< 3 May	5 May >

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) 01:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praise[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KDS4444^Talk 23:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~Weak keep - Article is terrible, but NOTDICTIONARY does not apply here for the same reason on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lie: the article is about the concept, not the word. I could almost get behind a WP:NUKEANDPAVE though. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Article is about the concept not just the word. Article is badly in need of development but no reason for deletion.--Penbat (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems frivolous in that the page in question does not resemble a dictionary entry and the nomination does not address the page and its content in any way; it just makes a vague wave to a policy. Andrew (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't much like articles based around common English words, but it's a very difficult case to argue that this one qualifies as a dicdef. Comparative religion and psychology alone could expand this article to Good or maybe even Featured. If you can't convince me that it's worth deleting, I doubt you'll have much luck with anyone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvergreenFir. Mat ty.007 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article's quality is not so good but it seems encyclopedic to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly not a dictionary definition. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:02, 9 May 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) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lie[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KDS4444^Talk 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep - WP:NOTDICTIONARY states in its nutshell, "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." This article is about types of lies (as well as detection of lies, their consequences, psychology, etc.), not things that are lies. The article is about the concept, not the word itself (see Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY#Major differences). NOTDICTIONARY does not seem to apply here. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems frivolous in that the page in question does not resemble a dictionary entry and the nomination does not address the page and its content in any way; it just makes a vague wave to a policy. Andrew (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Ludicrous submission just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praise.--Penbat (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty encyclopedic to me. Topics such as the psychology of lying are absolutely legitimate in an academic context.[1][2][3] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvergreenFir. Mat ty.007 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvergreenFir, seems encyclopedic. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harsh (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As already stated, there are plenty of reliable sources cited within the article that discuss the concept of lying, not just define it. Coincidentally it is a Level 4 vital article too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (WP:SNOW) - Clearly not a dictionary definition. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You kidding me? Shoosh yeah keep. This page describes what a lie is, providing many examples and is not just a mere dictionary definition. There are plenty of sources provided to give the topic at hand notability. I concur with the others who voted keep. 68.192.177.199 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl González (Mexican boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. No-title fights and most of the article seems to be about people he knew. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and none of the references are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX. Sparring famous fighters doesn't show notabiiity (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 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 via WP:G7, one author who has blanked the page/requested deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scale of Elements[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see where the original author blanked the page here, which I'm going to take as her requesting deletion. Rather than drag this out, I'm going to just speedy this and put it to a quick end. If anyone objects I'll restore the article, but I think that there's a pretty big lack of notability overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 5 May 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 via WP:G7, one author who has blanked the page/requested deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanna Reeves[edit]

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

Non-notable author/singer lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this edit the original editor blanked the page, so I'm going to speedy it via WP:G7 as she very openly says that she wants the page gone. She looked to have been the only person who really did any major editing to the page, so it can go that route. If anyone objects, I'll restore the page and let this go through a full AfD, but offhand I didn't see anything on the Internet that really showed notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lester González Perez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer since he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. He also doesn't meet WP:GNG since the only references are links to his fight record and an upcoming fight announcement. Papaursa (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX....William 12:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey City (soccer)[edit]

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

First, the name of the article is incorrect, as the name of the Jersey City Soccer team was not simply "Jersey City"; Second, there exists an article with the correct team name, Jersey City Celtics. Not sure much else is needed to explain why this page should be deleted. Onel5969 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Jersey City Celtics are a team that folded early during the 1921/22 season. Jersey City are a different team that only played in part of the second half of the 1928/29 season. They are two distinct teams, and should have two different articles. There are numerous references in the article, documenting the name as Jersey City, such as [4], [5], [6]. Also an examination of the newspaper article after their final game against Providence on February 9, 1929 shows the name simply as Jersey City, with no mention of Celtics. This article is on Page 11 of the February 11, 1929 edition of the Providence News. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nfitz has demonstrated that the two clubs were different and thus entitled to separate articles assuming they are notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is correct that the Jersey City Celtics page only documents the team which played earlier in the decade. However, he is incorrect that the references provide documentation that the name of the team is simply "Jersey City". In the article he cites, the team is referred to as the "Jerseymen", which in and of itself does not prove that this was their team name, it might simply have been the paper referring to the "men from Jersey". However, in that same article, Providence is simply referred to as Providence, and no reference is made to their team name of "Gold Bugs". Every other team in the ASL league had a team name. I would also cite WP:NOTE, since the team is only referenced in the list of teams in two of the citations, and has a brief one-line note in the third. I think Nfitz makes a very valid point that "moving" the article might be the best, rather than deletion, if we could only find out what the correct name of the organization was. Anybody have a copy of The American Soccer League: The Golden Years of American Soccer 1921-1931? Onel5969 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it did have another name (and we have a lot of sources that don't show another name), how is that grounds for deletion? Surely it's simply grounds for editing or renamign the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire post above. If the incorrect name of the article was the only issue, I would agree with you. But they are a non-notable team.Onel5969 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought that were the case, why didn't you mention it in the nomination? The one local newspaper I checked and referenced above, had a long, detailed description of the game the team played in their town, and it is now referenced in the article. Presumably the team achieved similar coverage in other cities it played in. All the top teams in the league played in the 1929–30 National Challenge Cup. At the risk of WP:OSE every other team that every played in the league, even those that didn't last as long, have an article, see American Soccer League (1921-1933)#Complete team list. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable team (and separate franchise to the earlier 'Celtics') as it played in the top level of US soccer at that time. Giant Snowman 19:40, 6 May 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 WP:SNOW delete as obvious hoax/spam. Clearly nothing but a non-notable, very likely fraudulent fringe group. Closing early to avoid further WP:BLP issues regarding (alleged) named persons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantine Patriarchal See and Orthodox Church of Hungary[edit]

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

I am 100% certain that this page refers to a group that is either a hoax or a way to swindle people of their money. From the very name of this supposedly Orthodox communion, to the improbable claims it makes, this article stinks to heaven. Where should I begin? An Orthodox Church founded in arch-Catholic Hungary? Patriarchs no-one has ever heard of, since the 19th century no less? No mention of communion with other Orthodox churches, but nevertheless a dozen "exarchs" in other Orthodox countries? The term "Byzantine Patriarch", that only an ignoramus would even consider using as an official title? Ruritanian terms like "Byzantine Titular Patriarch of Lisbon" or "Military Exarch of the Military Episcopate", or the inclusion of military orders, something totally alien to any Orthodox church? The complete absence of any secondary or tertiary sources, or indeed the absence of any information on the web, barring the one page already listed with all its dubious claims? This "church" sounds and reads like something badly made up by someone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Orthodox Church, but with ample access to Wikipedia articles on ecclesiastical offices. Constantine ✍ 17:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as astonishingly non-notable, I can't remember the last time Google gave so few hits.TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, per user Constantine's analysis. Purports to be somehow connected to "Eastern Christianity", yet those branches were formed in antiquity and are not so numerous. Nothing in the article, most especially references to military orders, is unlike anything resembling any such branch. Historical and geographic derivations also impossible, untenable, ridiculous. No religious connections whatever are mentioned other than titles, the most prominent of which is western. Absurd. Evensteven (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I generally have a low bar for churches where notability is concerned, but the only Google hits were the home page of this alleged church, this article and two other mentions on other Wikipedia articles that refer back to this one. This is likely one of the innumerable vegante churches that rarely comprise more than one or two parishes. Sometimes they are just a website with someone claiming apostolic succession. In any event it hugely fails WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do Not Delete. Dr. Matyas Exarch Puskas Clark has forwarded the following email message: Please cite Our Government files as IRS Church Registration, Byzantine Greek Church Filing AD 1960 Patriarch of Hungary ERDELY Transylvania Carpathia Filing AD 1960 Imperial Patriarch of Czernowitz Registered AD 1986 Military and Hospitallar Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem Reg. 1986, Byzantine Union Church Reg. 1994 Matyas Exarch. Thank you. Istvan1 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2014 (EDT)
If this is not a hoax, you will have to provide more than tax registration to prove notability. Notoriety as a hoax does not count either. Evensteven (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable hoax. I´m sure, that whole existence of this "church" is only virtual,and only reason for this is selling self-styled chivalric orders.--Yopie (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it is obviously a hoax (who created the list of the patriarchs had no knowledge of Hungarian names and titles). Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 5 May 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 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Russian insurgency in Donetsk region[edit]

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

Another fork. Look, I made a proposal to split off the events of the insurgency on the talk page at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Split proposal and drafts. Consensus was clearly against it, as you'll see if you read there. However, now we have another lone cowboy out to make more forks, without discussion, and disregarding consensus. This article should be deleted immediately. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the creation of this article was intended to help the community to differentiate the "Donetsk insurgency" (warfare) and the "Donetsk Republic" (a disputed political entity). The community is up to decide whether the insurgency and the Republic is the same thing or not.GreyShark (dibra) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agreed, as you will see in my original proposal at that talk page. However, the community consensus was clearly against it, as demonstrated in the requested move, and also in the discussion about my proposal. It is the responsibility of editors to read prior discussions on the matter, before unilaterally going against those discussions. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing it, but it also seems the discussion was quiet short, i think some one has to invite all participants of prior discussion here to summarize.GreyShark (dibra) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and merge content from Draft:Donetsk crisis) - military conflict and disputed entity should have separate articles. Feon {^t/_c} 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would require splitting off content from Donetsk People's Republic. You saw the talk page discussion. Consensus was against it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until we have consensus to split the DPR article, which has been an ongoing discussion --Львівське (говорити) 21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a redirect. It is a redundant content fork. WP:REDUNDANTFORK.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lvivske. No consensus to split this article off. Currently replicating the pro-Russian unrest main article. § DDima 01:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, then re-discuss a split and maybe there will be a better consensus next time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Toddy1. For now, it can be subsumed under 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. --Franz Brod (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already have this in the article "Pro-Rusian Unrest in Ukraine" which explains what is happening in the donetsk oblast (province), so i think this article should be merged or deleted. --Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV-fork and redirect to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. NickSt (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Raza Khan[edit]

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

not notable Summichum (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This nomination appears to be among a series of attempts to delete articles with which the nom disagrees. Broadly, it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing by an agenda oriented account engaged in some sort of intra-Islamic factional edit war. This is being addressed by a number of editors and Admins. The nom is currently blocked for two weeks for persistent edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI of nom maybe, but I can't see any sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Regardless of the intent of the nominator, this article fails WP:GNG. I considered nominating it myself months ago after removing a lot of unsourced rubbish, but it slipped my mind. The only reliable source we can get - there are a few more - mention that the subject of this article was the son of a notable religious figure. Notability is not inherited per WP:NRV, and there's no reason for this article to exist. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parkside Killers[edit]

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

Article deleted in 2013 via PROD, but restored by request at WP:REFUND with the claim that "there is a resurgence of interest". However, I see no evidence of that. The band has just one album released in 1994. The assertion of notability in the article is enough to ward off WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but without evidence that the band meets any of the criteria in WP:BAND, the article is likely not a keeper here. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC - regardless of supposed "resurgence". Should have stayed deleted the panda ₯’ 20:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This AFD is really just procedural: because it was deleted via a prod, the article can be restored by anyone's request on WP:REFUND. It's equivalent to removing the prod tag to prevent deletion in the first place. Therefore I restored it as requested, but immediately took it to AFD. The person who requested restoration now has a week to provide evidence for the "resurgence of interest" sufficiently to demonstrate notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. EricSerge (talk) 20:37, 6 May 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 Jarvis plc. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cross derailment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King's Cross derailment

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

fails WP:EVENT. no one died not even anyone injured. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no requirement for anyone to die for an event to be notable. The reason why this event is notable is stated in the "Significance" section of the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Pontificalibus' statement. --do ncr am 01:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Jarvis plc given that this incident is only significantly notable as one of a series of incidents leading to that company's loss of contract and ultimate failure. Ordinarily this wouldn't be more than a passing episode in the papers and nightly news. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clear that this article is remarkable. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 11:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable in what way? It looks quite ordinary to me. Jarvis is not the first or last company to mess up. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jarvis plc per Mangoe. The 'significance' section is mostly about the company rather this incident so there is considerable overlap. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mangoe. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge also as per Mangoe.109.150.152.232 (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jarvis plc leaving redirect, event is not notable enough for a standalone articleTheLongTone (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Pontificalibus has said, no one has to die to make it a notable event. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable derailment. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems a better solution than deletion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per TheLongTone. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Its notable but Jarvis were the contractors. I presume it'll be left as a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded live track[edit]

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

Completely uncited and not within MoS. Mr.weedle (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a duplication of Live album. The stuff about pseudo-live recordings seems trivial and is unsourced.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 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. not all the unlikely material was present initially, but the most likely explanation is indeed a hoax DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Central University[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:UNIVERSITY, WP:YOU NAME IT, IT FAILS IT. This purported University claims to be accredited by the non-existent "Global Distance Learning Education Authority" and "International Distance Learning Accreditation Council". Quite possibly a speedy deletion candidate: though WP:A7 does not apply to of educational institutions, this one doesn't appear to exist outside of its website. Shirt58 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This appears to be a SPAM article promoting a degree mill. Big hat tip to Shirt58 for catching the bogus accreditation. I had looked at this fishy article earlier but missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
probably keep First, A7 does not apply to this; what would apply is speedy G3 as an undoubted hoax if it does not exist at all, but it is not quite that obvious on the face of it, and impossible to tell without some further investigation . If it an unaccredited university with real existence, we usually do keep the article if we can verify the data. (I would define real for a school like this as having real teachers, students , and courses.) I have no great trust in the information on their website, and would not include this one without reliable 3rd party information DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question @DGG: Is there a guideline or consensus that supports notability for degree mills? I haven't been able to find anything supporting that interpretation. It's pretty rare that I disagree with you, but barring some clear indication of consensus I would be very uncomfortable extending presumptive notability to these kinds of institutions. Obviously if there were enough WP:RS sources to meet GNG that would have to be considered very seriously. But so far I haven't been able to find anything that comes close to ringing that bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not automatically, of course not. What evidence do you have that it is a diploma mill? That's a pretty strong charge. Not all unaccredited institutions are diploma mills. A diploma mill is an unaccredited institution awarding degree with out having a bona fide education program. I too need to do some checking. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the claimed accrediting entities do not exist. If they do, they have somehow escaped any notice on Google. Almost every hit in a search for "Brooklyn Central University" has produced promotional sites. In many cases these have been created or added recently. The article originally claimed the school was Ivy League. I deleted that claim. It's hard to prove with absolute certainty that a school is a degree mill. But in this case all of the available evidence strongly suggests that it is either that, or a complete hoax/fraudulent entity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent strong and immediate verification. Something is extremely strange about a claimed university whose top Google hits include DeviantART pages and Vimeo. Images from throughout their website appear to be taken from stock images and other unrelated pages. Parts of the website are strewn with unidiomatic usage and grammatical errors (including, ironically, "The foreign language test will be conducted to check the proficiency of the foreign languages"). The university is not mentioned on the list of colleges and universities in New York maintained by the New York State Education Department. As for the Wikipedia article, it was created by a new single-purpose account (never a good sign in the case of a suspect article); the claimed university endowment of $30.8 billion is patently fanciful; the numbers of students in the infobox bear no relation to the numbers on the university's own website; the "mascot" of the Brooklyn Bridge suggests someone just randomly filling in fields in the infobox. There are no Ghits for James Harrison Ford Jr., the supposed founder of the university, and no explanation is given as to how this online-only institution is the continuation of a bricks-and-morter school supposedly founded in 1953. There is an additional suspicious circumstance revealed by Checkuser that I can't discuss here but that buttresses my concerns. Something is radically wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough for me. I'm tagging this for CSD (G-3). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The gist of the deletion rationale is summarized by WP:TNT; however, there is consensus here that the subject is notable, and enough editing has been done for the nominator to be satisfied. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holyland Case[edit]

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

Subject is likely notable, however the article is so poorly written that it does not meet encyclopedic standards and would need to be rewritten from scratch to bring it up to snuff. (Note: This is not intended as a slam on the author for whom I suspect English is not their native language.) Additionally the article cites no sources which is highly problematic considering it contains lots of highly negative claims about living persons. A possible redirect target might be the extensive coverage of the scandals and legal troubles in Ehud Olmert. In the end though this particular article is just not salvageable. Time to break out the TNT. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as so badly written there is no way to keep it by copyediting. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly notable and the verdict is now sourced. Whether this stuff created (I suspect) by machine translation is unsalvagable is another matter.TheLongTone (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Make that Keep. The article has a sound structure, I've beaten out some of the lumps, it is by no means unsalvageable. There are plenty of sources.TheLongTone (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom Based on extreme makeover by TheLongTone. Well done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and important topic. Marokwitz (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a lot of editing, but it's certainly a notable topic. --FeldBum (talk) 14:40, 7 May 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. I'm not userfying in the absence of a request from the author, but any admin should feel free to do if such a request is made. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Price of Democracy[edit]

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

Forced Afd. PROD was deleted, and does not qualify for an A7 as it's a film. Fails the notability guideline for films, has not achieved significant coverage in secondary sources. Tutelary (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything in English and a search for sources using the Ukranian name doesn't really bring up anything. Of course I know that Google isn't exactly the greatest, but there does seem to be a dearth of sources as a whole. Barring anyone finding more coverage, this will be a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Usefy for now back to its author without prejudice as a draft. It is quite unlikely that we will have scads of English coverage for this Ukranian film. We can allow return once WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ok with userification. A very quick check of Ukrainian sources didn't give me any bites to suggest notability, though i saw a few brief mentions of it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hoskins[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and there is no coverage to support notability under WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Holden[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a link to his fight record so he doesn't meet WP:GNG. That fight record also shows that he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG. Only working link is to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Hollis (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the references given don't meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG. Even if the Golden Gloves title was sourced it wouldn't be enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Mdtemp. Finnegas (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Henry (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - no title fights. Only real claim is he looks like another boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Most of the sources are simply routine sports reporting. There are some mentions of him as a "top prospect", but being a prospect means one is not yet notable but may become so. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and reporting is routine. Reads more like a tribute to a young man who died early, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 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) 01:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharenting[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, respectfully. Tutelary (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it has neologism-like elements due to being a relatively recently-coined term, at this time it's also a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Source examples include:

"The pros and cons of 'sharenting'". The Guardian.
"Could you be over sharenting?". News.com.au.
"Sharenting: Is it harmful to share the details of the children’s lives through social media?". Gulf News.
"The Facebook-Free Baby". The Wall Street Journal.
"Is 'oversharenting' a big deal?". ABC News.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could stand to be beefed up, but I see extensive coverage. Meets notability. Bali88 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's unintuitive, but this really is a notable neologism used by reliable sources. I find it difficult to believe that adult, professional journalists would use such a stupid word, but they do. I even found a Flemish newspaper that uses the term! With such international acceptance, I think this is a clear keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've expanded the article. It's not a featured article, but I think it makes a much better case for notability now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 7 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un'amore e una vendetta[edit]

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

No corresponding article as linked, unsourced, not notable fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 12:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Inquisitively I feel that WP:CSD#A1 could possibly fit this article. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Even the one sentence article that was first nominataed gave just enough context to allow the article's topic to be determine. A1 does not apply. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Even if there are not any reliable sources, it could be updated. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rinfoli what does that mean? The article is either notable or it isnt and this one has no sources. On what basis are you voting for keep? Flat Out let's discuss it 11:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Flat Out, in fact I've added that it needs WP:V and I think this article needs a bit of time to update. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 11:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rinfoli the tv show had only 8 episodes and there are no sources. How can you possibly vote to keep a non notable article Flat Out let's discuss it 11:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

":*Comment I have written "KEEP FOR NOW". We should grant this article sufficient time.Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 11:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It fails WP:GNG. What policy or guideline are you using to support your vote? Flat Out let's discuss it

Do not delete, because there is already the italian one. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_amore_e_una_vendetta. It should need an English one. I also think that we must give more time for refresh that article. Miyole (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without a source it fails Wikipedia:Notability (media). Flat Out let's discuss it 02:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant sources. As FlatOut says, if a television show doesn't attract any media attention after 8 episodes, it's probably not ready for our notability guidelines. There's not enough to the article to userfy or anything. Moswento ^talky 09:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article that's no good and on another wiki. Does this have an A2 qualification?

Delete if failing A2. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The title of the article was wrong: it should be "Un Amore e una vendetta" (Amore is male, then we use Un, not Una => Un' in Italian). Now I moved it. Under the real title there are plenty of sources on google. Alex2006 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but someone has to work on it. Alex2006 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Either wording of the title shows the same results on Google. Can you highlight some of these "plenty of sources" please? I'm not seeing them. Moswento ^talky 13:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example this one. "Sorrisi e canzoni" is one of the most important italian TV magazine. I did not watch it (actually, I don't have a television :-)), but from relatives I heard that in Italy this serie had a good success. Alex2006 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very nice find, but still not convinced. As an interview, it's not a truly independent source, and we need multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. It's certainly an indication that other sources might exist, but I really cannot find them. I can find self-published blogs, I can find download sites, I can find TV listings, I can find this article mentioning that episode 3 had 4 million viewers. But where are the newspaper reviews? Where is the critical commentary? They may be out there, but until I see them my vote stays at 'Delete'. Moswento ^talky 09:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've also now found this from a women's magazine published by Nano Press, who claim to be a legitimately registered news source with editorial control over content. One more good source would probably tempt me to change my vote. Moswento ^talky 09:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        What about this one? It is a web site specialized in fictions...Alex2006 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable TV show. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Come on people, why was so much time wasted on this discussion, when all it took was 10 minutes for someone (me) to spruce it up and add references. It was a primetime drama on a major Italian network, its clearly notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep per WP:HEY and massive improvements since first nominated, showing the topic as sourcable and meeting WP:N. WP:CSB anyone? For an Italian television series, Italian language sources are just fine. And pardon me some of you, and with respects, but did any one actually even look to the equivalent (and with far more content) Italian Wikipedia article first, to determine sourcability in Italian? User:Milowent deserves the thanks of all in this discussion. Kudos. Excellent job. 22:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]
- Is that the Italian Wikipedia article sourced entirely to the blog of a single TV critic? Yes, I did look at that, thanks for asking. Moswento ^talky 08:04, 12 May 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dunkelman[edit]

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

Her solitary voice acting role in RWBY isn't enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER (the article also mentions a role in Immersion; however, this is unsourced) and nothing else in her article appears to sufficiently indicate notability. The references consist pretty much entirely of primary sources, articles that make little or no mention of Dunkelman, and content from local or unreliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, her role in Immersion was in fact sourced with a link to the YouTube video in which she appeared. However, her role on the show has been fairly minor and I don't think this contributes to her notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of primary sources. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually there are primary sources; the problem appears to be lack of secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this Business Journal article claims she's a co-founder of a 'con' with 30,000 attendees. I still would like better osurcing. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve per Bearian - IMO needs better sourcing not deleting. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article Bearian links to doesn't seem to support Dunkelman's notability. "Co-founder" seems to just mean that she works for the company that created it. In the absence of reliable independent sources discussing her work (rather than mentioning her briefly in the context of Rooster Teeth's work), she doesn't merit her own article. Moswento ^talky 08:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I'm going with a weak keep based on her work, but again, the sourcing needs improvement. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 12 May 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. Wikipedians cannot agree about how to deal with this content. In closing this debate, I gave little weight to quite a number of the points raised. Specifically, I gave no weight to the ad hominem (or more accurately, ad feminem) allegations about User:Sport and politics' motives. I gave little weight to contentions that the election might be cancelled or that Gedling Borough Council might be abolished before 2015, because you can take it to the bank that neither of these things is going to happen. (Such an extensive reform of English local government would take more than a year to implement.) The contention that the elections are of local rather than national interest is quite true; the focus nationally will be on the general election taking place at the same time. However, I cannot connect "of local interest" with a "delete" outcome. Equally, it is quite accurate that people suffered and died so that Brits could get the vote, but I cannot connect this with a "keep" outcome for an article about a future local election.

The argument advanced most clearly by Lankiveil and Trevj, that we know nothing substantive about the election from reliable sources, and so there is nothing for the article to say, deserves, and received, full weight. Because of this, I think it's highly persuasive that we should have a redirect here, but I cannot say there is as yet a real consensus to support that outcome. Discussions about a possible redirect should probably continue on the relevant talk page.

Since this is a "no consensus" outcome at AfD, in accordance with our normal practice it will be in order to renominate the article for deletion in early course, although this is a plausible search term so I'd suggest exhausting the possibility of a redirect before bringing it back here.—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Gedling Borough Council election, 2015[edit]

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

This is a predicted event and is not planned to take place until May 2015. The Mat 2014 elections have not even taken place yet. This article is way to premature and violates WP:crystal. The event is also not guaranteed to take place as the law between now and May 2015 may change or the Council may be abolished all are possible, just not likely so they throw the event in to a "this is not a 100% guaranteed to take place event" category. The article is also not of any value to Wikipedia this far out and therefor violate WP:indiscriminate This article should be deleted and recreated much closer to the time the actual election is scheduled to take place and candidate nominations have closed in April 2014. Sport and politics (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see this as a WP:CRYSTAL violation: it's usual to have articles on future elections when they are scheduled for a specific time, e.g. United States presidential election, 2016 - of course Barack Obama could bring in his nefarious plan to impose a New World Order and enslave all Americans in his network of secret concentration camps, but generally it's assumed the election will take place. Is there any reason to believe the law may be changed or the council might be abolished? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't appear to violate either of the policies cited. WP:CRYSTAL is basically about preventing unverifiable speculation - this does not fit into that category. As regards WP:indiscriminate there is plenty of precedence for this type of article being suitable for inclusion, and it has no relationship to any of the criteria in the policy. Just because it is early (it certainly is that!) does not make it either speculative or inappropriate. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has been the target of a vendetta and vandalism by one user called 'Sport and Politics', who has maliciously re-directed the article elsewhere several times, which I have had to undo and re-direct back to the article several times, so now as that user can not get her own persional way she is trying to get the article deleted. These elections are not speculation they are happening and candidates are being announced. a) Elections are happening and are scheduled: http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/scheduledelections/ b) Boundary changes have been approved and are in law: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/east-midlands/nottinghamshire/gedling-fer The page is both useful and informative. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I strongly suggest the above personal attacks are withdrawn: use of words like "vendetta" and "vandalism" are not welcome on Wikipedia and must be avoided. Sport and politics (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wiki is here for everyone, you do not own the page nor do I. However, you redirecting the page away elsewhere, no less than FIVE TIMES, is not appropriate behaviour. Followed up by submitting the page for deleting... Sure seems like a vendetta. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be really petty and a shame to delete the page. As a local to the area, I find the page to be handy and helpful, it is well put together. Yes its slightly early, but not an issue in my view... in addition as can be seen the area is naming candidates already and elections have been scheduled by Gedling Borough Council. --Verzarli (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Handy and useful is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for notable events. This event is not currently notable as it is too far in the future and contested elections are not guaranteed. I mean having a speculative 2015 local election article before the 2014 local elections have even taken place is madness. The only time elections will be guaranteed to to take place is when the official notices are published and not before. I have previously advocated this page being a redirect but not I am of the opinion this needs deleting to discourage other pages being created too far out and this page is similar to say US presidential articles too far in to the future. Plus naming candidates already is just pure speculation. Retaining this article will just lead to mass speculation being the focus of this article which must be avoided and deletion is the only way t avoid that happening and wasting the time of Wikipedia and turning this from an encyclopaedia article to a speculation blog page. Sport and politics (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sport & politics, that is a misleading comment you made, Gedling does not have any local elections in 2014. The next set of local elections are 2015, as per this article, this is hardly speculation, it has been stated and is scheduled: http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/scheduledelections/. The various political parties themselves are already naming the candidates now, this is fact. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete just because the event is scheduled and this article is "useful" are not reasons to establish notability. These future elections have zero impact or coverage outside this council area. LibStar (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep People fought and died for the vote, for freedom and democracy. Therefore all elections have established notability. Besides if you search wiki, a number of UK local elections are covered. Therefore people do find local elections notable. --Verzarli (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, not all elections have demonstrated notability, state and national elections yes but not all local elections and therefore , I highly doubt anyone died for these elections, but if you find such evidence, please let me know. I have found zero evidence of 2015 election coverage and this therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see this violating WP:crystal since the elections are verifiable and almost certain to occur. The article is a bit early, but not that unreasonable so I don't see WP:indiscriminate applying either. I am One of Many (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per my comment above. Bagunceiro (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I see no valid reason to delete ~~other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT~~, Sure it's a bit early but certainly not CRYSTAL!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think a fundamental point is being missed here this event s not notable, It isn't even guaranteed to happen. The 2014 Local elections in England have not even taken place. This article is speculation and is far to far in the future. There is nothing stopping this being re-created closer to the time if the election takes place and the event actually gains independent third party sources to establish notability. Sport and politics (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing we know with any certainty is that the elections will happen in 2015 (and even that is not 100% certain). The rest of the article consists of empty templates for the results to be inserted into. I think that the article can potentially be recreated once more is definitively known and serious campaigning begins, but at the moment it seems a little premature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Looking at most previous comments up until this point they are mostly in favour of the article. So it is a clear keep. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Nottingham Politics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. It's just a blank template of no value until the election. If we were a few weeks away from the election I'd vote keep but this is just premature. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a verifiable scheduled event; I can see no speculation here. It is in the future, but that does not make it theoretical or hypothetical. Nor does the slim chance that it will not happen (assuming that eventuality would indeed be speculative!).

As regards "it´s just a blank template", two points: Firstly a glance through the edit history shows that this was not so until much of the content was removed on 5th May, again citing speculation as the reason (this appears also to be incorrect - I did not go through them all but those candidates that I did check have already been anounced). And secondly, Wikipedia is, and always will be, a work in progress. There is no problem with articles existing in an incomplete state.

My reading of the discussion above and elsewhere is that the notability of this article, were it to be created closer to the actual event, is acknowledged. And in my view, early (as opposed to speculative; they are not the same thing) creation is no bad thing. Naomhain (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ As per all my previous comments above. --Verzarli (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and compromise proposal - This is not a vote stating " I have said keep before" is not a valid reason there is no need t put up another keep from the same user s that just voting not discussing. The simplest solution keep the content hidden and redirect to the main local elections page until closer till the time the info can be added to the hidden parts and when nominations actually open then it can be un-redirected and unhidden. Sport and politics (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Nottingham Politics/Gedling Borough Council election, 2015 per WP:EVENT, then create redirect to Elections in the United Kingdom. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That, and the idea of embedding a redirect into the article to hide it, would have the same practical effect as a delete and as such I would oppose them for the same reasons as above. Naomhain (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this article should be redirected away. The article is early but its valid, less than 12 months away now! Everyone is using a lot of energy on this. In addition I have also put back in the candidates already named. They are not speculation, I actually live in the area, these candidates are putting out there leaflets now, they are named. --Verzarli (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be based on local speculation that x, y , z will be the candidates. Just because so and so is on a leaflet does not mean they will be on the ballot paper that is WP:synthesis and WP:OR. Even if it says candidate x for X ward. Also please provide the sources, "your word" or "so and so so so so it is true" is not good enough in this case. 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment Source for candidates listed: Gedling Conservatives web-site http://www.gedlingconservatives.org.uk/ states it official twitter feed as @GedlingTories candidates publically named on their official twitter feed: Jan 30th, Feb 8th & Feb 14th. Ps you should sign your comments, otherwise one person may give the impression of being more than one person. --Verzarli (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where is the third party coverage of this election in 2015? And evidence of people dying for this election as you claim? LibStar (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LibStar - Third party coverage is in the Nottingham Post Newspaper, The Topper newspaper, The Dispatch newspaper. Gedling Borough Council website. If you require evidence for people dying in order to win the British people the right to freedom and democracy, I suggest you read a history book. Locally I suggest you visit the War memorial's in Gedling Borough and pay your respects to the dead. --Verzarli (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you supply specific articles, these seem local press? also War memorials do not establish that people died for the Borough Council election, that is a rather long bow on your part. for example, the world wars were not about fighting to establish Gedling Borough Council election. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 13 May 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. I have no doubt this will be controversial, but I feel that the "Keep" opinions here are weak and not rooted in policy. For instance, one is a completely unsupported reference that the nomination statement is false. Another is a duplicate vote. The only one that would give me pause is the sources listed by User:Hmlarson. However, with one exception they don't appear to be "reliable sources", in the Wikipedia meaning of that term. The exception would be the ESPN source, but the extensive discussion makes it clear there is no consensus on whether to accept that as reliable (and it's out of scope for here, try WT:RS to argue over that specific example), and in any case one source isn't the multiple sources required by policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cal South[edit]

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

This amateur youth and adult sports association doesn't have sufficient substantial and independent RS coverage about the association itself to meet our notability requirements. Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Nominator might also wish to consider similar articles listed at ((US Youth Soccer State Associations)). Giant Snowman 12:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five of such articles that GiantSnowman referred to have since been deleted via speedy delete; specifically. Illinois Youth Soccer Association, Missouri Youth Soccer Association, North Carolina Youth Soccer Association, Tennessee State Soccer Association, and Virginia Youth Soccer Association. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cal South is not an amateur youth and adult sports association. It is the head competitive & recreational soccer organization in Southern California, and is associated with the United States Soccer Federation, which in turn is associated with FIFA. There are credible references which assure the notability of the article, and similar articles can be found here and here for other states. Reasons are continued on the talk page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is an amateur youth and adult sports association. What is your basis for describing it as other? Are you asserting it is not amateur? Not for youth and adults? Not a sports association? I think what you asserted is untrue. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bowser2500 has been blocked for two weeks. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs expansion not deletion. Article content to be expanded to include more reliable secondary sources like ESPN, Top Drawer Soccer, Orange County Register, etc. per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ESPN source is a blog and Top Drawer Soccer does not appear to be a RS... Giant Snowman 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your opinion from the UK? Hmlarson (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed the memo disqualifying UK editors from commenting on whether refs are RSs? --Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your interpretation? Ok - to each his/her own. Hmlarson (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no notability. I would also include Utah Youth Soccer Association and Maryland State Youth Soccer Association. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland State Youth Soccer Association has now also been deleted, as suggested. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I still have deletion as my preferred outcome, another possible option would be to create List of United States Youth Soccer Associations (as a spin-off of United States Youth Soccer Association) and have all 52 listed there, with the (few) existing articles redirected/merged? Giant Snowman 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list already exists on the United States Youth Soccer Association page. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence why I said it would be a spin-off. However, as I've said, my preferred outcome would still be to delete. Giant Snowman 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if the (few) individual articles are deleted do we not want to delete ((US Youth Soccer State Associations)) as well? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, we should take it to WP:TFD once the AFDs are closed. Giant Snowman 11:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to United States Soccer Federation, with which it seems to be affiliated? --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that all of these organizations are hard, if not impossible, to support with RS. Chris1834 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the sources listed meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Giant Snowman 08:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[7] for one. The ESPN one was a bit short. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, Topdrawersoccer does not look to be a RS and ESPN is a blog. Giant Snowman 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Giant here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN is the biggest sport media outlet on the planet. Their "blog" is hardly some acne-faced teen posting from their basement. There's nothing in WP:GNG that precludes ANY blogs specifically, let alone news articles posted to the "blog" of the biggest sports media outlet on the planet. What's the basis for saying that Topdrawersoccer does not look to be a RS? Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are there indicia of Topdrawersoccer being an RS? What is its staff? What is its editorial oversight? I understand that one guy -- "an avid soccer fan, coach and parent" -- created it. That's all. Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are ESPN blogs that different from Huffington Post blogs, which I have written for, or any similar site? Giant Snowman 11:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's different. ESPN is probably the largest sports media operation in the world, and it's only the sports arm of one of the biggest media empires in the world. Huffington Post is a small low-key website. It's like comparing the BBC Home Service to Radio Caroline. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz -- you failed to respond ... Where are there indicia of Topdrawersoccer being an RS? What is its staff? What is its editorial oversight? One guy -- "an avid soccer fan, coach and parent" -- created it. What editorial oversight and staff does it have? I see no evidence of any. So why do you view it as an RS, and a basis for your !vote? Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually @Nfitz: Huffington Post is not a "small low-key website" - it is actually the top 'popular political website' in the world according to this. Try again. Giant Snowman 17:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do confess @GiantSnowman: that I'm surprised at how fast it's grown for something that's not been around that long. Though looking into it more, I'd think that would probably speak to Huffington potentially being a reliable source, despite being a blog. Still, at only about 800 employees it's a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation, about 1/10 the size of ESPN alone, let alone the 175,000 employees of the entire Walt Disney Company. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz -- you again failed to respond to me ... Does your silence mean you have no defense for your !vote relying on Topdrawersoccer as an RS? Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it simply means that I hadn't noticed your comments, as they got lost behind GiantSnowman's comments. Your looking for indicia. Referring to WP:GNG in what way does that article not meet WP:GNG. The writer is well known, professional, and has been around for a while; the article is detailed, has significant coverage, addresses the topic directly and in detail. The details of the article are verifable. The writer is independent of the subject. Not sure what you think the issue here is. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this parent has a self-published website, and he has been "around for a while", and he is well known to you, does not make his self-published source an RS. Nor does detail and direct coverage by this parent make his work an RS. There is no editorial coverage oversight as far as what I can see -- this is a standard self-published non-RS. Please look at the definition of RSs to understand what I am saying. Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep highlighting parent? How is that relevant? Is this some kind of WP:BIAS? How do you even know that Daniel Robertson is a parent, because I'm not seeing any information on that. You seem to be trying to downplay the writer's credentials. He's a professional sports writer ... I doubt this was a professional piece, but that's hardly the case when you look at other material. Self-published? This isn't his website. Why do you say there is no editorial oversight? The website would suggest otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is how the publication describes itself. "Robert Ziegler, an avid soccer fan, coach and parent, began taking an academic interest in our broken pre-professional soccer system." No mention of editorial oversight or staff whatsoever. A key aspect of an RS is that it have that. Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

didn't write the article though ... I've made no references to him. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree. The ref is a non-RS. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the company is irrelevant - you can have a RS that is 1 person, or a company of 5 people; just as a company of thousands can be non-RS (i.e. Daily Mail) - Nfitz you are not actually dealing with the issues we are raising namely that this organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Giant Snowman 17:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you dismiss sources, not based on their merits, but simply because they are a 'blog'. I'm not discussing this organization in terms of ESPN ... I already dismissed that source for other reasons - I'm simply pointing out that your dismissal of ESPN, simply because it's a blog, while not entirely relevant to this debate, denotes that you fail to fully comprehend WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am dismissing it as a source per WP:SPS. Giant Snowman 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can eliminate the entire content of http://espn.go.com/espn/blogs as a source per WP:SPS. Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable independent sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; there are enough credible sources that discuss the organization to some extent.--Bowser2500 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, sources discussing the organization "to some extent" is not sufficient under wp notability rules; and here, the sources that are independent fail to provide "significant coverage". Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 11 May 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 Savage Dragon. Although close to delete, some delete !voters were not opposed to a redirect, and thus the consensus is redirect the panda ₯’ 22:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon: Blood & Guts[edit]

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

A non notable limited comic book series without credible sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to have any real notability even within the world of the Dragon. Aside from a bibliographical listing, Savage Dragon doesn't even mention this series.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/o prejudice to a subsequent merger into a broader article when an appropriate one is created. "Savage Dragon" is a major comics franchise with a very large number of spinoff projects from its main title [8] (partial list), which are too extensive to cover in the article on the flagship title. Whether to cover these individually or in umbrella articles is an editorial decision, but wiping out existing coverage because it is woefully incomplete would be a bad choice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss as to why you think the fact that The Dragon: Blood & Guts is just one of a multitude of Dragon spinoffs makes it notable. It seems pretty clear that the exact opposite is true. If a notable character appears in only one publication, then it follows that that one publication must be very notable, but if he appears in dozens of publications, then it's highly unlikely that every single one meets notability standards.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long-running, notable character to be sure, but I'm just not finding any significant coverage for this mini-series. I would not be opposed to have this redirect to The Savage Dragon, where the title is listed within the "Collected editions" subsection. Gongshow talk 05:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have found multiple RS regarding this series. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why haven't you added them to the article?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept a merge as a compromise as this article really is not that notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Savage Dragon. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Savage Dragon or delete. There isn't really anything to merge. It's all plot. I don't understand how being a long-running character impacts on the notability of this article. That sounds like an inherited-notability argument. Superman is one of the most famous fictional characters of all time, but we wouldn't make articles on every spinoff project in which he was involved. If people want to obsessively document every storyline and appearance, there's always Wikia, which was created for this purpose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Stewart[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Hasn't been the subject of signficant coverage in reliable sources. Hasn't played in a fully professional league or played at international level. Previously deleted under WP:PROD for same reasons. Hack (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stonnington City SC[edit]

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

Non-notable club, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable club, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:07, 6 May 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. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist cosmologies[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation. There are creationists who deal with the implications from physical cosmology in a variety of ways. Some flatly deny that the science is settled. Some try to use some of the trappings of science to produce ideas they think accord with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Others seem content to pick and choose what they want to accept from the scientific explanations of certain subjects and what they will reject. I believe that all of these approaches are best described, when WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, on pages either devoted to explaining the ideas of particularly notable individuals or on pages such as creationism, creation science, and so forth. However, this amalgamation is essentially an originally researched treatise slapping together a lot of disparate ideas in one spot, something that we are explicitly forbidden from doing. Trying to outline the "varieties" or "tenets (sic)" of creationism in general let alone creationist approaches to cosmology in particular is the job for someone who is either giving a sermon or writing an academic dissertation about pseudoscientific beliefs: it is not appropriate for Wikipedia which is supposed to rely on reliable sources that make the points of analysis and connection themselves rather than allowing for Wikipedians to connect the dots in novel ways. jps (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation geophysics. jps (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally focussed on Young Earth Creationist theories of cosmology. In my opinion it was a better quality article at that time and did not suffer from many of the problems listed above (particularly WP:SYNTH). I think that an article on this topic is appropriate -- pseudoscience doesn't equal fringe especially if there is a large subculture of people who subscribe to it. (Cf. the article about flood geology). So I would advocate keep and improve not delete. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike flood geology which can be identified as the revival of a defunct set of explanations by George McCready Price and Henry M. Morris to promote creationism, there is no coherent movement associated with "creationist cosmologies", nor is there any reason to preference young earth creationist ideas over those of old earth creationists such as Hugh Ross or accommodationists who try to steer clear of the pseudoscience being promoted by their fellow creationists. There are individuals who argue for their own pet ideas, but we aren't empowered at this website to create a clearinghouse for such. We have biography pages for such. jps (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.117.89.139 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This may be WP:FRINGE, but it's spectacularly notable. There is no shortage of critical sources. In fact WP:NFRINGE specifically mentions "Creation science" topics as examples of notable topics. Also, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.30.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is not "creation science". This is an article solely on a few ideas some non-cosmologists made up one day that they called "cosmologies". jps (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're kidding, right? The article is a child article of Creation science, and is sourced mostly to either (a) Creationist literature or (b) Criticisms of Creationist literature. How is it not "Creation science"? I guess we could merge back to the parent article, but that's already fairly big. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is that the WP:FRINGE page mentions creation science. This is a spur. jps (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything of value is discussed in the articles on creationism and the Christian creation myths. This article really is just a WP:POVFORK. Creationists don't have cosmologies as such, they just have the Bible and a whole bunch of post-hoc rationalisations to try to maintain belief in its literal truth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This article is and always has been a mish-mash of disjointed concepts, a synthesis from disjointed and often mutually exclusive ideologies. It started with good intentions, but since hydroplates now redirects to flood geology the purpose of this article is essentially redundant. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about Hydroplates suggests that you have this article confused with Creation geophysics. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:POVFORK of what? This is a child article of Creation science. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need for an article separate from creation science. Orser67 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a child article of Creation science, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. A merge back in might make sense, but not a deletion. -- 101.117.89.139 (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no coherent movement associated with "creationist cosmologies" -- that is inaccurate. Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham, the widely recognised leaders of the creationist/creation science movement, are a unifying movement. They advocate the (pseudo)theories of Russell Humphreys and John Harnett. If AiG and Ham are advancing a set of (pseudo)theories, then they are most certainly WP:N. The problem with this article is the Synth and OR, that can be cleaned up, but deletion is not the right approach. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proper articles to discuss the creationist or creation science movement are there. The idea that there is a specific movement regarding cosmology is not supported by independent sources. As such, this article only serves as an originally researched compendium of WP:POVFORKs associated with physical cosmology. jps (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is redacted back to deal only with (young-earth) creationist ideas about cosmology, it will no longer be a POVFORK but a legitimate WP:SPINOFF of creation science, already a lengthy article.

As to the legitimacy of the topic, see these links [9] and [10]. I strongly believe that it reaches the threshold of notability. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICR and AiG are not reliable sources in terms of WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly with a pared-down merge depending on the target. There are issues of undue weight and especially novel synthesis here that are likely difficult or impossible to overcome. Were it up to me, I'd probably point this back at creation science. I'd be willing to entertain the idea that a vastly shortened version of this might instead have a home as some sort of modern interpretations section of Biblical cosmology, however, but it would need careful caretaking. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant redirect to creation science While this topic is covered extensively in the ICR and AiG literature, the theories are seldom, if ever, treated in mainstream physical cosmology journals in any way. This creates creates an inherently and unresolvably skewed POV by ignoring the mainstream scientific position. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fork without substantive secondary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Creationism will almost inevitably be regarded as FRINGE. In contrast with the rival article Creation Science, this one seeks to distinguish different views in creationism. Accordingly, the article should be merged rather than deleted, but I think it is simpler to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this argument. How is creation science a "rival" article? Are you saying that it would be useful to merge content into creation science? If that's the case, then why do you argue it's "simpler" to keep it? jps (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lunatic fringe stuff is still notable. The massive amount of sources shows that notability and suitability of the topic is not into question. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep a relatively rational article that explains what it is talking about. Creationism is not a as monolithic as sometimes thought, and , like all widely held beliefs, needs full discusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so fringe that it hurts. Presenting mythological alternatives to science on an equal footing violates WP:FRINGE and everything that it stands for. These concepts are already described in detail at Creation science and Young Earth creationism. I have absolutely no problem with documenting creationist theology, but this article has only one purpose: to promote fringe beliefs over science. If it merely documented the fringe beliefs themselves, it would not violate fringe guidelines or require strong scientific sources; instead, this posits them as valid scientific theories. Any internal argument between pseudoscientists or theologians can be discussed in the appropriate articles. This article is manifestly unnecessary. I can't believe we're actually debating this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These problems can and should be dealt with editing, and thus our deletion policy says that they are not a reason to delete. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and articles like this one, or articles like Moon landing conspiracy theories, are an opportunity to respond to notable WP:FRINGE beliefs with actual facts. -- 101.117.59.146 (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Properly, not per redirect unless all is duplicated. Some useful material but would be better treated in parent articles. Could be rewritten to ensure it doesn't promote creationist ideas, but not particularly useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very first sentence is unsourced. The article is synthesis because it doesn’t provide a reliable source that states that the expression “creationist cosmologies” refers specifically to those cosmologies that ascribe to the genesis creation myth. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid deletion criterion, but there are many sources supporting the statement. One has been added to the article. -- 101.117.1.218 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - reference details (including relevant url) of added WP:RS =>

< ref>Ruse, Michael; Travis, Joseph (2009). Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Harvard University Press. p. 841. ISBN 067403175X.</ref>

Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny D[edit]

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

Version with sources: [11] , there are other sources in history.
recent removal of sources cannot be easily assessed as vandalism due to:
sources are mainly UGC / primary / passing mentions (AFD, IAFD, WP)
BLP lacking RS (at that point)
appears to fail GNG / BIO
Therefore cannot restore to old version including sources as UGC / weak sources / passing mentions - not enough RS to evaluate, better to delete pending sources
SPA creator, so assuming COI
Long term changing of details / vandalism / blanking - cannot easily be solved without RS

(note: twinkle refuses to PROD this article, claiming there's already a delete tag. Guess that's a bug due to the "afdb" template starting with "afd" ?) Widefox; talk 08:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator (per comment below) Widefox; talk 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The XBiz Award win for Foreign Male Performer of the Year is verifiable (here and here). An XBiz award has been enough to pass WP:PORNBIO although some editors have stated that niche categories (e.g. MILF performer or Unsung Swordsman) don't count. I'm not voting to keep until I see further input. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we even discussing this? He clearly passes WP:PORNBIO because he has won three well known and significant industry awards. The SHAFTA Award for Male Performer of The Year twice and the XBIZ Award for Foreign Male Performer of the Year. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Apparently, the subject or someone close to them is a major contributor to the article. I would suggest to either semi-protect the article (if the editor is an IP address), or block the editor (if he/she is a registered user). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FYI, I've recently updated the article in question. The subject here passes the PORNBIO inclusion standard with two sets of "significant industry award" wins ("Male Performer of The Year" twice & "Foreign Male Performer of the Year" once) from two different "well-known" industry award ceremonies (SHAFTAs & XBIZ Awards). I don't know that further comment here on the above "concerns" (vandalism, SPAs, COI, etc.) are necessary or constructive at this time. All of the info currently contained in the article in question is well-sourced at this point, and it's now on my watch list, so I'll keep an eye on it. Guy1890 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh! The only relevant issue here is whether or not the subject meets an adequate inclusion standard. If Guy has the page on their watchlist I'm sure the other stuff will take of itself. The subject does clearly pass PORNBIO and probably does not pass the GNG because of a lack of reliable independent sources. I consider this to be a problem but there is no consensus at this time to prune awards from PORNBIO and the current state does pretty much reflect where community consensus sits. On that basis I can't bring myself to vote to keep a BLP with inadequate sources but I do not see any meta consensus that militates against having this article so the only policy based outcome here is going to be keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment & withdrawn Rebecca1990 WP:DINC (essay) has to be balanced against WP:BLP (policy) in particular WP:V "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.". My nom was due to my lack of ability to assess if there's a vandalism or BLP issue due to lack of a single source (let alone a RS), so I couldn't restore the sources and possible BLP violating content given the long-term and recent shifting sands of the details of the bio. Now the article is sourced, well done, withdrawn. Widefox; talk 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like Spartaz and Gene93k, I'm dubious about this article, but don't expect any consensus for deletion to be a likely outcome here. Despite some comments above, the SHAFTA awards have not been established as satisfying PORNBIO requirements -- indeed, SHAFTA recipients have been deleted, with that credential rejected. I also believe that, in the absence of independent, reliable sourcing, a redirect to an appropriate list article, when plausible, should be preferred to a BLP without meaningful reliably sourced content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't recall any recent AfD outcomes of "SHAFTA recipients being deleted, with that credential rejected". The reality is that there aren't that many adult industry awards in the UK, and the SHAFTAs are apparently one of only two "active" adult award ceremonies there. In this case here, the subject has won a major XBIZ Award as well, so one's view about the SHAFTAs is irrelevant anyways. Also, there are, in fact, reliable independent sources now present in the article in question here. We're really not going to move the goal posts of notability because of a few, well-known anti-porn editor's biased wishes. Guy1890 (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. What you may or may not recall isn't relevant, Guy. Unless you can point to AFD discussions or policy/guideline discussions addressing the issue, your claim that these awards meet the well-known/significant standard isn't valid. And there's strong evidence these awards fail that standard. They're promotional awards, given by a cable TV channel to promote its own programming. In general, we don't recognize awards like that as significant, any more than we treat Pathmark announcing its Cheese Of The Month in its advertising as significant, or McDonald's its Employee of the Month. Saying that there are "only two" awards in a field in a particular region does nothing to establish significance; what coverage is there for the second-most-prominent US cricket award? Your incessant casting aspersions on editors who stress BLP enforcement is quite tiresome, as well; and if you're going to toss accusations of "bias" around, you should keep this principle [12] in mind. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What you may or may not recall isn't relevant"...but what one can prove is relevant Mr. Wolfowitz. Quite frankly, your lack of response showing any recent AfDs to back up your claims about the SHAFTAs speaks for itself. For the who knows what time, no one has died & appointed you to the non-existent position of "Wikipedia BLP Police".

We're beating a dead horse here people - this nomination has been withdrawn because it has been determined in the end to have no merit to it. Guy1890 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you incapable of maintaining a civil discussion? You asserted that SHAFTAs met the "well-known/significant" standard; I commented that SHAFTA winners had been deleted. After some huggermugger, I commented that neither you nor anyone else had referenced any consensus supporting your claim, and you replied with an uncivil rant. Let me be, again, blunt: Your "recall" is irrelevant. You're not in the category of "Wikipedians whose unsubstantiated opinions must be disproved by editors who disagree with them". No one is, not even User:Jimbo Wales. Stop casting aspersions. Stop making unfounded accusations of bias. When you claim a consensus exists, support your claim. That's expected of every editor here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"When you claim a consensus exists, support your claim." Physician, heal thyself. Guy1890 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling, Guy. I said no consensus exists to support your position. If it existed, you'd have cited it by now. You've run through your little bag of uncivil snarky tricks, and have proved nothing, but you're making a good case that you're just talking through your hat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I said no consensus exists to support your position. If it existed, you'd have cited it by now." You really don't understand that all of this bluster that you're unfortunately blowing my way applies directly to you Mr. Wolfowitz. I really feel sorry for you that you can't see that. The only one here that is unfortunately & needleesly "talking through their hat" and wasting everyone's time by being at least mildly disruptive for no good reason isn't me.

May we please close this pointless discussion now? Guy1890 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you are entitled to the presumption that your arguments and claims are correct? You claimed a consensus,I doubted the claim; and you stridently and rudely proclaim there's no need to prove your claim. That's plain nonsense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per PORNBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:04, 10 May 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 List of active separatist movements in Africa. As per consensus, someone can do the MERGE the panda ₯’ 22:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rif Independence Movement[edit]

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

As a speedy and a prod were declined, I am nominating this for deletion. It fails Wikipedia:ORG by a large margin.

This article is confuse, as it starts hinting to the Rif War against the Spanish-French in the early 1920s led by Abdelkrim, and which wasn't a secessionist movement but rather a resistance movement. (That is the mainstream view in scholarly literature)

The "Rif Independence Movement" is probably a non-existent organisation (it doesn't even has a serious website, with address, phone number etc, let alone being mentioned in RS). The "Organization of Emerging African States", to which the movement supposedly belongs, is itself non-notable (0 hits in Google news) and probably not even existent off the web

Outside the (trivial) mention on the "OEAS", the movement does not have a known leader or any mention (even trivial) in any RS. Its supposed website is as generic as to suspect an instance of WP:HOAX Tachfin (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also note that the page has been deleted twice before and its creator user:Rifnation received a causeblock. --Tachfin (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and improve~~ - I added sources to the article. The topic is based upon a movement and organization that originated in Morocco during the 1920s. In Morocco, the organization was revitalized in 2013. The organization is presently a member of the Organization of Emerging African States (see [13]), and it is most certainly not a "hoax". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that's too light? Where is coverage in RS? --Tachfin (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See book sources in the article. However, I'm fine with a merge (see below). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of active separatist movements in Africa. This would work for me. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and pick up the other "OEAS" members if they are significant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Even though I prodded it, I'm uneasy about deleting this article. We might benefit from an Arabic language search. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 May 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. G3'd as a obvious WP:HOAX. Also WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Olvera[edit]

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

This article has been deleted as a hoax on the Spanish and French Wikipedias, and the SPA author is indef-blocked on his home (Spanish) WP. The only reference provided does not mention the subject, and I find no confirmation by searches. JohnCD (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic information available, and nothing to verify the subject exists, so notability cannot be established. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be a hoax, borderline CSD#G3. I found nothing that indicates otherwise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inadequately sourced, even if not a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP, if not hoax; sole EL is a dead end. Miniapolis 20:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has no sources to back up any of its claims, as a BLP. ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:29, 5 May 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. Obviously the unsourced OR needs to go, but that's not a reason to delete the entire article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streaking at educational institutions[edit]

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

Probable original research. HYH.124 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – with a significant possibility of a merge to Streaking. This appears to be a WP:SPINOUT of the Streaking article, per the "Main article: Streaking at educational institutions" link in the Educational institutions section of the Streaking article. Some of the content is sourced to reliable sources, but a great deal of it is not. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This works fine as a subarticle. But anything unreferenced can go. Everyking (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research of non-notable events. Secret ^account 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the content that is cited to reliable sources also original research, or just some of the article? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some material is unsourced OR, but that is a reason to fix it, not to delete it. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G2 and WP:A11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Night star jamien[edit]

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

Nonserious content. SeoMac (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bali88 (talk) 06:21, 4 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plini[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been tagged for deletion? -John Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Weiss (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John Weiss:- Because, it apparently does not meet Wikipedia notability standard for inclusion. It already has been speedy deleted, perhaps twice under WP:CSD#A7 criteria. We here, would discuss the subject if it actually is suitable for inclusion or not. Please take a look at WP:BAND, and improve the present article to save it from deletion. You may place your arguments here, against deletion of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article does meet at least the first criteria for notability. Since it was previously deleted, I added some more sources to make that more clear. There is no reason for this page to be deleted. -John Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Weiss (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sources, the present article have, are primary and self-published sources and does not help to establish notability of the subject. And, do login before you make a comment on behalf of your Wikipedia account. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how those websites are considered "self-published." And I apologize for not logging in at first. John Weiss (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to keep this page. John Weiss (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no good reason to keep this, other than the band may more become notable over time, but we don't host articles about up-and-coming or borderline-notable bands or artists. Looking at the sources, I see directory listings, youtube links, user reviews or blog reviews, a brief paragraph, links to pages that seem to be maintained by the band itself -- none of which count as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't see this meeting criterion #1 of WP:BAND or any other criterion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources I've given are more than reliable. The subject is very well-known, and I've given multiple reviews from legitimate sources that are not the artist himself, or anybody close to the artist. This definitely meets the first criteria for notability. John Weiss (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may help if the article is expanded some more. Have the songs charted? Are any specific songs hits? The article, as is, seems fairly vague and I'm having trouble seeing the notability. Why not work on it while it's going through the AFD process and see if that helps. :-) Bali88 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's have a look at those sources, as they currently exist as of this writing:
1. http://thedailyalbum.com/sweet-nothings-plini/ - blog post; from the site's description it seems like a start-up effort
2. http://www.underthegunreview.net/2013/09/29/plini-announces-sweet-nothings-ep-second-in-trilogy/ - trivial mention announcement of an album release, not a review or significant coverage
3. http://plini.bandcamp.com/ - self-published or not independent, not coverage
4. http://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/182462/9 - This is a music blog. It might qualify as significant coverage, although the publication appears be local interest to the London area
5. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/59529/Plini-Sweet-Nothings/ - user review, not written by staff; we can't cite user-generated content. Our article Sputnikmusic suggests this is an amateur review.
6. http://windsweptedge.com/2013/04/19/review-plini-other-things/ - somebody's personal blog, very unprofessionally written too
7. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/59529/Plini-Sweet-Nothings/ - same as #5
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q23qpmOCaaY - YouTube videos are not valid sources, especially self-made videos of some guy covering a song
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrQGE6p_gtE - YouTube videos are not valid sources
10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_nhj9dYXP0 - YouTube videos are not valid sources
11. http://got-djent.com/band/halcyon - directory listing and trivial mention
12. http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=6446 - directory listing
13. http://www.thecirclepit.com/2013/05/plini-other-things-ep-review.html - amateur review full of spelling errors
14. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/59529/Plini-Sweet-Nothings/ - same as #5
15. http://plini.bandcamp.com/album/sweet-nothings - self-published or not independent, not coverage
16. http://plini.bandcamp.com/album/other-things - self-published or not independent, not coverage
17. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/artist/plini - self-published and trivial
18. http://plini.bandcamp.com/album/sweet-nothings - self-published or not independent, not coverage
19. http://ask.fm/plinimusic/answer/110841882349 - trivial self-mention, this can't be considered a source
20. http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/03/12/plini-shreds-through-new-song-atlas/ - similar to #2, trivial mention announcement
21. http://halcyonofficial.bandcamp.com/ - similar to #3, this isn't coverage
22. http://plini.bandcamp.com/album/other-things - same as #16
23. http://plini.bandcamp.com/album/sweet-nothings - same as #15
24. http://www.underthegunreview.net/2013/09/29/plini-announces-sweet-nothings-ep-second-in-trilogy/ - trivial mention announcement of an album release, not a review or significant coverage
25. http://plini.bandcamp.com/album/i - self-published or not independent, not coverage

I'm not seeing any sources in that list that meet all three criteria: (a) significant coverage, (b) reliable source, and (c) independent. All of them fail at least one. Therefore, I stand by my delete comment above. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reviews of the band's works are overwhelmingly positive. They will likely become notable in the future. However, I don't think there's enough at this point for their own page. Perhaps the author could look into the possibility of a mention on the main page for the label. Bali88 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ You haven't even seemed to take more than a glance at this article or the references. The subject of the article has an obvious fan-base, and is well-known. The actual reviews I've given are neither self-published or unreliable. I have several references on this article, however, that can't really be considered standalone sources for obvious reasons. But they're there because I try to get as many sources as possible. And for personal information such as birthday and location. I did plenty of research on the subject, and it's obviously enough to prove that Plini is a notable musician. I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. I was surprised that I was the first to make an article for such a well-known musician. He's obviously not a mainstream charting musician, but he's definitely notable. He was a member of a well-known (albeit independent) band, and has released music to critical acclaim. In addition to having a steady fan-base, which should be more than apparent. John Weiss (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I will try and work on this page to make it less vague. But I still think it should be kept. John Weiss (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't !vote more than once. Radiopathy •talk• 19:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He did vote once. The first one was really just a response comment. I fixed the indentations to clarify that.
I see two "keeps" that might be interpreted as voting aside from the one you indented. I put a strike through the second one to make it clear. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And John Weiss, I did look carefully at every. single. source. I stand by my position. The references provided are numerous but are mostly not valid to establish notability. Therefore, this musician doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, which was the basis of your argument to keep. I see no evidence that any other criteria have been met. I do agree that this musician is certainly getting attention. But we don't publish articles about musicians who are up-and-coming. They must have already arrived. Plini, so far, has not, although he may be getting there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plini is not "up and coming." He's obviously notable, and does in fact meet the first criteria as I've proven. I've given at least one reliable, non self-published, independant outside source. Again, I will try my best to find more information to make that more clear (and I would be grateful if someone else helped), but I still think it works as is. John Weiss (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn't "obviously notable" according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. What may be obvious to you isn't obvious to me or others who have commented here. Which source are you referring to? I posted the entire list of sources above and found each of them wanting. The article is now larded with a huge number of non-sources that only serves to give the illusion of notability. Kindly point out the sources that you believe are adequate to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It clearly fails WP:BAND: no independent sources or appearance on a national chart.--SabreBD (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band Halcyon (band). That one has one good ref, better than this. If that's deleted then delete this too. Plini lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The analysis of sources by Amatulić is right. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Saha[edit]

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

Only refs seem to be for songs, also the date of birth is completely different in both the infobox and the person data box (January 1973 and April 1989, those dates are not even close to each other) as well as a ref to just an advertisement. Looks like an advertisement page as well. Wgolf (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence whatever of notability. In fact, speedy deletion might not be out of the question, as the article in its present form does not make any claim of significance, and its earlier versions consisted largely of unsubstantiated blatantly promotional stuff. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps the article could be worked on to include more sources, otherwise, delete. Bali88 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 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 Rename. Consensus is to rename. "Mobile applications" is more reasonable that "apps" from what I can see the panda ₯’ 22:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia App[edit]

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

Self-refential article that cites no reliable sources that discuss the article's topic in some detail. No indication of notability. Instead it's a spamlink farm. Was prodded for that reason, prod removed by 71.163.241.12, who claimed that "Wikipedia apps have extensive major media coverage" without providing a single example. I'm not opposed to turning the page into something in the Wikipedia namespace if someone wants to do so, but it's not a valid topic for an article. Huon (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of sourcing and more out there available. — Cirt (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and change the scope of the article to List of Wikipedia apps or something similar. Most of the non-affiliated sources pertain to different apps than the main topic of the article, artificially inflating its notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to that suggestion, by Qwertyus, is also another good idea. — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename seems like the best solution. VMS Mosaic (talk)
Merge or Redirect to Wikipedia. The sourcing is really really poor as it is. There are plenty of "top 5 ways to access Wikipedia on your phone" lists out there, but the notable subject is Wikipedia. Even if it scrapes by GNG, it doesn't merit its own article. The only thing that would make sense is List of Wikipedia mobile applications, but the number of such applications with their own Wikipedia articles (such that they would be included) is so small it would again make sense to incorporate them into Wikipedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:04, 8 May 2014‎
lol The ChampionMan 1234 04:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure? - see [14] The ChampionMan 1234 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That articles doesn't even mention the Wikipedia app. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:50, 12 May 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. Additionally, there is potential for this to be merged to Circulatory System (band), per the discussion herein. The nomination also recommends merging. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics within Mosaics[edit]

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

I also put a merge tag on this-yes it is listed as upcoming albums-but with no info-so I say the best might be to merge this with that band until more info comes. Or if an expert about the band can come in. Wgolf (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per CRYSTAL. Keep or Merge (if not notable), as is standard with these types of articles, per Drowninginlimbo (below), who makes a good point. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Album has release date and tracklisting, as well as some coverage in music press. Will only be recreated a month from now if deleted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I think in that case-a merge or redirect might be the best until it gets closer. Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where is the line for notability here? I am somewhat unfamiliar with how the notability of a band, an album, a song, etc. are decided upon. I would lean here towards a merge if the thing is even notable/going to be notable/considered notable. But we don't know this yet, or do the music and pop culture articles use a different standard than the rest of Wikipedia. These type of AfDs always seem subjective to me. Is this a much-awaited release; or notable for some other reason? (To me, it's an obscure album by an obscure band.) Or, does everything in the music and entertainment genres just get an article, no proof needed? I really would like to know. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I hesitate to try to predict which albums will be notable before they are actually released. I've never heard of this band, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it makes me think that a merge onto their general page would be a better option at this point. To me, it seems unlikely that this album will gain enough notability that it will warrant its own page even if it has a reasonable amount of coverage after its release. The only time I'd argue to keep an article about a yet to be released album is if it's like Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga and it's being talked about to death. I'd say there likely won't be enough about this album that it can't be reasonably covered on the band's main page. Bali88 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seconding Drowninginlimbo, I created article and "album has release date and tracklisting, as well as some coverage in music press." It will be recreated if deleted. I'm not sure why notability is a part of this proposal as it doesn't apply here, there is already a huge article and Template:E6 covering these groups. --Dylanbud (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A stand-alone article in Wikipedia must first and foremost be notable to be kept around. And keep in mind, a lot of "buzz" is not notability-inducing, just publicity which quickly fades. Since notability is not inherited (automatic), nor can future notability be guessed at, there is a huge question as to the creation of, and the keeping of, this article as a stand-a-lone article. What is notable about this album? or any of Circulatory System's albums? I would suggest they should all be merged into the main article per Wikipedia music notability policies. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:30, 10 May 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 Computer graphics. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CG artwork[edit]

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

Unreferenced and redundant attempt at defining vague term Bhny (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regirect to computer graphics. Provided that this is a dictionary definition, this article may be safely deleted per WP:NOTDIR, but page views count suggests that this page could be linked from external websites. I believe that landing at related article would serve readers better then deletion log notice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Computer graphics seems like it makes sense. Not substantially different enough to merit its own article (probably not even a whole section of the other article). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Almonte[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. He is currently in the independent leagues and has no claim to notability. Spanneraol (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBASEBALL and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - HighBeam and Google News come up empty; doesn't meet GNG. Go Phightins! 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When I saw this listed I at first thought it was Danny Almonte, who I believe is notable. But as far as I can tell, Denny is not. Rlendog (talk) 20:22, 7 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanya Tsvetkova[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:GNG Harsh (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the article makes it sound like she could be in quite a few films, yet I can find no references for her in English. I am on the delete site for this as of now. Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am very suspicious of any actor whose Fandango page is blank. Her Yahoo movies page has one named role. Her Rotten Tomatoes page is empty, too. Even my partner has a Imdb page, but her only role on Imdb is for a single TV show, Seven Hours Difference. I don't buy it. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apparently she played a main character in this film (not sure whether it makes her qualify for notability):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2797340/

Comment: Didn't see her on the imdb and I don't see her on that page either. Wgolf (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Upon reviewing the article, user Tintor2 has significantly improved the article with seven additional sources addressing AfD issues. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Hotsuin[edit]

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

This character hasn't achieved the level of notability required to warrant its own article and hence fails at last 4/5 points outlined at WP:GNG. The article should either be userfied until notability can be attained (unlikely) or redirected to the List of Devil Survivor characters where a paragraph of two best describes it. Per some of the reasons I outlined at Talk:Yamato Hotsuin#Notability issues —KirtZ^Mail 18:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Devil Survivor characters#Yamato_Hotsuin. There is nothing to suggest that the character himself has notability separate from the game, failing WP:GNG and WP:GAMECRUFT. Novusuna ^talk 20:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Next to nothing in WP:VG/RS search. No evidence of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 03:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of below, I still think redirect is the best option as I don't believe the added sourcing is sufficient czar ♔ 04:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. An initial search found nothing to add onto this article, and considering the young age of DS2, I doubt that we'll find much in the way of reliable sources that go beyond video game-specific works. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I managed to expand the reception section. Don't know if it is enough though.Tintor2 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the changes Tinto2 made, look satisfying. Lucia Black (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reception only focuses on the anime though. It seems to me like we're trying to pass this article on a technicality. The character isnt covered in detail anywhere else and the reception still uses a critics review of the anime and not the character himself. The technicality here is that the critic will obviously have to mention one or two traits of the character for an episode review. If we waive this, Yamato isnt notable. —KirtZ^Mail 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[List of Devil Survivor characters#Yamato_Hotsuin]. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:42, 5 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Smith (baseball)[edit]

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

Career minor league player who is now in the independent leagues. Was once a first round draft pick but the article is mostly unsourced and no evidence of notability under the guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NBASEBALL. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few local media trivial mentions (e.g., [15]), but none that help him meet GNG. He doesn't meet BASEBALL/N either. Go Phightins! 01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thon Maker[edit]

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

A high school basketball player who is in consideration for college basketball, does not yet fit as of now. Too soon it seems if ever. Wgolf (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Probably too soon, recreate when he's a senior. SOXROX (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources already in cited in article and elsewhere. Passes the "GNG". Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm skeptical that a high school player has received substantial coverage in national reliable sources. Please find and add them to the article before I'll be convinced. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles already cited cover the subject subsantially and are from the Sydney Morning Herald and NBC Sports. We should delete is because you refuse to believe there is coverage? Lame. This is America, a 7-foot high school player who is a refugee and a tauted recruit is highly likely to be notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three page story from Sports Illustrated, Story in the Courier-Journal and at ESPN where he's ranked #1 as a recruit in several categories. Obviously there is an abundance of substantial coverage so there is no policy based argument to be made for deletion. It's just "I don't like it". Which is unfortunate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-yeah he does sound notable-but under the rules he is not yet a pro or in college. (and as far as we know he might not even become a player, he might want to quit and do something else), could be a good up coming article though. Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if he's notable, he's notable. Doesn't matter if he isn't in college yet. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG demonstrated by reliable sources put forth by User:Candleabracadabra. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, as stated above, whether or not he ever plays basketball beyond high school. I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for better, or even any more, sources. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the goal is to specifically convince you ... why? Have you looked for sources yourself or are you just waiting for others to bring you a certain type of rock to be named later? The sources so far are specific articles about the player (not just as part of a team) from an independent newspaper and a national sports magazine. There are sources currently on the article from the Sydney Morning Herald and NBCSports.com (again, about the player specifically). Here is an article from the Melbourne Herald-Sun. Here is another from the Martinsville Bulletin, another independent newspaper. Here is one from the Baltimore Sun. Rikster2 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "national" sources are not a requirement of WP:GNG. Though Maker dies have some of these in the SI and NBC Sports articles already provided. Rikster2 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Throw That Boy Pussy[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:NSONGS, no charting and no significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least Merge into List of Internet phenomena: This could easily be condensed into 2-3 sentences and added there, but then you'd lose a lot of the information that's encyclopedia-worthy here. I unfortunately can't check the sources due to the internet censorship here, but I know that at least the MTV one would be WP:RS. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: Actually after a view of the one reliable source (the MTV one), it does not mention this song at all. STATic message me! 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STATic: Alright, in that case, I'm changing my !vote to Merge as previously mentioned because of this source and this one. If this is a good instance for the use of an op-ed from a major magazine, this source would also work. BTW, there's some veeeeery strange search results that even surpass the extents of Rule 34 mixed in when you look for sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ebony and BET sources are particularly strong. Those, plus all the gay coverage and the Huffington Post, push this one over the notability line for me. While it might or might not fail WP:NSONG, surely it passes WP:GNG? Anyways there's my 2¢. Perfect for you (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BET source and Huffington Post is tabloidish in nature so it does not really add that much notability, but you are entitled to your opinion. STATic message me! 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am mistaken:

Here is the Ebony magazine write-up: http://www.ebony.com/news-views/the-weekly-read-throw-that-boyoh-my-042 Perfect for you (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Huffington Post source more thoroughly, the assertion that the piece is "tabloidish" is hard to swallow. The HuffPo piece is a conversation between:

Bryson Rose, a LGBTQIA youth activist
Darnell L. Moore, a writer and activist
Wade Davis, a formerly closeted athlete, currently a gay activist
Preston Mitchum, an LGBT policy analyst for Center for American Progress. To quote the CfAP website: "Preston has received a LL.M. in Law and Government from American University Washington College of Law. He also holds a J.D. from North Carolina Central University School of Law, and a B.A. in Political Science from Kent State University."

These are serious gay black voices, and that they got together to discuss whether this song is "revolutionary" is quite remarkable. Not lurid, not sensational, and certainly not "tabloidish". Perfect for you (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSONGS appears to be a vague list of guidelines that helps establish credibility/notability for recordings belonging to more "traditional" artists. This poses an issue with the recent wave of independent, internet-based artists whose songs may not meet WP:NSONGS, but are nevertheless notable enough for their own pages. For instance, there is no denying the notability of Rebecca Black's infamous Friday, yet it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Regardless, an earlier section on WP:Notability (music) establishes that the NSONGS section isn't the final authority on the notability of a single song. I believe the references, especially BET and Huffpo, provide plenty notability for this song to warrant an article. It also might be a good idea to, as per what I mentioned earlier, reevaluate the posted criteria for musical notability. felt _friend 02:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have gotten considerable coverage and sparked a decent amount of debate. Bali88 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meet The Pups[edit]

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

No independent sources and no assertion of notability for what seems to be a run-of-the-mill documentary. Slashme (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - TV programme with no indication of any notability. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect to List_of_BBC_children's_television_programmes#M, but I'm not entirely sure that this would really merit an entry since it's a limited documentary series. Cute pups, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kat corrigan[edit]

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

Proposed deletion under A7 - A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7 Zakhx150 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:40, 5 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Televisionary[edit]

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

Incoherent technology article about unknown neologism or perhaps a product. The article may be a bad translation from Russian Bhny (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody uses this term for someone building a television tool; most of the term's hits involve descriptions of television program directors and showrunners or the actual creators of television like Philo T. Farnsworth in essay form than this use. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cites five sources. 3 are dead. Usage in the other two indicates this is a marketing buzzword largely used by Ericsson. (Also fails GNG). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:26, 8 May 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. Additionally, there is potential for this article to be merged to Indian general election, 1951, per the discussion herein. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Saran Negi[edit]

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

Being the first person to vote in an election is not quite notable. Wgolf (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the media coverage he has since received, I disagree. DS (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the sound of the article it seemed like he has been someone who is basically saying to vote and in interviews-not sure if that counts to be a bio on here though. Wgolf (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - coverage of Negi in reliable independent sources exists, and at least some of it deals not with his original first vote but with his much more recent get-out-the-vote efforts that went viral. So BLP1E does not apply. While more coverage and more content couldn't hurt, I'd say what we have suffices to justify an article. Huon (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I think the thing is the article made it sound like being the first voter of an election was why he was notable. Wgolf (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful info and redirect to Indian general election, 1951. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I agree with the comment above about a merge or direct. Wgolf (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the subject of sufficient notability. He is reported by multiple news sources for the video message and being the first voter, in addition to those already cited, ex. BBC. He is well covered by media yesterday also after casting his vote, which is reported more in the context of him being first voter. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Indian general election, 1951. Coverage in election-time news reports, but not exactly notable enough for a separate article. utcursch | talk 21:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Registry Dr.[edit]

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

Contested prod despite being absolutely clear-cut and I'm assuming extreme good faith for not tagging it as a copyright violation, so doing this the hard way... My prod rationale is "Unsouced and unsourceable - the three "sources" are all from highly dubious websites, and as far as I can see no reliable source of any kind has ever even mentioned this product in passing. Also appears to be at best an ultra-close paraphrase and at worst an outright copyvio from this site. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure software." and nothing has changed my opinion - the person removing the prod claims that this obvious advert (the "solution" to every problem on the site appears to be to give them some money) being hosted on "a big site with tons of articles in it" makes it a reliable source. This is an utterly trivial piece of ephemeral software which will never meet even the broadest interpretation of the WP:GNG. Mogism (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apparently the article serves the purpose of warning against using Registry Doctor, and Wikipedia is wrong venue for such warnings. In fact I'm not sure there are sufficient sources to protect Wikipedia from legal threat that is posed by having article of such tone about a commercial product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs provided are all how-to articles, and not sufficient to establish notability. A search turns up blogs, download sites, and more removal how-to's, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very questionable notability. The article is pretty much 100% an attack page - all the references are about how to remove it/virus; not really the place for this. --CyberXRef^☎ 14:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mogism nominated an article I created for deletion twice before and both times, not a single person other than me voted to keep the artcle to I trust that Mogism knows a lot better than me whether this article is worthy of deletion. I see why the sources aren't reliable. The first source says that Registry Dr. was a hoax whereas the second one says it had a good intention, which are conflicting pieces of information about whether the program was made in a bad way on purpose or not so at least one of those sources must have wrong information so the article might be worthy of deletion. I don't know if I assumed correctly but I assumed that I can contest a PROD when I'm not extremely sure an article proposed for deletion is worthy of deletion and not just when I actively believe it's not worthy of deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can contest a prod for any reason. It is good practice to explain your reasons for removing the prod on the talk page of the article.Dialectric (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah M. Williams[edit]

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

This is the founder of The Williams Tie Company and The Thundersnow Corporation, both of which I have nominated for deletion. Altogether, the three of them receive about 100 Google hits. I can't see how this guy is notable, despite the prestigious claims made in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article about a non-notable 17 year old "businessman" who is trying to promote himself and his ventures through Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source searches indicate this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. _noisy jinx ^huh? 15:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Williams Tie Company[edit]

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

This is another non-notable company created by the same editor who made The Thundersnow Corporation, which I have also nominated for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional article full of unverifiable claims about a company without a website headed by a 17 year old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - News and book source searches do not provide any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Thundersnow Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation that gets almost no Google hits at all. Note that I have also nominated Isaiah M. Williams, the founder, and The Williams Tie Company, his other company, in separate nominations. It shouldn't be difficult to find them, as it's a three-for-one combo deal today on non-notable articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional article full of unverifiable claims about a company without a website headed by a 17 year old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete - appears to not meet WP:CORP per source searches. The book sources in the article for The Keys to Youth Entrepreneurship are not accessible, hence the "probably" within my !vote. Who knows, perhaps there's significant coverage in the book, or only passing mentions?NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Northamerica1000: Well, they were written by the founder, and, as far as I can tell, they are self-published. At that point, I don't think it really matters how significant the coverage is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out. As the book source is a primary one that doesn't serve to establish notability, I have modified my !vote (below). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORP for an article on Wikipedia. Per the above, the book source in the article does not qualify to establish topic notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 May 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 Deleted via BLP PROD, rendering this discussion moot. Xoloz (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meleisa Betts[edit]

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

I came across this via an AfD for her book. The problem here is that I can't really see where she's all that notable. The award sounds good at first, until I found this, which mentions that Princeton Literary Review reviews books for a fee. That makes me more than a little leery about any awards given out by this group, as it kind of makes me wonder if it's just a money sink type of award where they hand it out to anyone willing to pay for it. There's not really that much out there about the award, which makes it of dubious distinction. From what I can see, the publication has no association with the college by the same name, which doesn't help ease any concerns. I figured that I'd run it through AfD just in case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is currently laboring under a BLPPROD, but if this gets it deleted faster, I'm all for it. Note that the article creator has repeatedly removed the BLPPROD without adding any sources, so this AfD template might not stick, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I am hoping for a snow close a little bit earlier. I'd have speedied it, except that the award would probably give that small assertion of notability that would make it ineligible simply because of the word "Princeton" tacked on to it- which is probably why the magazine chose that name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) are turning up nothing to indicate notability, nor does the award noted in the article appear to be notable, as highlighted by User:Tokyogirl79. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolution of ZERO[edit]

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

This is a non-notable book that fails WP:BKCRIT. Google results show no reviews in reliable sources, and there are no citations in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about a non-notable book. I was unable to find any reviews in reliable, independent sources. The creator of the article also wrote an unreferenced biography of the author, and added the author to a list of notable people residing in her home town. That's it. This editor seem to be here for promotional reasons only. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also wasn't able to find anything either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found to indicate that this book meets any of the WP:NBOOK criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 4 May 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) 01:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pet tattoo[edit]

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

Zero evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - per WP:NRVE and WP:GNG. Topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Evidence of notability includes, but is not limited to:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could stand to be beefed up, but there is significant coverage of the phenomenon. I'd say it meets notability requirements. Bali88 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 who's found alot of sources, Also AFD isn't for clean up solutions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability demonstrated by Northamerica1000--Coin945 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 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. Speedy deleted per CSD G11 Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChatApp[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Sources fail WP:RS. A Google failed to yield enough to ring the notability bell. Prod notice was removed without comment or improvement in the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this app in reliable, independent sources. Current references are not independent and therefore useless for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new software product. No evidence found to indicate that it meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I second the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. WP:MILL rationale also applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep and refrain from renominating for three months. WP:SNOW There is and is going to continue to be (during any putative duration of this AfD) consensus to keep, leaving this open would be pointy. There was also some discussion of the putative prematurity of this fifth nomination, with four editors indicating too soon, and three of those four directly or indirectly quantifying that in the vicinity of three months. Based on the lack of any explicit opposition, and at best only a single implied opinion that this isn't premature, I find a consensus to leave this be with respect to AfD nominations for three months. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This coin has been under the gun for many reasons. I genuinely believe this coin to fail WP:GNG. People can bring up muh chain records, muh market cap, or any other trivial thing as a excuse to keep it on Wikipedia all they want, but none of that demonstrates true notability per guidelines. Citation Needed | Talk 00:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I feel that having this discussion every month is pretty excessive and unnecessary within the short time frame; it's shown to be the same discussion and same outcome every time. I suppose until there's a clear keep/delete consensus that discussion can continue, but I dislike excessively discussing at the tax of the community's time. But that's beside the point. Anyway, I argued to delete back in February, though now I'm leaning towards keep. Primecoin has become more notable in the last few months, particularly within the cryptocoin community. In terms of notability in the mainstream media, as covered in previous discussions, there's coverage of it by The Register ([16] [17]), and then brief mentions and coverage by Forbes, The Guardian, and Ars Technica. Primecoin also received coverage in this book, which lists and extensively goes into the coin alongside other notable coins, such as Bitcoin or Litecoin. While not substantial, the combined coverage of the coin gives it some notability. Within the coin community, the subject has seen a rise in coverage, with mentions by CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, both decently reputable and notable within the cryptocoin community. In addition to the references listed in the article and links brought up in previous AfDs, recent coverage includes CoinDesk's coverage of Primecoin in relation to energy usage, along with another brief mention by CoinDesk and a bit of coverage by Bitcoin Magazine. While coverage isn't too extensive, I believe there is enough coverage both inside-and-out of the cryptocoin community to make it notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep The last AfD ended less than a month ago and has undergone five nominations since December (which is incredibly excessive). This article has several legitimate sources, so I don't see the harm in giving it a few months before sending it through yet another AfD. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep for now, next month, and the month after that.... Joking aside the continued nominations are a bit much!, Anyway Keep per SuperHamster - Passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - why are we here for the fifth time in four months, sixth if you include the re-listing of the first nomination. This article should now be given at least three months before re-nominating. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic has coverage -> Notable. --do ncr am 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (as above) Topic has coverage => Notable. I read the article because I wanted to know more about Primecoin. So the Wikipedia entry was useful for me, and would probably be useful for others. --Ben Best 20:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - These constant repeated nominations of these articles are a waste of time and possibly an abuse of the AfD process. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primos Secane Swim Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no links, promotional tone. DBaK (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced, promotional article about a run-of-the-mill non-notable swim club. The article is so poorly written that it doesn't even say where the club is located. It's in Pennsylvania, for what it's worth. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The promotional intent is revealed by these gems: "(Our swim team motto is 'Eat Our Bubbles'.) There is also a baby pool for small children." Sorry, that's not encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable swimming club. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements. TheBlueCanoe 02:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 May 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.