs to be significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan news sites[edit]

List of Sri Lankan news sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced list of mostly non-notable news web sites, with spam links. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - MrX 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 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 deckertalk 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Bear Ghost[edit]

Teddy Bear Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced bio about a non-notable producer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 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 deckertalk 02:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julio viskovich[edit]

Julio viskovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced biography of a writer. The Forbes source is mere mention, and the other two sources seem closely connected. I am unable to find sources that discuss the subject in depth. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. - MrX 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 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 redirect to List of Decepticons. (soft) slakrtalk / 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wingspan (Transformers)[edit]

Wingspan (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has had no references for a long time. I don't think the subjects of this article could be notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 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 deckertalk 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (film)[edit]

Nexus (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It does not appear to have been given any form of wide release, and I could not readily find any independent sources that discuss the film in any meaningful way. Magic1million (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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); WP:A2 and WP:TRANSLATE do realistically apply for this exact reason (i.e., the article can exist on another language, but that's not enough reason to create a google-translated version or verbatim copy of it as a pseudo-stub here, as the result is needlessly incomprehensible). Anyone is free to speedily WP:UNDELETE or re-create the article otherwise. slakrtalk / 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baayun Mulud[edit]

Baayun Mulud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a machine translation (google translate) of the Indonesian Wikipedia article https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baayun_Mulud. According to WP:TRANSLATE, an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zettai ryōiki[edit]

Zettai ryōiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The various references used to assemble this article are a synthesis of sources. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki (2nd nomination) the same problem was recognized but with different sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Ryōiki, which is the first deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the previous article was deleted in February 2009, it was a completely different article, and the article that is here today was completely written from scratch. From memory, the earlier 2009 article was a largely unreferenced stub dicdef which exclusively used blog/forum posts as citations. This is no longer the case for the current article. --benlisquareTCE 10:22, 24 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 deckertalk 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Kanté Martínez[edit]

José Kanté Martínez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Kanté Martínez Stats)
A footballer who hasnt played in a fully pro league and hecne fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. RRD13 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:34, 24 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 deckertalk 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michail Lountzis[edit]

Michail Lountzis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He isn't notable per WP:NBASKETBALL. He may meet this criteria in the future, but for now it's a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- He is just a basketball player, no any awards no any significance. Absolutely fails under WP:NBASKETBALL. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 16:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the English language sources I see, I would agree with deletion. However, this is a 16 year old kid who just signed with one of the biggest names in Greek basketball (Panathinaikos is a globally recognized club - one of the best in Europe). I put a note on the Greece WikiProject to get help looking at Greek language sources. In my opinoin, if it's the same story as English sources the article clearly should go, but if the kid meets GNG in Greece it should stay. Hopefully we'll hear from someone who can research this. Rikster2 (talk) 18:33, 23 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 deckertalk 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Barlow[edit]

Angela Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

7 year old basically unsourced WP:BLP for an actress who seems to lack the necessary notability to have her own article. According to Google, she mainly plays smallish roles in single episodes of TV series, nothing major or lasting. Her plays seem also to have received only minimal attention [1]. The middle two sentences of the article at the moment (about "snarf" and "mashive") seem to be 5-year old[2] vandalism.... Fram (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 23 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 deckertalk 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lutz[edit]

Al Lutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After examining the first AfD on this article and perusing the edit history and talk page of this article, I think, at the very least, this demands another review at AfD. Frankly, the first AfD should have ended in delete, not no consensus. In any event, subject's notability is dubious at best. Safiel (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 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:G11 slakrtalk / 01:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Wheels International[edit]

His Wheels International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Effectively unreferenced article which entirely fails to establish notability of the organisation. Can find nothing substantial to remedy this. TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 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. Deor (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyrcus[edit]

Hyrcus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see, there's no such breed, and certainly none reported to DAD-IS; hircus is the sub-specific name of the domestic goat. This is either a scam or hoax, or a bizarre attempt to publicise cashmere products from Italian companies such as Loro Piana and Filatura Di Crosa which claim to obtain the wool of this animal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kryštof Hádek[edit]

Kryštof Hádek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant promotional tone. Non-notable subject. Popcornduff (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the time I registered my vote, a number of citations have been added to the page, including one showing the actor was indeed nominated for the Czech Lion. Additionally, the page has been substantially cleaned up. I'm leaving my initial vote unedited at the moment, but I expect the closing admin to take these changes into account and put little to no stock in my vote from earlier today. --Yamla (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 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 deletefilelakeshoe (t / c) 10:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Dagu[edit]

Escape from Dagu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never released novel; can't find any references to substantiate any sort of notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But no escape from deletion pointless page Gregkaye (talk) 16:40, 23 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC (musician)[edit]

TC (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TC has been featured in two records: the B-Side of a #38 hit, which isn't enough to suffice WP:MUSICBIO#C2 in my opinion, and a #183 hit, which really isn't enough. (The Official Charts Company publishes up to #100.) Launchballer 12:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly contest - "Make U Bounce" looks set to be a top 20 if not top 10 hit, and two charting singles should be a solid foundation for his page to stay up in the meantime. Sure, the discography could use some formatting but there's nothing here which warrants a deletion in my opinion. --DJUnBalanced 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to think what harm is there in keeping it up? Nothing. It may be weak on citations but that can be easily improved (by anyone, including you). --DJUnBalanced 14:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced being a featured artist on the B-Side of a hit single is enough. Thus, I'm proposing a WP:TOOSOON deletion.--Launchballer 15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic how you think an established artist's article which has been up since 2006 is "too soon" and yet you were very eager to create a stub for "Make U Bounce" that's not even out yet.--DJUnBalanced 07:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference offline and probably wouldn't've remembered it after a few days. Even if it got speedily redirected, the reference was still in the history and could be used later. In any event, I think I'm going to withdraw this because of the clear consensus.--Launchballer 08:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 23 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 redirect to Midland Football Combination. If there's disagreement over redirect's target, feel free to drop a line at WP:RFD slakrtalk / 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry United FC[edit]

Coventry United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur football club. Media coverage is mostly local; no indications of widespread coverage. PROD removed by SPA/COI user whose sole action has been to remove this PROD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 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. slakrtalk / 01:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of Noctum[edit]

Eyes of Noctum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. CSD was contested and another editor said "A couple of these sources are reliable, but none of them are significant". In my view, that's worthy of raising a full discussion to see if there is anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A trivial mention (for a news search) and a questionable source (from books) do not indicate notability for this band. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 30 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) slakrtalk / 01:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Perugini[edit]

Alfonso Perugini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability for WP:ARTIST. Apparently the autobiography of a sockpuppeteer. Aside: the same material has been deleted a remarkable five times on it.wiki as unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 23 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. slakrtalk / 02:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dazzie Dee[edit]

Dazzie Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. They lack the significant coverage in reliable sources required to have an article. Most of the refs are complete crap, all random low level blogs. Only reliable ones are an AllMusic entry (no biography or chart performance) and Billboard, which are only passing mentions, with no in depth coverage. STATic message me! 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it contains references (I can't assure the quality but it is certainly referenced)."

--OriginalDoc (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have been clearer, I meant the only thing I could find in addition to what STATicVapor offered. Mostly passing mentions or video clips (which I don't have the data to watch as I'm on a limited bandwidth). — ((U|Technical 13)) (etc) 11:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 00:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:34, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:03, 23 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 redirect to Darrell Schweitzer#Other short story collections. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Life and Other Awesome Cosmic Revelations[edit]

The Meaning of Life and Other Awesome Cosmic Revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chapbook story collection that doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:25, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:00, 23 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 08:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Alternatives[edit]

Analysis of Alternatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be simply a phrase used in many contexts, certainly not unique to the US DoD. When I look at the food in my refrigerator I make an analysis of alternatives to determine what I am going to cook. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:25, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:00, 23 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 deckertalk 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun T[edit]

Shaun T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no reliable sources to establish notability, and the best I can find is something in Huff Post about him using Twitter to come out. Does not cut mustard. TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:30, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:00, 23 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 merge to Eden Park. Of note, the majority of the content was actually copied over from Eden Park#Rugby Union (or the other way around, not sure). Also of note, while I'm technically the nominator, I did not participate beyond procedural matters, so closing shouldn't be inappropriate. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Union at Eden Park[edit]

Rugby Union at Eden Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for User:JamessArdenn; rationale copied from edit summary: "This page adds nothing that cannot be found on the main Eden Park page or the 2011 RWC page; moreover it places an unnecessary amount of emphasis on the 2011 RWC." Ansh666 11:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:30, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:59, 23 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 merge to United Nations Development Programme. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BIOFIN[edit]

BIOFIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. Launchballer 09:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:59, 23 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. j⚛e deckertalk 04:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zacuto (camera accessories)[edit]

Zacuto (camera accessories) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising The Banner talk 09:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question The closest I see to a significant coverage is this at the Today's Machining World website. Am I missing the others which are actually about the company and not its products? Please post links. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 04:27, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:59, 23 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 deckertalk 02:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AQi Fzono[edit]

AQi Fzono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated two articles, symphonic techno and syntheremin for deletion today, and after I did a little research on their inventor, I realized I couldn't find any reliable sources about him, either. Λeternus (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:33, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:58, 23 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 merge to Transport for London. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connect Project[edit]

Connect Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this project itself is notable. There is no mention of it in the Transport for London article now and I can't find another source other than this marketing information from another vendor it looks like. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm confused by your statement. WP:NOTTEMPORARY says: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Whether the project was undertaken in 1906 or 2006 is immaterial under this guideline.  Philg88 talk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the issue here. The project never had the "significant coverage" required by the notability guideline and brief spike of interest in 2006 is insufficient. For this reason, WP:NOTTEMPORARY states "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". Lamberhurst (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been crappy but it didn't fail, it is currently in use across the whole of the London Underground.  Philg88 talk 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TFL. OK you persuaded me, a paragraph on TFL is about what it is worth. Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 18 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment !vote switched to merge, I don't think that it can survive in it's current form. Enough references for a section in the TfL article.  Philg88 talk 20:01, 25 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 deckertalk 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jennings (author)[edit]

Jason Jennings (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks a lot like one of the articles that huge sock chain cranked out for pay. Misleading refs (the one marked USA Today is a press release on a PR firms website), and google news turns up nothing on him, but quite a bit on a college baseball player that will probably be notable soon. John from Idegon (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:55, 23 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) czar  04:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Dunham[edit]

George Dunham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

local personality with only local coverage. not notable John from Idegon (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And those are just the sources I found right away. I will be expanding and improving the article in the days to come. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:06, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:55, 23 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. slakrtalk / 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star Jr[edit]

Weather Star Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't meet notability standards at WP:GNG due to lack of significant reliable source coverage. Agyle (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Weather Star Jr. available in mid-1994". Communications Engineering Digest, Volume 20, Issue 1-7. International Thomson Communications. 1994. p. 59. The Weather Channel announced that delivery of its new, low-cost Weather Star Jr. model will begin in the middle of the year. The new model, manufactured by Wegener Communications and priced at $500, was developed for small systems that want to launch The Weather Channel but can't afford the more expensive Weather Star models. The unit is being field tested in eight cable systems around the U.S. before being released later this year, company officials said. [That's the entire article]
--Agyle (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention the reference currently in the article, an archived page from The Weather Channel (seller of the Weather Star Jr) concerning an FCC requirement for audio beeps when a severe weather warning is initially announced. The archive.org link also contains a link to an archive of the Weather Star Jr.'s manufacturer's Installation and User's Guide. Neither of these are independent sources, so they don't count toward notability.
All of the very limited information in this article that is verifiable through reliable sources is already included in Weather Star, so no merge is needed, although a redirect to Weather Star#Former systems would seem useful. Agyle (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found another article (possibly a press release), in the same Communications Engineering Digest as mentioned above; quoting entire article:
  • Communications Engineering Digest. International Thomson Communications, Volume 19, Issues 7-13. 1993. p. 73. Low-cost 'Weather Star' ATLANTA-The Weather Channel has announced a new, low cost version of its addressable 'Weather Star' receiving system. Officials with The Weather Channel say that the network has signed an agreement with Wegener Communications to manufacture the receiver, with shipments expected to begin next year. 'For some time, we have been looking for ways to make the Weather Star available to small systems,' says Becky Ruthven, VP of affiliate sales and marketing for The Weather Channel. 'After extensive R&D, we've developed a solution in terms of product features and cost. Many small systems that want to launch The Weather Channel have not been able to afford the Weather Star; that's about to change.' The Weather Star is part of the propriety patented satellite communications system developed by the Weather Channel for telecasting local, system-specific weather forecasts to cable viewers every five minutes. The new, low-cost model called the Weather Star Jr. will render forecasts in videotext (instead of the color graphics, animation, local weather radar and other visual effects available with the larger Weather Star 4000). As a result, the scaled-down model will be 'significantly less expensive' than the Weather Star 4000, company officials say. Circle Reader Service No. 43
--Agyle (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:54, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman[edit]

Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References provided are trivial mentions and fail to provide significant coverage of the subject, in spite of the assertion of notability required to avoid speedy deletion.

That was my rationale for my original PROD. The editor who removed the PROD tag stated on the talk page that the firm is well known in the IP law community, but also admits to "having trouble finding additional sources to support notability... [due to being] mentioned so much in directory listings, bylines in article written by (but not about) its attorneys, and on patents, that I believe it's masking the sources that are about the firm. I also have to admit that, even though it's notable within the IP law community, it may not be notable in the general sense that Wikipedia requires.... I think that this is an article deletion that's not well-handled with PROD, and that it should get an airing on WP:AFD."

I agree, so I'm bringing it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:53, 23 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 07:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water for Life Decade[edit]

Water for Life Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a promotional close paraphrase of the UN site for the project. I bring it here in the hope somebody can find some third party references and fix it. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 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, j⚛e deckertalk 15:42, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:52, 23 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. slakrtalk / 02:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Negations[edit]

Daily Negations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable satire book by musician. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:52, 23 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 07:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizen (character)[edit]

The Citizen (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)\
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research article on a fictional character in a book CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on some of the below comments I am withdrawing my delete !vote and moving to Neutral. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 15 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, j⚛e deckertalk 15:55, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:51, 23 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. The consensus of the discussion is that that subject doesn't (yet) have independant notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Sands[edit]

Madeline Sands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though no doubt Madeleine Sands is a highly competent person and excellent at her job, leading a team to develop successful apps, she hasn't been the subject of significant news coverage herself. Her appearances on TV have been to talk or comment about the Google Glass Breastfeeding app. The biographical info is largely (if not entirely) unsourced and the coverage is about the apps she worked on, or the organisations she worked for. Fails WP:GNG notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, most of this article is already merged, because it is largely not about Sands but about the project. Sionk (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial is also the subject of an AfD, so things are a bit up in the air at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:14, 27 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:49, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Third Republic[edit]

Egyptian Third Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic appears to be original research and this period in Egypt is well covered in History of Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:48, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Fourth Republic[edit]

Egyptian Fourth Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic appears to be original research and should have been discussed first in Talk:History of modern Egypt. This period is well covered in different articles, including History of Egypt under Anwar Sadat and History of Egypt under Hosni Mubarak. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:48, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Fifth Republic[edit]

Egyptian Fifth Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See this and this. This period is already covered in Timeline of the Egyptian Crisis under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and 2012–13 Egyptian protests. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:35, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:47, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qpdfview[edit]

Qpdfview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks any third-party reliable sources. The sources are all either primary sources, WordPress blogs, open wikis, or distros that are only showing that it's in their repositories with no significant context whatsoever to show notability, and these aren't independent sources either. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said at least twice at Talk:Qpdfview, if this is the standard to be applied, then it isn't being applied uniformly. evince, okular, and xpdf are all highly notable pieces of open-source PDF software, used by millions of people in the the real world, worldwide, for free. In the virtual world of wiki, they are apparently not notable. Though they are older than qpdfview, they also arguably fail WP:NSOFT, as I'm sure do many other open-source software projects. If qpdfview is deleted, so should the rest. If you do delete those articles, then wikipedia has lost sight of its roots and gone rather insane. If you don't, ya'll a bunch of hypocrites. I have yet to receive any response to the above argument, and I'm getting a little tired of pointing this out.

The solution? Leave qpdfview as is. Inclusion in a wide variety of different software OS repositories is a sign of independent notability in the real world. Inclusion standards for many repos are very strict. Some here don't seem to understand that. Are they perhaps unfamiliar with how open-source software works? Most certainly, WP:NSOFT is flawed when it comes to open-source software. Perhaps WP:NSOFT should be nominated for deletion? It's arguably far less notable than most open-source software projects. MartinSpacek (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is misdirected.
  1. This discussion is about qpdfview, not Evince, Okular or xpdf. Please, stay focused.
  2. If you have problems with WP:NSOFT, you should go to its talk page and discuss the matter there. Still, without coverage in secondary reliable sources the subject has huge problem with WP:V and is not deemed worth inclusion anyway.
  3. You ignore the difference between usefulness and notability. Even most useful software may not be worth encyclopedic coverage.
  4. Regargding repos: Windows is much more widely used OS then conventional Linux distros, and inclusion into Windows distribution is much more difficult. Does that mean that every piece of software included with Windows is inherently notable?
Using such arguments in deletion discussion is not helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:37, 16 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:46, 23 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 07:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F. B. McFarren Memorial Park[edit]

F. B. McFarren Memorial Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, no indication of significance. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 7 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! 21:46, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:45, 23 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, nom withdrawn. WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi[edit]

Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Merge it with Narendra Modi. Sitush (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I see that there has been a recent AfD, sorry. Pathetic outcome but there we go. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, Thanks for adhering to wiki polices and accepting the outcome of a recently concluded Afd.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 23 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. How-to list of school science experiments, no reason to keep this a week Jac16888 Talk 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magic of Science[edit]

Magic of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of a few basic science "magic" tricks. No references and has original research. Prod was removed with no reason given. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biological imperative[edit]

Biological imperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides having no sources and external links which are all dead or seemingly unrelated to the topic, this appears to be a case of original research – while the term “biological imperative” appears to be a real one used in a wide variety of contexts, there doesn’t seem to be a verifiable list of any specific things defined as biological imperatives per se. While the phrase should (and does) have an entry on the wiktionary, that seems entirely sufficient given the topics ambiguity when it comes to specifics. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:38, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:47, 23 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 deckertalk 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Scott[edit]

Veda Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 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 deckertalk 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Yong[edit]

Chris Yong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a non-notable candidate for public office, and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN Mattlore (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 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. Without prejudice to a sensible redirect if and where the topic is mentioned j⚛e deckertalk 05:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhume Mela[edit]

Bhume Mela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing, no notability. Been tagged for two years with no additional work on it. -- McDoobAU93 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Video of Bhume Mela on Youtube
About Bhume Mela in the official site of chimkholaASCII-002 I NotifyOnline 04:18, 8 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:42, 23 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

President Plaza[edit]

President Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN mall. PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 6 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:57, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 23 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Your Students[edit]

Rate Your Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Site is less notable than it was in the first AfD, has not been updated in ~4 years, has had no lasting effect. rahaeli (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-RS editorial coverage (wouldn't count for notability purposes; may still be citeable):
Minor coverage:
Note: Don't confuse the subject with the earlier website RateYourStudents.com, described here and here, or RateMyStudents.com, described here.
--Agyle (talk) 04:01, 7 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:00, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:38, 23 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. Nobody has advocated keeping, so ....  Sandstein  11:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1632 characters[edit]

List of 1632 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unnecessary to have a separate list for characters that have real historical background. Suggest deletion as I question the notability at all for this level of detail or a merge with List of 1632 characters (fictional) (or merge that one here). Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:03, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:38, 23 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. The first delete !vote has been countered by the addition of sources to the article, and this aspect of the deletion nomination has also been addressed. The article appears to still require copy editing to address promotional tone. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Agambire[edit]

Roland Agambire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3 months warning that it is non-referenced, no change. which might be a hint for lacking notability. wp is not for storing CV's. ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:34, 23 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. Nomination withdrawn. — Gwalla | Talk 22:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic music[edit]

Acoustic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While naturally our instinct may be to say "keep" because the topic sounds notable, the article is in bad shape. Little has changed since it was 1st nominated for deletion over four years ago. Most of the keep votes were on the grounds that the article needed improvement rather than a delete, but that has not occurred. Three books [7], [8], [9] were cited in that debate, yet the first one is merely a book about the Woodstock Music Festival. The second one merely mentions the term several times in passing over the course of two pages. The third source is the best one out of the three, yet a quick glance through it seems to reveal a similar problem with the other source: It only mentions the term in passing on several pages. I suppose it could be used to cite Led Zeppelin as an example of a group who did acoustic songs, but that would seem to be the extent of the usefulness of that source.

The delete votes in the discussion were over concerns that the article is a dictionary term as well as original research. Seems like a good time to take it back to afd, since its been four years and the article remains largely unchanged from that discussion. Johnny338 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I've got no idea why stub, cleanup and other relevant tags weren't put on this article rather than a delete tag. The article doesn't seem to be in terrible shape ... which is just as well. it was viewed 8301 times in the last 30 days. There are parallel articles in many other languages and, amongst other things, it would be an embarrassment to en Wikipedia if we didn't have our version. Many editors have arrived at articles that needed cleanup and done just that. Please remove the delete tag. Gregkaye (talk) 21:05, 23 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 deckertalk 02:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Dum Dum Club Podcast[edit]

Little Dum Dum Club Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable podcast. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 02:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 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, j⚛e deckertalk 15:43, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:17, 23 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 per SK#1, withdrawn by nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Maddalena[edit]

Julie Maddalena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which shows this voice actress meets WP:GNG, not a single source within the article would generally be considered a reliable source, and while I can verify some of the roles through more reliable sources (google books search provides a handful of name checks/cast listings), I was unable to find signficant coverage. Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e deckertalk 04:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 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. The notability or lack thereof is not immediately clear but there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Certainly, being a losing candidate in a primary election is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but there is some merit to the claim that his business career has generated enough courage to make Mr Avellone notable otherwise. When both sides present reasonable arguments, and the community is divided as it is here, the result must be that no consensus can be declared. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Avellone[edit]

Joseph Avellone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous deletion discussion was closed an no consensus, in part because there was a desire not to rush to deletion as Avellone was part of a breaking news event (the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election). As Avellone failed to make the primary ballot, this is no longer an issue. The references provided do not show that the subject of the article is notable beyond this one event, as he has not received significant coverage outside of this context (the only references in the article are a paragraph in Time Magazine and a quote in an article about HMOs). Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good time to point out that Ponyo Plyjacks voted to deleted at the previous AFD purely because a pet article of his was also deleted [17]. Calidum Talk To Me 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sort of what I had redacted from my own comments before (arguing in an opposite way at the mark fisher afd). But I think you mean Plyjacks, not Ponyo (they are not the same afaik, anyway). --— Rhododendrites talk |  07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks. Calidum Talk To Me 13:11, 25 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, j⚛e deckertalk 01:29, 23 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. To be treated as an uncontested WP:PROD, as nobody has commented on the nomination.  Sandstein  11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a national movement, as far as I can tell it no longer exists, I cannot find a single reference to this specific group, and the article needs alot of work. GiraffeBoy (talk) 20:37, 15 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, j⚛e deckertalk 01:09, 23 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) slakrtalk / 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar 2[edit]

IntelliStar 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability standards (WP:GNG), could not find any mention of subject in a reliable source. Also oppose merging unless merged information is verifiable with reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 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, j⚛e deckertalk 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a shame, the article is pretty well written, but I can find no independent sources.... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:17, 23 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. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universum Studio GmbH Germany[edit]

Universum Studio GmbH Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasonably declined as a speedy candidate. However, this is a blatant hoax (just not quite blatant enough for G3). Here's the real Universal Germany. Highlight communication (the alleged parent) makes no mention of owning such a subsidiary. The link in the article is to a Serbian site pretending to be German. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Also, note German Broadcasting Company which also warrants further investivation. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 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 deckertalk 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Force Collection[edit]

Star Wars: Force Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG?? Müdigkeit (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:11, 15 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:55, 23 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 redirect to Stephanie Plum. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010(talk) 03:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visions of Sugar Plums[edit]

Visions of Sugar Plums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-unreferenced article about book that doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:54, 23 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 deckertalk 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Research[edit]

Cultural Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Reads like an advertisement, only primary sources. Long-tagged for notability and references. Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:44, 15 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a special collection of papers. nothing inherently notable about it that I've been able to ascertain. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:24, 23 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. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Comics[edit]

Understanding Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only primary sources; no demonstration of notability. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source talks about how high profile it was when it released, and these books talk about educators using it in a classroom setting. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really can't emphasize enough how incredibly influential this is. (More sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good sources. I looked into this and discovered two serious, in-depth academic studies which discuss the book at length: The Language of Comics: Word and Image (University Press of Mississippi, 2007) and Comics and Culture: Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics (Museum Tusculanum, 2000). There are apparently multiple chapters in both books that either build on or critique this book. I recommend keeping this article so that this can be expanded on. Shii (tock) 18:01, 23 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 deckertalk 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sara[edit]

Jessica Sara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject only had 1 to 3 episode-long guest appearances, very small film roles, and no significant coverage in any entertainment news/magazines articles or websites. While she did win a Young Artist Award for a guest role, that alone is not enough to merit notability (not everyone who wins that award has an article here) and there is no indication she has plans to return to acting anytime soon. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 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.