< 6 March 8 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karim bey Mehmandarov[edit]

Karim bey Mehmandarov (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)

Azerbaijani doctor. Claim to notability appears to be that he founded a girls school.[1] This is one of a set of pages about people of an extended family created by one editor, with an appearance of personal knowledge. [2] – Fayenatic London 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made the nomination in response to your edit summary ([1] above) where you stated that adding the founding of the school, and being part of the leadership of a local educational society, were grounds for notability. They are not sufficient for WP:BIO. I do not know whether the awards (2nd, 3rd and 4th class) - mentioned only in the infobox, not yet in the article itself - confer notability. – Fayenatic London 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 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. G7: Deletion endorsed by creator, no significant edits by other contributors. No prejudice against recreation/undeletion if/when WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. The Bushranger One ping only 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou Airlines[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fuzhou Airlines (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 this article for deletion a while back but withdrawn on the premise that it would be expanded beyond notability. However, information about this airline apart that it was "to be created" is noexistent. At this point, since it seems that the airline has not been established, I think this could be a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Not to mention that it doesn't meet WP:GNG too, since most available information talks about how it was supposed to be created, and all sources who happen to mention it only repeat the same thing. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 23:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the above links. These seem to say definitively, and this year, that approval has been granted:[10][11] What do you think? Does WP:CRYSTAL still call for delete? One question is: is it an airline right now? Anyway, if it's a delete, it can be recreated. If there will be regular news to help expand the article, then maybe a keep. Either way, I'm fine with it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are in Chinese. Non-English sources can be accepted under certain circumstances, if somebody translates them, per WP:Sources. Would you care to have a complete translation of both sources made by a third party and posted here? Since the company is nowhere (except right here) mentioned in Latin script (per Google) it still won't meet WP:GNG, I suppose. You're quite correct, the article could be recreated as soon as the airline starts operations, or gets mentioned anywhere in the English-speaking universe. That shouldn't be difficult since all operating airlines get listed by IATA or some other international aviation organization. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A third party translation is too much bother in this case. The article just doesn't have enough value right now. I'm moving to delete (and will strike the "delete unless" to make life easier for the closer). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidpower (organization)[edit]

Kidpower (organization) (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 meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and now we have a sock farm emerging to promote it. There are hits in a Google search, but nothing close to an in-depth, non-routine passage in a WP:RS. Tagged as non-notable since September, orphaned since November 2006. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2nd AFD; previous was under former article name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIDPOWER. --doncram 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was 2008, and standards have tightened. Your attack against me is not appreciated in the slightest. Nothing in your vote is policy based whatsoever; you've made no attempt to show it meets ORG or GNG, as a directory stating that they have a particular amount of assets (which is really not that significant an amount of assets anyway) does not count. Either make a proper policy-based vote, or just delete your pointless and unhelpful attack against me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And looking at the previous AfD, almost all of the sources presented there were local sources, obvious PR sources, or clearly not in-depth coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that the quote from previous AFD seemed like an attack on you personally. It was a strong statement then, but seems relevant now in particular about any present or future nominations being a waste of AFD time. Referring to the previous AFD seems relevant as it was not mentioned in the nomination (I just inserted link to the AFD above), and maybe that suggests the nomination was not properly done. Anyhow, it seemed by consensus to be a notable organization in 2008 and seems to me significant still now, and AFD is not for cleanup to force the addition of new references. Yes, it should be developed, but that is not for AFD. --doncram 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence of this meeting GNG, and the sources in the previous AfD aren't close to showing that, for reasons that I've already explained. A company being worth $500k means absolutely nothing; in fact, that is quite a small company, and I'm pretty sure the company my dad used to work for was worth more before they got liquidated - owning a reasonable-sized property is immediately going to take up much of that value. Operating in numerous countries and U.S. states doesn't, by itself, show any notability either. David Gerard's vote, which you quote as being somehow relevant, was both a ridiculous personal attack and had no basis in policy either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six references, three are on kidpower's own websites, two are dead links, and the other is on a personal website.
I looked at the first four pages of hits from a Google search. First, it was necessary to weed out hits for "kidpower" that clearly have nothing to do with this organisation, such as an IMDb page for Kid Power (TV Series 1972– ), a page about Kidpower Park in San Francisco, a web page of "a support and information list for families whose children are mildly affected by cerebral palsy and/or other disabilities" etc. Once I had done that, I was left with pages on kidpower's own web site, the Wikipedia article, a Facebook page, YouTube, and that was it. There is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find, of satisfying the current notability guidelines.
I have checked the links to news items which were given in the last AfD discussion. Unfortunately, a few of them are dead links, but it is clear that those of them that are still active point to coverage which, as Luke says, are largely "local sources, obvious PR sources, or clearly not in-depth coverage". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is their hope that this can be considered significant coverage that might help the subject past the WP:ORG guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, to KidPower participant(s) and to OTRS volunteer FreeRangeFrog for that. I think that helps a lot (and have already "voted" Keep above). The above links and others from the news coverage page, document substantial coverage in my opinion. One quibble, about one item on the U.S. news coverage page: there is a summary for a linked New York Times article, which seems not quite accurate when you read the linked article. I would believe that Irene van der Zande was interviewed, and even was quoted in some version of the story, but the linked article does not include mention of her or include a quote, as the summary asserts, so it is not documented in the NYT. I zoomed in on that one because NYT is highly regarded. --doncram 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, i had seen the mention of KidPower on the page 2 continuation, maybe i should have made that clear; my quibble/complaint was that the organization's webpage summarizing news coverage seems to have at least one incorrect summary, diminishing my willingness to believe anything else they claim. But still i did vote Keep above and stand with that, and I do think this article should be kept. It is a significant group of related charitable nonprofits, with significant coverage. --doncram 01:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kids learn to establish personal boundaries
The Gazette (Colorado Springs, CO)
March 12, 2000 | Jeremy Meyer; The Gazette
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5946564.html
BUILDING KID POWER
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
January 18, 2001 | VERA LAWLOR, Staff Writer
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-39739817.html
I believe with the other sources already provided this is a pretty easy keep call, the two I've listed would be enough (barely) for me to argue for notability under WP:GNG by themselves. Both the two articles treat Kidpower as a primary topic, they're not one sentence or one paragraph shout outs. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:51, 17 March 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) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish footballers[edit]

List of Jewish footballers (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 very strange and non notable intersection. What on earth is encyclopaedic about the intersection of football and Jewishness? It is almost as if the article was created to make some sort of anti-antisemitic point (though I very much doubt that knowing the creating editor, and I am absolutely making no accusations of that). The world is not better for the existence of this article and will not be worse for the lack of it. Why does anyone actually care that Fred is Jewish and plays football? Now a list of notable Israeli football players is a different matter. But this list is artificial at best. Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

By the same token, it is by virtue of being a member of this intersection that one qualifies -- if sufficiently talented -- to play in the Maccabiah Games, the Jewish Olympics held quadrennially.

Furthermore, the notability of this intersection--as measured by Wikipedia standards--is reflected in the below books all of which focus on all or some of the elements of the list that nom is suggesting be deleted:

  1. Jews and the Sporting Life, Vol. 23 of Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Ezra Mendelsohn, Oxford University Press US, 2009, ISBN 0195382919
  2. Day by Day in Jewish Sports History, Bob Wechsler, KTAV Publishing House, 2008, ISBN 1602800138
  3. The Big Book of Jewish Athletes: Two Centuries of Jews in Sports - a Visual History, Peter S. Horvitz, Joachim Horvitz, S P I Books, 2007, ISBN 1561719277
  4. The Big Book of Jewish Sports Heros: An Illustrated Compendium of Sports History and The 150 Greatest Jewish Sports Stars, Peter S. Horvitz, SP Books, 2007, ISBN 1561719072
  5. Jews, Sports, and the Rites of Citizenship, Jack Kugelmass, University of Illinois Press, 2007, ISBN 025207324X
  6. Emancipation through Muscles: Jews and Sports in Europe, Michael Brenner, Gideon Reuveni, translated by Brenner, Reuveni, U of Nebraska Press, 2006, ISBN 0803213557
  7. Jewish Sports Stars: Athletic Heroes Past and Present, David J. Goldman, Edition 2, Kar-Ben Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1580131832
  8. Judaism's Encounter with American Sports, Jeffrey S. Gurock, Indiana University Press, 2005, ISBN 0253347009
  9. Jews and the Olympic Games; Sport: Springboard for Minorities, Paul Yogi Mayer, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004, ISBN 0853034516
  10. Great Jews in Sports, Robert Slater, Jonathan David Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0824604539
  11. Jews and the Olympic Games: The Clash between Sport and Politics: with a complete review of Jewish Olympic medallists, Paul Taylor, Sussex Academic Press, 2004, ISBN 1903900883
  12. The 100 Greatest Jews in Sports: Ranked According to Achievement, B. P. Robert Stephen Silverman, Scarecrow Press, 2003, ISBN 0810847752
  13. Jewish Sports Legends: the International Jewish Hall of Fame, 3rd Ed, Joseph Siegman, Brassey's, 2000, ISBN 1574882848
  14. Sports and the American Jew, Steven A. Riess, Syracuse University Press, 1998, ISBN 0815627548
  15. Ellis Island to Ebbets Field: Sport and the American Jewish Experience, Peter Levine, Oxford University Press US, 1993, ISBN 0195085558
  16. The Jewish Child's Book of Sports Heroes, Robert Slater, Jonathan David Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0824603605
  17. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, Joseph M. Siegman, SP Books, 1992, ISBN 1561710288
  18. The Jewish Athletes Hall of Fame, B. P. Robert Stephen Silverman, Shapolsky Publishers, 1989, ISBN 094400704X
  19. From the Ghetto to the Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary, Andrew Handler, East European Monographs, 1985, ISBN 0880330856
  20. The Jew in American Sports, Harold Uriel Ribalow, Meir Z. Ribalow, Edition 4, Hippocrene Books, 1985, ISBN 0882549952
  21. The Jewish Athlete: A Nostalgic View, Leible Hershfield, s.n., 1980
  22. Encyclopedia of Jews in Sports, Bernard Postal, Jesse Silver, Roy Silver, Bloch Pub. Co., 1965

In addition, the existence of of the following also suggests the notability of the intersection:

  1. International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  2. Jewish Canadian Athletes Hall of Fame
  3. U.S. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum
  4. Michigan Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  5. Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Western Pennsylvania
  6. Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Northern California
  7. Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  8. Orange County Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  9. Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  10. Rochester Jewish Sports Hall of Fame

Furthermore, it follows the logic inherent in us having as articles, for example: List of Palestinians, List of Palestinian-Americans, List of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim sportspersons, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim astronomers, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Islamic jurists, List of Muslims in entertainment and the media, List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Muslim painters, List of American Muslims, List of Shi'a Muslims, List of converts to Islam, List of Arab scientists and scholars, List of Arab Americans, List of Arab Canadians, and List of Arab American writers. Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is insufficient to dismiss discussion of related articles on basis of labelling it "Other Stuff Exists". From the "guidance essay" wp:OSE: "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid...." (emphasis added by me). I think in the past that there were lots more truly bad articles, so pointing to them did seem unhelpful, but there has been so much development in Wikipedia that it is increasingly relevant and important to consider our apparent standards reflected in comparable articles. --doncram 02:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually bother to look at the things Epeefleche was citing, rather than following me around and attacking me in AfD debates, you'll see that none of them are relevant to this particular topic, because none of the mentioned ones are directly relevant to football, and only one is relevant to sportsmen and sportswomen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Shad[edit]

Saeed Shad (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)

Recently recreated after a G12-deletion. The article is about a blp without reliable independent sources and the article does not display notability. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edilberto de Oliveira[edit]

Edilberto de Oliveira (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:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses). Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Landi-Jons[edit]

José Landi-Jons (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:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses).Mdtemp (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Chabria[edit]

Yogesh Chabria (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-term unsourced BLP, I didn't see coverage which would establish notability under WP:GNG. The only item in HighBeam is a reprinted press release. [12], but additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 8 March 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. It would've been nice to link WP:POLITICIAN when asserting that state and territorial representatives are generally considered notable. WilyD 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hastings Hunkins[edit]

Robert Hastings Hunkins (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 politician. Fails to establish notability. Item better suited for a genealogy site. reddogsix (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - Robert Hastings Hunkins should be kept as an article. He is involved in early Wisconsin politics and is well sourced. He was also first justice for the town and town representative. - Kbabej (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the creator of this article, Kbabej has a conflict of interest, so it is not proper for Kbabej to be weighing in here. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point was: Article creators always have a vested interest in keeping the articles they create. Thus, their opinions are not objective. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is irrelevant. It will be up to the closing admin to weigh keep and delete delete arguments based on policies, guidelines, and evidence of notability. It will be more productive to focus on the article's content rather than the article's author. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sock. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KEEP. This article focuses on a pioneer and first justice for Navy. Establishes notability per notability reqs. -AndyR112 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AndyR112 is a suspected sock-puppet of Kbabej. See AndyR112's edits. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AndyR112's third edit to Wikipedia was a posting to this page. How odd, how very odd that a new account would jump into commenting on an arcane WP page. Seven minutes after AndyR112 was identified as a suspected sockpuppet, he made a very quick series of random edits to random articles (perhaps to allay suspicion that the account served only as a sockpuppet?). How odd, how very odd. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the 4th citation the Vermont Gazetteer Robert Hastings Hunkins was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives. State and territorial legislators are considered to be notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found where he's listed as a "representative" (p. 114), but it doesn't say representative to what. Perhaps it was some sort of county-level representative. How do you know it was to the Vermont House of Representatives? Can you please provide a page number and a quote that supports that interpretation? 71.139.148.125 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71.139.148.125(talk), it would probably be more helpful if you logged into your real account. Is there a reason you want this article off Wikipedia? You seem very committed to the idea of removing it. -Kbabej(talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have I expressed any opinion here or elsewhere that this article should be deleted? Did you see all the work I did on the article to improve it? Would I do that if I were committed to seeing it deleted? I'm just trying to make sure that the article meets WP standards. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Journals of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont Vermont General Assembly, The House of Representatives, The Legislature, 1810, Legislative Journals, pg. 3, 5; on the second Thursday, October 12, 1809, the General Assembly at Montpelier convened. On page 5-Robert Hunkins of Navy, Vermont was one of the representatives from Orleans County. In 1809, the Vermont General Assembly was unicameral. It would not been until 1836 that the Vermont State Senate was created and the Vermont General Assembly became bicameral. On pg. 5 of the legislative journal Robert Hunkins was listed as one of the representatives from Orleans County. Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sereno Wright was the printer-that is on the title page-thank you-RFD (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typed in at Google:Journals of the General Assembly of Vermont October 12, 1809 and the information about Hunkins serving in the legislature should come at page 3 and 5-Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 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 06:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harrison Hunkins[edit]

Henry Harrison Hunkins (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 politician. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. H.H.H. should be kept as an article. He is involved in early Wisconsin politics and is well sourced. - Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the creator of this article, Kbabej has a conflict of interest, so it is not proper for Kbabej to be weighing in here. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 71.139.148.125 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KEEP. This article focuses on an early settler and public servant of WI that served in many positions. Establishes notability IMO. -AndyR112 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AndyR112 is a suspected sock-puppet of Kbabej. See AndyR112's edits. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 71.139.148.125 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County treasurer for one year + street commissioner + member of local good-ol' boys' club = non-notable politician. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haneef Shareef[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Haneef Shareef (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)

Other than an imdb link (which means nothing towards notability), this article is devoid of any sources to establish how this individual meets WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Haneef Shareef (t) Josve05a (c) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried improving it, but the article's creator persistently reverted the sourced material I added. I've got better things to do with my time. It's borderline anyway; I'd say Weak delete based on WP:BLP1E - he's only notable for his 2005 arrest and detention, not for any of his films or writings. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:24, 7 March 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) buffbills7701 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional comics[edit]

List of fictional 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)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 March 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) buffbills7701 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional games[edit]

List of fictional games (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)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 March 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) buffbills7701 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magazines[edit]

List of fictional magazines (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)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional musical works[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional musical works (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)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional plays[edit]

List of fictional plays (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)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 March 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 Cory-Wright baronets. It seems the consensus is somewhere between delete and merge, so rounding to merge (with obviously no obligation on the destination to actually integrate the content, if deemed inappropriate) slakr\ talk / 05:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Cory-Wright, 4th Baronet[edit]

Sir Richard Cory-Wright, 4th Baronet (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 aristocrat Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A knighthood can be inherited, unlike notability.TheLongTone (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that makes him completly non-notable? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains nothing like a claim of notability, and an internet search shows nothing either: no newspaper mentions for instance. Having parents is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All hereditary Baronetcies are styled Sir (name), (N)th Baronet. The title including the Sir prefix is not earned but rather inherited. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a knighthood can't be inherited. A baronetcy, which he holds, can be however. All knights are thus inherently notable, but not all baronets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article because his name was red-linked on a list of his family (see here Cory-Wright baronets) and he is the current holder of the title. I believe people come here looking for info even on these minor aristocrats and the article should stand. Jack1956 (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Petha Brath Nest[edit]

Mani Petha Brath Nest (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)

COI author removed PROD notices, so to AfD we go. Original PROD said: Unremarkable film, unsourced. Does not indicate how it meets WP:MOVIE Alexf(talk) 14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DranDeh[edit]

DranDeh (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)

COI author removed PROD notices, so to AfD we go. Original PROD said: Unremarkable film, unsourced. Does not indicate how it meets WP:MOVIE Alexf(talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgetree[edit]

Bridgetree (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)

None notable company page Almogo (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 09:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state the obvious) @ 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 7 March 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. KTC (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Ukraine in Saint Petersburg[edit]

Consulate-General of Ukraine in Saint Petersburg (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:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. All this article does is confirm the consulate's address LibStar (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
or indeed the actual role of this consulate, which would refer any significant issues to the embassy in Moscow. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Stalwart111 06:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1PS[edit]

1PS (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 not enough reliable sources at present to show they meet WP:GNG and those that have are simply for one event for example the groups formation. Nor have the released any charted music. Article should be recreated if or when they have. Blethering Scot 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 7 March 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 Castle Mill. j⚛e deckertalk 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankham Consultancy Group[edit]

Frankham Consultancy 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)

Article for a firm of architects that superficially looks fine - lots of images and references. Look closer and you see that it's mostly a rehash of the controversy about their most (in)famous project which has its own article at Castle Mill. The corporate article makes no effort to establish the notability of the company itself. It's not a big company - the Company Check reference gives their net worth as ~US$1 million and their turnover as ~US$100m (which could be inflated by subcontracting, the accounting for this kind of company can be tricky). My feeling is that they're just the wrong side of the notability line, but I invite other views. Le Deluge (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University Mathematics Competition[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Princeton University Mathematics Competition (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)

previous AfD was no consensus. But I don't see quality third party coverage of what is a competition for high school students. A number of blog sources are used in the article. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edd

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 Liv and Maddie. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzing Norgay Trainor[edit]

Tenzing Norgay Trainor (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 BLP save for IMDB. Was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage to meet WP:GNG show significance of multiple roles under WP:ENT #1. j⚛e deckertalk 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 7 March 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 Intension. This seems to be the solution which will satisfy most people. It can always be split out again later if sources are found, and there is enough content in the Intension article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intensional statement[edit]

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

Article is completely unreferenced, and hence lacks any evidence of notability. While I'm sure that something that may be called an 'intensional statement' exist, it's unclear that they warrant an article, and it's also particularly unclear that the particulars defined in this article are widely known or even correct, and with no references, this cannot be verified either way. I was also unable to find any treatment of it as a separate topic in Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I find it suspicious that the article was created by an anonymous IP in 2004, and has had no major expansion at all. There's also very few wikilinks to it, and no really necessary links I could find. Given this, I think it reasonable that the article as-is should be deleted, unless anyone is able to back-up the material with one or more solid references. GliderMaven (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 7 March 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) buffbills7701 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Krusha e Madhe[edit]

Women of Krusha e Madhe (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 has highly questionable notability. Much of it reads like some sort of advertisement or promotion created to attract attention to a poor village at the corner of Europe. The article is also highly slanted towards the Albanian POV. 23 editor (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to prove the notability of this topic. 23 editor (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? 23 editor (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Should editors who participated at Wiki Academy Kosovo also declare an interest here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disgusting that the person who writes "the best" article gets a prize (money?) for "presenting Kosovo to the world" (not to mention the extremely poor quality of the articles). A free encyclopedia, huh? 23 editor (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the situation is not unique. Wars have been fought for thousands of years and thousands of villages have been left with widowed women. Do I even have to mention the insubstantial third-party coverage about the topic? 23 editor (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I like your tone, my friend. "Story of the perseverance of these women merits its own article" is not a guideline for whether or an article should exist or not. You have failed to address the lack of insubstantial third-party coverage about the topic and the topics notability. 23 editor (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the majority of sources cover the economy of the town and the town itself, not the women in it. 23 editor (talk) 13:47, 12 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever We May Roam Tour[edit]

Wherever We May Roam Tour (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)

Nothing suggests that this was notable as a tour. Newspaper clippings will probably prove that it happened; that's not in doubt. But there is no indication (in a book search, for instance) that this was in itself a notable thing; there is no in-depth discussion of this tour as a tour, and that's a requirement to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's one of the biggest bands on the planet playing for nearly 18 months too! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? That someone made up the tour? Now expanded with refs to show that it took place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates in 2007 and 2010?  Anyway, that is only one sentence.  Properly citing this article would be a labor of love that should have been done when the article was created.  But not to deny your interest, I will change my !vote to Userfy if you so request.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raef al Hasan Rafa[edit]

Raef al Hasan Rafa (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)

Mostly unsourced article that does not make clear what his personal notability is. Looks like self-promo. The Banner talk 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel notability could be established using few sources already listed in the article and finding some more. The present article is a total self-promotion, though. It requires to be re-written since the beginning. For now I'd suggest it to move to the creator's userspace to work on, to make it in compliance with WP:PG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something fishy is going on, now I had to restore the AfD and maintenance templates AGAIN. This is now the fourth time someone had to restore those templates... The Banner talk 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 February 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) 09:25, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paramjit Kaur Sirhind[edit]

Paramjit Kaur Sirhind (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)

Lacks independent reliable sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 February 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) 09:40, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Crummett[edit]

Kris Crummett (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 record producer lacking non-trivial support. Article references are all primary in nature or are just listings of the individual's name. Appears to fail WP:Notability (music) reddogsix (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crummett is certainly notable within the post-hardcore genre... his records with Dance Gavin Dance alone are hugely influential in that particular scene. There is no reason why someone such as Brian McTernan should get an article if Kris Crummett cannot have one as well. Beachdude42 02:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Crummett produced many billboard 200 albums. His name mentioned a lot on indie music sites/magazines like alternative press, absolutepunk, lambgoat.35forMVP (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does this support Wikipedia based notability? reddogsix (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 February 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) 10:12, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 7 March 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, though the consensus seems to be that this article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems requiring cleanup. (non-admin closure) Breadblade (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indietronica[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Indietronica (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 big mess oforiginal research. Sources are mainly there to verify other things then the article brings them together with it's own synthesis to try connect it to "Indietronica". None actually mention "Indietronica". The source (Allmusic repeated twice) that does mention the alternative term, Indie Electronic, calls it "Less a style and more a categorization" which goes against this articles claim of a genre. The large list of "notable artists" is unsourced original research. Indietronica lacks coverage in independent sources. It's not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KittehCoin[edit]

KittehCoin (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 to meet notability standards (WP:GNG etc.). No remotely reliable sources (WP:RS) mention KittehCoin. Cute name though. :-) Agyle (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I added some remotely reliable sources. Any additional steps required to prevent deletion? I plan to extend the article beyond stub as well, but right now I want to make sure the stub at least isn't deleted. --AronVanAmmers (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed their use in the article (two failed WP:RS and one was a trivial mention, in my opinion), but will repeat them here for peoples' consideration. The article's state itself doesn't particularly matter at this point (you can include media coverage here or there); adding more info without independent sources won't impact the decision. It's up to others to consider the question of notabiliity, which will probably hinge on "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (From the WP:GNG). I stand corrected in my original statement; the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source, and does mention KittehCoin trivially; and while I don't consider Cryptocoins News a reliable source ("third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it's at least in a gray area.
  • Cryptocoins News, 26 January 2014.
  • Coinchomp, 4 of February 2014 ("Bitcoin Tech & Culture Blog").
  • Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 2014. "Others have exotic names such as ripples, megacoin, kittehcoin, lottocoin, doubloons, hobonickels, nanotoken and philosopher stones."
You can vote to keep the article yourself; begin a reply with a * and put the word keep in bold, then explain your reason(s). I hope you'll really consider the question, based on the guidelines in WP:GNG.
Agyle (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 7 March 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) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OtterBox[edit]

OtterBox (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 claim to notability is that the products are so popular that the term is used generically for waterproof cases. I see no evidence of that. I do see such indications of deliberate promotionalism as a list, complete with bold face headings, of all their products, details about their guarantee, and a listing of minor awards, including ones for a "growing" company, which means not yet notable. The references are almost entirely from promotional sites. The editor has written a number of similar articles for various people and companies. I am listing this for deletion rather than trying to fix it on the principle that clearly promotional editing for topics of borderline notability, should be a reason for deletion. We can delete here for whatever we think harmful or improper to the encyclopedia, and this sort of editing is in that category. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 7 March 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. KTC (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Embrace (band)[edit]

Blue Embrace (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)

Article about an American rock band that does not meet WP:BAND Rinkle gorge (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it not meet those standards? Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria (1-13) of WP:BAND does it meet? Tarot Records is not a major label. In fact, it's hard to find evidence that it is a "label" at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 7 March 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) 20:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exertional rhabdomyolysis[edit]

Exertional rhabdomyolysis (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)

concern = Detail is already covered at rhabdomyolysis. Some of the references are poor such as "sodium bicarbonate supplementation can reduce myoglobin, and prevent exertional rhabdomyolysis" based on this case study [21] which does not support the content in question as is not about prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 7 March 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 as the nomination is withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) -- SMS Talk 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Haneef Shareef[edit]

Dr Haneef Shareef (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 reliable, independent sources seem to be available, at least not in English. Note that this is not (to the best of my understanding, anyway) the same person as the Dr Haneef Shareef of the Balochistan Student Organisation who disappeared in 2005. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this is same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 12:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 12:38, 7 March 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 Roy and HG#Seven Network. → Call me Hahc21 19:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Win Roy & H.G.'s Money[edit]

Win Roy & H.G.'s Money (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 TV game show. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looked again at the previous edits. Only proposals were removed by original author, not nominations. An edit was incorrectly titled nominated for deletion when it was really proposed. My vote is unchanged. Chris Moore (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education in Minnesota[edit]

Higher education in Minnesota (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 article looks like an essay with no connection to the rest of Wikipedia. Not like an encyclopedic article. The topic is more like a summary of scientific results on return on education in Minnesota. One would expect something like an overview of higher education instutitions in Minnesota from this article, but that is already served in List of colleges and universities in Minnesota. bender235 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 7 March 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. By a pure head count, this article would be kept, but that's not how consensus (necessarily) works on Wikipedia. By my read of the debate, the substantive arguments to delete the article, particularly those advanced by Lagrange613, are based in stronger policy-grounded territory than the arguments advanced by the opposite side. I recognize that this decision may be controversial, so I am open to having it reviewed at deletion review. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox[edit]

Belle Knox (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)

Several reasons:

So far this person's life seems to meet the first 2 of these 3 criterion, as there is very little about Knox's life that will ever be public at this time, so any article Wikipedia will have about her will be slanted towards her porn career and violate NPOV and BLP.

Additionally, Knox fails WP:PORNBIO at this time. There is no evidence of Knox being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" or "[making] unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre."

Finally, do no harm; Knox was reluctant even to publicize her stage name at first due to repetitive doxxing by Internet misogynist trolls. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... it looks like the coverage here is global and quite heavy. CNN's Piers Morgan interviewed her and there's lengthy pieces in papers from other countries such as the Times of India. I think she might be one of the exceptions to the one event rule. I'm bringing in people from the feminism WP to help edit, though. I haven't really made a decision on notability either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having observed the response on this I'm now certain that this should be a keep. The Guardian writes "Public humiliation is humanity’s age-old punishment for sluts, in America as anywhere else" [24]. Both she and several of the sources covering this event (including everything from blogs and gossip sites to realible sources) have covered the fact that she became a porn actress in order to finance her studies, but also how she was treated once outed and how this changed and went public after responding to the initial bullying and threats. There has also been follow-ups to this story, where several sources try to put it into a bigger picture on how woman are treated for having similar desires as men, or when they try to make independent and unusual choices. Looking at BLP1E I observe the following:
  • Reliable sources cover her for being outed as a porn star and the bullying associated with it. They also puts the bullying into a bigger context of threats and violence against women, and for me this goes beyond the "one event" rule.
  • She initially wanted to be low-profile, but when the story exploded (after giving initial anynonomous interviews) she went public, got worldwide attention and not only attacked the bullies but also on the way society discriminates against "woman who transgresses the norm"[25]. By doing this, and also appearing on television she made a choice to stand up and become a public figure (at least to a certain extent).
BLP1E says that it should only apply for low-profiled people, but in my opinion that doesn't matter in this case as the specific event has grown into a much bigger thing. Bjelleklang - talk 20:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the better newspapers is far from prurient - it is reflective, intelligent and discursive, given the seriousness of the issues of society's provision of education, and more. The 1E thing is starting to look wrong, too, given that she shows no sign of becoming 'low-profile' - she has indeed outed herself, and is actively publishing her own point of view on the issues. That the tabloids also did what tabloids do is a side issue - they always do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit, I'm leaning towards changing to a weak keep. She keeps getting coverage from all over the world and she's been in several major news outlets giving interviews. This is very close to being one of the exceptions to 1E. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can also argue that she doesn't meet BLP1E because she appears to have become a high-profile individual (after her blogposts at XOJane), and also that this event has become about something bigger than her outing. We don't know what will happen in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years, so we can only look at the coverage now and base notability on that. For me she is notable, more so since there has been more or less worldwide coverage from multiple reliable sources. If she however turns out to vanish after this has settled we can always renominate the article for deletion at a later stage. Bjelleklang - talk 07:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a compelling argument in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think that might be going in the wrong direction. It would create an WP:Undue situation where we ignore relevant content about her, and her ideas, that are not then specifically about just the controversy. I think it's better to treat her story in its entirety, and allow events to be reported in proportion to what reliable sources weigh them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
She never said that about the topic of men watching porn. The majority of articles out there about her are not about the controversy, but about her as a person, and to say otherwise is to ignore the fact that a lot of people really don't care that she has done porn but a lot of those people care that she is being harassed for doing such a thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Never said what? In any case I still disagree, i think the subject should be about her entire story, not just on the controversy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Oh shoot, I meant to indent that so that it wouldn't look like a reply to you. In terms of what she never said, I misread what he said about her comparison. In terms of moving the article, I think it would be better addressed in Feminist views of pornography, as she is clearly notable at this point as a person, moreso than as a controversy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Secret, the policy is clear, and you are spectacularly failing to explain how this one meets the three conditions of BLP1E. And referring to CNN and Time as tabloid junk is just laughable. I assume your comment is a book case of a POV, non-policy based vote that the closer will easily discard in his close. Cavarrone 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No this isn't a POV non-policy based vote. You are stating this because you want the article to be kept. This isn't Wikipedia material, it's a case of recenstism from slow news stories because she is a brave young woman who reacted to a serious circumstance in her personal life with dignity and strength. If she becomes a more vocal activist, she might become notable for an article in the future but right now it's too soon to tell, and I'm standing by my rationale. Secret account 20:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your "standing by your rationale" Secret, but laughable assumptions such as yours about CNN and Time being tabloid junk are, with respect, a bookcase of POV. Also, relying on BLP1E but failing to explain how this one meets the three criteria of BLP1E carries no weight to your argument. So, do you want to make a strong policy-based argument for deleting the article under BLP1E? Please explain us how this subject meets each of three required conditions to be a BLP1E. Cavarrone 21:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the height of recentism to ascribe "enduring historical significance" to any aspect of this. This ain't the Battle of Waterloo. Lagrange613 23:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not ascribing historical significance, the sources are and we can only report on where they go. Please direct the Waterloo arguments for the national media that are reporting on this, we are only following their led. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Good luck finding a reliable source ascribing enduring historical significance to this month-old event; absent such a source the argument for keeping falls flat. Even if you could, per WP:SENSATION we need to exercise judgment when evaluating bursts of media activity. Lagrange613 23:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have already made that connection, they have made it a chapter in history, on a national level, and are still doing so. Obviously any lasting effects should be documented as well, but i think we are well past GNG, and BLP1E no longer applies. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Well, one prediction I'm fairly comfortable in making is that in several years, assuming Knox stays at Duke and graduates, there will be press again about this talking about how a "porn star just graduated from Duke". For all we know, she could become the next Gloria Steinem (or Gloria Leonard for that matter), but that's pure speculation at this point. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not saying that notability is temporary, so linking that section of the policy is a non sequitur. The news still reporting on her over a week after this began is (for me at least) proof of nothing. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a source for that too, a Leeds University study, at least in regard to stripping and erotic dancing. [30] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- there is very little to be gained by you trying to respond to those who do not hold your opinion. In fact,I rarely see anyone change there !vote upon being accosted in that manner. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article and the bit you add about "shame" is not part of the policy, and the unproduced "threats" which you provided are milder than threats I have received personally. People who seek fame from a single event are fully as covered as anyone else on Wikipedia. Your "unring a bell" analogy is absolutely inapt as an argument here -- just as those who seek Wikifame because of one event also do not get BLPs about themselves. In fact, most of the self-promotional BLPs are unceremoniously deleted. Cheers and kindly do not respond to my !votes on any page. Collect (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have no concern, I have confidence that reasonable editors will see your comments as they are, and avoid judging my response, as "accosting." The harassment, threats of rape, physical attacks, on her campus, and death threats, were directed at Knox. Dismiss them if you choose, they sure do seem real to her, and the national media that have discussed them with her, and in relation to her being outed. If you think the article should be deleted because its promotional tone, I think you're reading a different article than the rest of us. And that would remain a clean up issue. And your !votes are not immune from anyone responding to them, if you don't want them responded to then don't register them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
You mean like this one... Is it any wonder student turn to porn to pay college costs which references this interview. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:39, 18 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STMIK Kharisma[edit]

STMIK Kharisma (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)

Failed WP:GNG WP:NSCHOOL WP:ORG. A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. *Annas* (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World classic audiobooks[edit]

World classic audiobooks (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)

Few sources establish notability. Small self-publisher of audiobooks read by one narrator Ryan James. The creator of this article also did a lot of editing of Ryan James. GreenC 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 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) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obrazovanshchina[edit]

Obrazovanshchina (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:N This appears to be a term invented by Solzhenitsyn meaning "pseudo-intelligentsia"; insufficient evidence that this term is really used in English. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 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 (withdrawn). AFD is not clean-up, but sometimes that's what ends up happening in a collaborative environment. Nice work folks. Stalwart111 08:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin (disambiguation)[edit]

Abby Martin (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page disambiguates three topics, but two of them are red links. MOS:DABRL says

A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page.

I did that and found that no other pages link to Abby Martin (fictional) or to Abigail Martin (professor). Neither the Sarah Orne Jewett article nor the Brooklyn College article contain the word "Martin", reinforcing my impression that it's unlikely someone will write articles on the red-linked topics. —rybec 04:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because page has been improved. —rybec 08:49, 7 March 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 Billy Talent III. WilyD 11:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond on a Landmine[edit]

Diamond on a Landmine (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 seem to meet WP:NSONG, I'm seeing zero reliable sources covering this song, and the bulk of the content is clearly original research. It apparently peaked at #88 on Canadian Hot 100 (though the citation for this doesn't support it). That doesn't seem enough to establish notability. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 04:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fulmer Cup[edit]

Fulmer Cup (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)

Rejected PROD. PROD rationaile stands: "Non-notable gag award created by a non-notable blogger that has serious BLP issues. Fails WP:N." Just because the blog is run/hosted by SBNation (one of the reasons for the PROD rejection) doesn't make the blog notable or reliable; and there is no significant coverage outside of the blog itself to establish notability, and the WP:BLP issues here are massive. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alice In Thunderland[edit]

Alice In Thunderland (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 article as multiple issues since 2009, and there are no available sources, Fails WP:FAILN Cwobeel (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 7 March 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 Ukraine's Got Talent. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Kushnir (dancer)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. No outside, third-party references in media or anywhere else outside of a YouTube video. The Gnome (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're the same ones I also found through web searches on the net, besides YouTube. One is about "Russian belly dancing" and simply lists belly dancers with their portfolio, and the other a website mostly about would-be Ukrainian brides. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullpoo[edit]

Bullpoo (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)

Website is currently defunct and not really notable. Article has had multiple issues since 2009; last edit before today was in 2011. Amp71 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:56, 7 March 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 deleted by admin Jimfbleak (G11). (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 09:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nektel Araz[edit]

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

No indication of notability per reliable sources. References given in the article do not mention him, and a Google search ("Nektel Araz") brings up 7 results, six of them are Wikipedia or mirrors, and one is Facebook. ... discospinster talk 00:39, 7 March 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 On2 Technologies. The article's page history has been preserved in case anyone wants to boldly merge anything. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TrueMotion[edit]

TrueMotion (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 is stub-quality and all info in it is included in On2 Technologies with more detail. Should convert to redirect. SilverbackNet(talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SilverbackNet(talk) 00:49, 7 March 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.
More