< 6 November 8 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Leverton[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, currently a free agent and unlikely to reach the majors. Prod was removed by article creator with the weird reason of "I like turtles". Spanneraol (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by user. (non-admin closure) Tutelary (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex from Target[edit]

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

Come on now. I fully understand that this blew up and got massive media coverage over one night, but this seems to be a biography for Alex LaBeouf. And as per WP:BLP1E if I'm understanding that correctly, I don't believe this one event established notability for him. Gloss 22:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) - Personally, I have not perceived the article as a biography nor even as an article that aims to be a biography. I perceive it as the chronicle of an event, just like the viral phenomenon Edgar's fall is discussed in its article as an event or meme, not as the biography of the main protagonist.
In my opinion the guidelines to apply here are WP:EVENT and in particular its section WP:PERSISTENCE, which explains: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not." and the section WP:RAPID, which states "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary.". I would follow this recommendation of delaying the nomination and that's why I suggested a temporary "keep". ► LowLevel (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is the same as before. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Democrat In Name Only (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism, probably derived from the more common (and documented) term Republican In Name Only. ((Refimprove))-tagged since 2006, but none of the article's 5 sources use either the terms DINO or in name only. I imagine someone has used the term DINO at some point, but it lacks the weight RINO has, and (we at least once believed) the mere existence of a term does not itself make it an encyclopedic subject. Lacking sources about the term, the article attempts an unsourced essay on Conservative Democrats, and is redundant with that so-named article.

One cannot discuss US Republican politics online for long before some hero asserts The Democrats do the same thing and are just as bad. However, I don't believe Wikipedia requires such a parity with the Republican In Name Only article.

I'm noticing just now there are 4 previous nominations. I should probably read those and find out why this nomination is doomed to fail. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: as far as DINO being a non-notable newlogism, some quick googling turned up a bunch of book sources with one going back 14 years. Here's half a dozzen or so
This 1998 Chicago Tribune article uses the term. I'm guessing that earlier instances of its use could be turned up.
Perhaps the article ought to use material from some of these and cite them in support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article persistently have no sources for this term? Could this be like Humiliatrix, a common bit of wordplay that is by itself not a notable thing? If so, why merge it into an article about a notable thing? Republican in Name Only has Wikipedia:Coatrack issues already.
I think the considerable amount of "Conservative Democrat" content is unsourced and need not be merged to that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I would merge no more than the first two paragraphs from the lead to RINO. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first two paragraphs are completely unsourced. Sentences like "DINO is used by more ideological (politically speaking) members of the Democrats to counter fellow party members for their heterodox, or relatively moderate or conservative positions" will need sourcing; otherwise we assert that Democrats do this and it's not just something that pops up in articles by waggish writers. Of all the links provided above by Googling Keep voters, do any document this term as routinely used by Democrats with this intention? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn due to addition of properly sourced evidence of greater notability than was originally asserted. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Chickens[edit]

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

Article about an album which just asserts its existence, and makes no substantive or properly sourced claim that it actually passes WP:NALBUMS in any substantive way — the only real evidence of notability here is "one of the musicians involved in it has a Wikipedia article", but that isn't enough to make an album independently notable. Albums get over on sales chart positions, award nominations, reliable source coverage that's actually about the album itself, and on and so forth — they do not get a free notability pass just because they exist. Delete unless proper sourcing, supporting a substantive claim of notability, can be added. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that clinches it. To be fair, the article didn't state or source that fact as written at the time. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wordekemper[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player who fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. References are WP:ROUTINE. His time in the CPBL no longer qualifies him as passing WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Note I apologize for not including a more detailed closing rationale, which I should have done given the contentiousness of the debate. As per request at the DRV, I am adding the following rationale: The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name. While laudable, this in itself does not establish notability, just as publishing books does not make an author notable. What is needed are independent sources about Bushman's accomplishments and I do not really see those. As for the alien claims, some editors seem to be arguing that these claims are true, hence Bushman is notable. This is incorrect. Whether or not the claims are true or not is irrelevant here. What we need to establish notability is whether those claims have generated sustained and in-depth coverage in reliable sources and, again, that does not seem to be the case here. In sum, while taken together the "delete" !votes are solidly policy based, the "keep" !votes either use irrelevant arguments or fail to show sustained in-depth coverage. Therefore, although numerically there may not seem to be a consensus here, I remind the participants that AfD is not a vote and close this as delete. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Bushman[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Biography has two sources, one is OS (a USPTO patent search for subject's name and inventions), the other is non-RS (a UFO conspiracy theory website}. This individual has recently been making the rounds on the UFO blogs as a "respected scientist" who made an alleged "death bed confession" in which he supposedly claimed knowledge of time-traveling extraterrestrials. see: [6], etc. Many of these blogs, in fact, cite WP as a source for claims like he invented the Stinger missile and WP, in turn, cites the blogs. This article had a good run - now it's time for it to say goodnight. BlueSalix (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro, the South Wales Evening Gazette, etc., are part of the Daily Mail media group which has been determined numerous times to be non-RS tabloids and the stories you've linked are sourced to the original Daily Mail report. As for "eluniversal.com.co" ... I've never heard of it. Have you? BlueSalix (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
El Universal (Cartagena) is a Colombian based newspaper, not a tabloid. The south Wales Evening Gazette seems to be written by a diferent author, but I admit that I did not know about their relationship to the Daily Mail media group.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Cook is a past and current aerospace journalist at Jane's Defence Weekly. He states in his 2007 book “The Hunt for Zero Point” published by Crown Publishing Group:
“When I had first inquired about Trimble and RIAS at Lockheed Martin, my contacts there had recommended I interview a man who routinely talked about the kinds of things that had once been integral to the RIAS charter. A man who tended to talk about Nature, not science; a physicist who looked at things quite differently from other people. Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-16 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force. If you’re interested in antigravity, then talk to him, they’d said.”
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307419436
http://books.google.com/books?id=b97ahFqu_U4C&q=Boyd%20Bushman
Bushman discusses antigravity in this earlier video. He discusses his own experiments in 1995 with slowing the rate of fall of an object by attaching it to some powerful $5000 neodymium magnets. The magnets had a quarter inch hole in them and were bolted together such that the same pole faced each other. In other words they repelled each other, and were only held together by the bolt. This object was dropped from a height of 59 feet along with another object that did not have the magnets attached. The test was run 9 times if I am remembering correctly, and the witnesses verified that the object with the magnets hit the ground later than the object without the magnets attached. The witnesses did not know which object had the magnets in it.
Bushman also discusses this antigravity experiment (in less detail) in the 1999 Discovery Channel program "Billion Dollar Secret." See video. At a running time of 22:50 to 26:56 in the "Billion Dollar Secret," Boyd is interviewed and introduced as a senior scientist at Lockheed Martin and speaks briefly about the subject matter. Later in his comments (at 25:10) he mentions this experiment he did with opposing magnets regarding anti-gravity. Direct links to 22:50 and 25:10 in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=22m50s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=25m10s --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use citizen journalism and user-created content sites like blogs, or Find-a-Grave. Please see WP:RS for more details on what are acceptable sources. BlueSalix (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=ininventor:boyd+ininventor:bushman - and he is notable beyond that. Currently, 14,600 results in this Google News phrase search for "Boyd Bushman".
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22boyd+bushman%22 - some of them are reliable sources. As for what people think his claims are: I certainly don't trust what is in many articles online. They contradict each other about what he said. That is one reason why primary sources are sometimes allowed on Wikipedia. For example; to verify what he actually said. I have only read a little online, and heard something on the radio. I haven't seen any of the videos, and so I don't even know for sure what he claimed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A patent is not proof of employment. I can patent something tomorrow and make Lockheed Martin the assignee, even without Lockheed Martin's permission. If we have such a hard time finding proof of someone's employment that we have to dig through patent applications (which is Original Research), there's something seriously amiss. BlueSalix (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, his funeral home obituary says: "Bushman's career spanned over forty years and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin. Some of his accomplishments included being on the development team of the Stinger Missile, the F16 Fighter, as well as many other advanced weapons and propulsion systems. At the time of his retirement in 2000, Bushman had 28 patents in his name, many of which contained classified technologies." More detailed info from other references is needed so that WP:NPOV is met.
From the site hosting the obit: "Owens Livingston Mortuary does not control this third-party Content...Owens Livingston Mortuary does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content, and Owens Livingston Mortuary makes no representations or warranties regarding any information or opinions posted to or otherwise included on or transmitted through the web site." - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More references are needed. I assume his family can help verify his employment history. Maybe they have been interviewed by reliable sources that have followed the trail further. And I highly doubt most families would allow a completely bogus obituary at the funeral home site of a loved one. So it is a good starting point for finding further references. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author's inability to substantiate the identity of Boyd Bushman's does not equal hoax. Engineers/scientist working black programs typically do not have public personas unless unavoidable or necessary. "Searching" or "Googling" the Internet would not necessary be the end all to verifying someone's identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grigsbyt (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 November 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, 86.153.124.228 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the doll photos do not exactly match the dead alien photos that Bushman was passing on. The Bushman photos are from various angles and show features that are not on any of the doll photos I have seen so far. Most importantly, the whole discussion about the dead alien photos is irrelevant in the sense that Bushman does not publicly claim he has personally seen the dead or live aliens. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the valuable background info on him. Some links would be nice. As for whether he is hoaxing, I personally don't believe so. I finally skimmed the 2014 video. Numerous other credible scientists, military officers, government officials, and other insiders have come forward publicly saying similar things. For example; see Disclosure Project. Some have pages on Wikipedia. So the hoax argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The 2014 video is still in numerous places on Youtube. There are other videos by him on Youtube besides that one. He looks the same in each one, because he is real. We have his photo in the funeral home obituary too. We have established that he is real, and did work for Lockheed in some way. The copyright claim could well be bogus for the 2014 video. And since there are thousands of results for "Boyd Bushman" in Google News he is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barakoti[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (A PROD was removed without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note there were previous claims of notability mentioned in the article but I removed them because there were unsourced. Avono (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Wittels[edit]

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

Semi-notable former minor league baseball player, though I'm not convinced he's notable enough for an article. 1. He never reached the major leagues, so he fails WP:BASE/N. 2. His professional career lasted two seasons, so it in itself was not notable. 3. Many of the links on his article point to WP:ONEEVENT (a dropped rape charge). 4. I'm not convinced his long hitting streak makes him notable, because it occurred at a low level (college) and was not record breaking. Alex (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it is unclear whether nom engages in the requisite wp:before search--given his focus above on refs in the article itself, rather than refs that he would see if he conducted that requisite search. Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical companies in bangalore[edit]

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

The article is a list of companies and addresses, should not be included because Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia:NOTDIR, also the contents are copied directly from the commercial page indian pharma jobs, there is no copyright notice in the page.Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharma companies in chennai[edit]

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

The article is a list of companies and addresses, should not be included because Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia:NOTDIR, also the contents are copied directly from the commercial page indian pharma jobs, there is no copyright notice in the page.Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jitto Arulampalam[edit]

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

I do not believe that the subject of this article is notable, and generally only has brief mentions in news articles of his [ex-]roles in various companies. The references do not discuss him in detail, and the ones that do are not independent, such as the reference from the company he is the chairman of. The lack of coverage of him is shown by the references generally only containing brief mentions of his name, followed by nothing else about him, such as this from SMH, this from Kazakhstan Potash Corporation, and this from Computer World.

I checked news articles and sites that weren't referenced in the article, such as this one from "The Australian", which appeared to not provide much coverage of him, other than a brief mention of him and his current and previous businesses, which they seem to have done with almost every person they've mentioned on the article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: This is the right link to access "The Australian"; the quoted link doesn't navigate to the intended article; it is not the fault of the nominator.Eesan1969 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he/she would have placed Notability tag, I might have appreciated him/her since there are room for expansion of this page.Eesan1969 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I have added the notability tag to an article, when I consider AfD to be a more suitable location to deal with it? I can't find a mention of this "Top 25 global rising stars" list anywhere, other than on pages about this person, such as on his biography on the company's website he is chairman of. I also can't find anything that makes this MIS Australia magazine to be notable, and can simply find a mention of it closing down in January 2012, with all employees moving to the parent company. There is nothing to show that this list you speak of is notable, or that any individuals on it are notable. This mention in a magazine seems to be the one event you're attempting to establish notability on. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you consider an Afd after your Cfd even after my expansion from one source of reference to a number of other, I can consider you are trying to push your POV stubbornly.
One thing you should remember, the closure of Far Eastern Economic Review doesn't make, that was an infamous magazine.
MIS Magazine was only taken over by its parent company The Australian Financial Review.
MIS Magazine is quoted here as "..........Financial Review's MIS Magazine Australia's leading magazine for CIOs and senior technology executives.".
MIS Magazine is quoted in number of other places, makes it notable.
MIS Magazine's global rising star is fairly popular and was awarded to a number of others.
Australian Online Security Company, TrustDefender, Named a 'Global Rising Star' in MIS Magazines' 'Annual Strategic 100' Issue.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thine Antique Pen: If the phrase published is recognised by the 2006 Australian Financial Review MIS Magazine as one of the "Top 25 global rising stars", we need to see if the 2006 source actually did so. I found this AFR from May 1, 2006 but subscription required. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found confirmed by and published in Bloomberg Businessweek, as attributed to DGAP-News. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Williamson[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player who has been playing mostly in the independent leagues the last few years. Prod removed with no explanation. Spanneraol (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jersey, minor league baseball IS fully professional. It's not semi-pro. It's fully pro. I understand the sentiment of your argument and agree, but don't use the 'he didn't play in a fully professional league' angle because it's entirely wrong. Alex (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Professional, yes. Fully professional, no. Without something more minor league players fail notability. See WP:BASE/N. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what fully professional means. The minor leagues are fully professional. Minor leaguers play the game professionally. It is fully professional. Alex (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this isn't clear. The list of leagues that are considered fully professional are listed in WP:BASE/N. The minor leagues are not in that list and so its players are not automatically notable as it says "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability." Afterward it says about minor leaguers who have WP:RS coverage that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP." --Jersey92 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using Wikipedia definitions, I'm using real life definitions. It's more a pet peeve of mine when people call the minor leagues not fully professional, when they are. It just makes people sound ignorant of the sport when they say otherwise. Alex (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize for coming off as hostile. Sometimes I have a hard time remembering there are people on the other side of the Internet receiving these messages. I am sorry for being so harsh. Alex (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Network traffic. Network traffic (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic volume[edit]

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

Unsourced since half a decade and likely to stay so as reliable sources are not growing in leaps and bounds. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gray (football)[edit]

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

Youth footballer who does not yet appear to have competed at a sufficiently high amateur or professional level to meet WP:NFOOTY WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several contributors have pointed out that there is little content to this article. Besides an extended quotation from the group's statement (which I am pretty sure is against guidelines on length of quote) the entire article says no more than the group exists. As it stands, it would qualify for speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of importance). It is certainlya valid AFD deletion rationale that there is insufficient material to write about a subject to justify its own aritcle, a position taken by several contributors. This argument still holds sway regardless of any decision on notability. On that issue by itself I assess the debate as no consensus leaning to delete, but the lack of content issue certainly sways this to delete. SpinningSpark 18:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa Tradition Survivors[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article, but advocacy. perhaps it might fall under G11. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :He only mentions the NKTS once in that article, and it was speaking more broadly about the criticisms about the Dalai Lama then the group itself. Likewise with the other Huffington Post article I found. I just don't see enough here to justify it's own article.--Church Talk 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have 2 Huffingtonpost articles, one written by a top tibetologist. Also we have the academic conference I linked to above. That is more than enough to justify an article. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, none of them seem to talk about the organization directly. Rather just criticisms of the Dalai Lama (Which I'm sure has it's own article).--Church Talk 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean none of them seem to talk about the organization directly. Robert Thurman quotes 4 paragraphs of the NKTS statement. How much more direct can you get?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. After reviewing the article better I agree this should be a Keep The first Huffington Post article mentions the NKTS specifically and criticizes a number of actions. Apologies, I should have read better. --Church Talk 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its has been pointed out by other users that Prasangika37 has possible COI's. I would advise his input is not valid in determining consensus.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As far as the topic goes, it is clearly GNG: Searches for "NKT Survivors" renders this, New Kadampa Survivors (without quotes) gets this and a complex search still rendered a number of reliable sources.
  2. This is an article about people who have left a religious organization and who have issues that appear to stem, in part, from their experience. To that end, this article is well within a broader category of articles about entities that oppose various new religious movements, including Cult Awareness Network, INFORM, Category:Critics of the Unification Church, Personal Freedom Outreach, Cults of Unreason, and so on.
  3. I think it is also worth noting that this topic is controversial and per the personal attack by Prasangika37 on Victoria Grayson above, please note that Prasangika37 has tended to want to eliminate or minimize any mention of criticisms of the NKT, while Victoria Grayson tends to take a view from the side of mainstream Tibetan Buddhism (which is critical of the NKT), so let's just count the input of each as one !vote each and move on. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are a Yahoo group.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much says it all. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems then like the consensus is to delete? Can someone go ahead and do this? Its already included in the New Kadampa Tradition page to my knowledge. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Deletion debates run at least one week. And you do not get to decide what the consensus is -- an uninvolved admin does that. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion debate aside, New Kadampa Survivors does seem to be what this group of people actually calls itself - so I think the move was justified on that grounds. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a decision/discussion about whether an article meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. As far as I personally can tell, this forum group does not meet the two standards that apply: WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. AfD does not concern itself with future concerns about edit wars, etc. (and by the way nothing is "inevitable"), as there are a number of well-known official admin boards which effectively deal with that. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regnant Sports[edit]

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

No sources, absolutely no assertion of notability (given that it focuses too much on a redesign as an aspect of its history, plus its hosting is suspended!). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romina Rocamonje[edit]

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

One more non-notable beauty pageant title holder. damiens.rf 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Castillo[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Article was deleted once before via prod and then recreated as a redirect.. but he is currently a free agent and seems to be a AAAA player that is unlikely to make the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Henry (baseball)[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one violating WP:CRYSTAL here is you. A "guy who has spent the past 4.5 years at Triple-A is going to make his big league debut eventually" is simply not true and is the real violating of crystal ball.--Yankees10 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, duh, that's why I said I'm going to ignore all rules and use my crystal ball. Derp. Alex (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This couldn't make less sense. Keeping an article like this does not improve or maintain Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Alex (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep all, based on the discussion below, without prejudice to limited, individual renominations. I'd recommend no more than 2-3/day. I note in addition that the existence of multiple GAs in this list appears to violate WP:BUNDLE "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled" I believe this instruction has been violated in this case. j⚛e deckertalk 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fool in Love[edit]

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

WP:NSONGS: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject [non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment] of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

While these songs placed (for the most part, rather lowly) on a few national charts, NSONGS also says, "The following factors [such as appearance on record charts] suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria."

Other articles will be added to this AfD shortly. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons mentioned above:
A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breakin' Dishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stupid in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cold Case Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fading (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Complicated (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skin (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love the Way You Lie (Part II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drunk on Love (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roc Me Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Watch n' Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Farewell (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do Ya Thang (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phresh Out the Runway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Numb (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nobody's Business (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Love Allowed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Half of Me (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
–Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I totally agree here with Calvin on his statement written above. I also noted that Rihanna's article always get this kind of treatment while I can find other performers articles which are awfully written or sourced and they are still here and nobody touches them. Note: The user who is AfD-ing all of this articles is a Lady Gaga fan (please check her articles: Aura (song), Swine (song), Gypsy (Lady Gaga song) etc etc etc). Also to the people who are about to come and see this discussion let me inform you that the articles I have written lately are all overwatched by users and AfD (please see this (nominated by SNUGGUMS, the article is in perfect shape), this which is still undergoing, nominated by IndianBio and now we have this. Well, a lot of users have left Wikipedia... sadly with invented rules like this and delete-happy users, not much of the old guard is staying on wiki anymore. Such a pity ! — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have barely touched any of the Lady Gaga song articles mentioned here, and I hardly have a bias for keeping her song articles. If you would like to put any non-notable songs of hers at AfD, that's your prerogative, but it's completely unrelated to this discussion. Please keep your comments focused on why the Rihanna articles should be kept and refrain from mentioning unrelated articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed Calv. And just to show another discussion where Chase, SNUGGUMS and IndianBio are going against this user who wants to "defend" "Tik Tik Boom" in the wrong way though. An article for that song can exist, only if it's expanded of course. I don't know how he keens to compare the article to the above nominated Rihanna articles which are in far more better condition than the mentioned. Oh, and also that's how Chase got inspired to AfD all the articles... next are other Gaga articles right? ;) We already said why they should be kept and that's more than enough! This AfD is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw while I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years! — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no interest in deleting any articles by any editors. I'm not into tit for tat. I think they enrich the music scope of Wikipedia. I agree, in all my time on Wikipedia, I think this proposal takes the biscuit and is the most thoughtless, insensitive thing I have seen yet.  — ₳aron 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these fail the GNG as they lack "significant coverage" (defined as "address[ing] the topic directly" and "more than a trivial mention") in third party sources - much of the information comes from reviews of the songs' parent albums and other articles related to the parent albums. These are essentially content forks of the parent albums' Wiki articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to realize that even singles get their critical reception section from the album review external articles. Today, newspapers and websites apart of the lead single they rarely do separate reviews of the songs when they are realized. I can't believe that that's pointed as a problem... — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but many notable singles receive independent coverage in reliable sources, all things besides song reviews considered. "We Found Love" is an example of a song with significant coverage - many articles have been written about it outside of the Talk That Talk parent album. The same cannot be said for the nominated songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And isn't "We Found Love" the lead single? Isn't a hit? I can tell you singles pages which contain less information than those songs you nominated above. Please check the reviews of "Talk That Talk" or "Birthday Cake", all of them are from the parent album, why? Cause publications simply doesn't bother re-reviewing songs they were placed in a review of the album. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we are looking at more than just critic reviews. We are looking at overall information. Plenty of it is available for the songs you just mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also information available for other non-singles nominated above. That's not the thing. Obviously, this AfD is for the sake. 1) Were the reviews, 2) Now the coverage was not enough. What's next? — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As clearly stated at the top of the AfD, the bulk of the information about the nominated songs comes from reviews and articles about their parent albums. Significant coverage of the albums makes the albums notable. Passing/brief mention of the album's tracks in articles about the album do not make the songs pass the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't you also AfD "Man Down" for example? All the reviews come from the ALBUM reviews and there are not much other information about the song's creation. Despite having a video and charted, it's the same thing. (I am being ironic ofc!) This AfD or the rule above is a BS! — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, "Man Down" was released so long after Loud that it's basically made up of album reviews. Only difference between "Man Down" and the articles being proposed for deletion above is that it was released as a single and had a music video; aside from that, "Man Down" is the same as all those mentioned above. But because it's a single, no one questions it's notability. "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" has a lot of significant coverage, "Skin" has third party coverage because of the Armani Jeans campaign, "Love the Way You Lie Part II" has also received significant media attention because of it's association with the original. "Breakin' Dishes" was a major dance hit in two different years, despite it not being a released as a single. The list goes on. Some of these articles have even more info that "Lovebird (song)", and that was a single.  — ₳aron 19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSONGS clearly says, "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears...". You and Tomica are misinterpreting it to read "If the only reviews of the song exist in reviews of the album". For many of these songs, the only information published about them in sources are from album reviews, which demonstrates the notability of their parent albums, but not the individual songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they don't just have coverage from albums. They have coverage from other sources, too. Plus, all bar one charted, and that bar one article has a lot of information. I think you're missing the point that there is more info in a lot of these song articles than a lot of single release articles. The whole criteria is majorly flawed and that is why editors are going against it's theory and principle it is meant to stand for because it doesn't work. The old system was better and always will be.  — ₳aron 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the new guidelines gained consensus over the "old system". AfD is not the appropriate venue for you to rant about your preferences about the way things used to be. Your comments should be directed Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). As of now, NSONG is a guideline approved by community consensus. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, hello... the person I expected is here. I don't want to repeat myself, the statement above is pure BS. The articles have right notability to be apart articles, independent of their parent album. The reasons? We told 100 reasons they can be separate articles... — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And none of your "100 reasons" are policy- or guideline-based. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your policy based arguments are too much WP:OWN. Also please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE and for all the good articles you want to erase WP:GA. You're violating a policy so Bye, Bye, Bye (feel free to AfD this article, I really think it lacks sources...). — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OWN and INDISCRIMINATE having nothing to do with this discussion. And good articles are not exempt from the AfD process - they can be delisted at any time, so naturally they can be proposed for deletion as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charts play an important role, some of these songs above charted in multiple territories and in the top ten in places too. That makes them notable songs, because they sold enough copies purely on the strength of downloads alone to get high chart positions, not that high or low has anything to do with it. A chart is a chart, regardless of the placement of the song.  — ₳aron 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer back to NSONG which was cited at the top of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • INDISCRIMINATE is an inclusion policy that says we put data in context with independent sources. It has nothing to do at all with this discussion. Why you continue to mention it is beyond my understanding. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", of which there is enough material for all articles. The guidelines are contradictory. First sentence says all forms of media published by sources no related directly to the singer (i.e., not self published) is acceptable, then it says that album reviews are not acceptable, when it just said that all published sources unrelated to the singer is acceptable. See? Flawed. It doesn't work.  — ₳aron 20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You omitted "Notability aside," from the beginning of the quote you selected. Having enough material and a reasonably detailed article does not make the article pass notability guidelines. That quote means that even if a song is notable, it still may not warrant an article if there is a lack of info. There is no contradiction. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is because there isn't a lack of information.  — ₳aron 10:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It applies to a different scenario that is not applicable to any of the nominated articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete or redirect? Why shouldn't the sourced material be merged (with a redirect)? Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the idea of individual discussions, but it should be noted that passing WP:GNG isn't automatically enough for songs to warrant separate articles. The only things not covered by WP:GNG that are covered by WP:NSONGS (a more specific set of notability criteria) is how it must have enough independent coverage to grow beyond a stub AND have significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews. "No prejudice against individual discussions" is a fair idea for if these are retained. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 8 November 2014
  • Most of these fail the GNG as they have no non-trivial sources devoted completely to them (not the albums they come from). For the others, there may be one brief article or so. Notice how most of these song articles reiterate information that can be trimmed down and included (in a more concise form) at the parent album pages. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be trimmed... but they DON'T HAVE TO! Just because two editors don't like having song articles on Wikipedia and invented some stupid policy, doesn't mean we have to delete a bunch of good articles who have enough material to standalone! — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Chase is saying is that these are WP:CFORK's. AFD also is NOT the place to complain about/condescend notability criteria or make snappy remarks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD should have not existed in the first place but it still does. So don't complain about the comments I mean. And what contains or not contains certainly satisfies people who have experience, ones that reviewed those articles... again most of them are GOOD ARTICLES! — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing a GA review does not exempt an article from deletion. The articles may be well-written, but that doesn't mean their subjects pass the notability guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of appearing to ignore my own advice in my !vote above, have you actually looked at any of the articles, or the sources in them? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Let's choose one to pick apart. I see sources all over A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song), but they are sources about things other than the song: how Rihanna was discovered, commentary about other songs, etc. What sources do you think discuss "A Million Miles Away" directly and in detail that are not discussing it in the context of its parent album?—Kww(talk) 00:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one I would be inclined to agree with deleting; but in my opinion, there are too many that clearly do meet GNG bundled in here for this nomination to be valid. The one I initially pointed out is one; Complicated has a whole MTV interview dedicated to it, which puts it on the borderline of being notable at the very least (and arguably pushes it over, with the chart position and the few sentences in some of the album reviews), Roc Me Out is in a similar situation (albeit a different type of article in a lesser publication), Skin is notable for its usage in Rihanna's Armani Jeans campaign and appears to easily meet GNG as a result... some do appear to fail GNG genuinely as well, of course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Complicated", that MTV link is a primary source as it consists of Rihanna's own words. Regarding "Roc Me Out", the only significant coverage it gets is from PopDust, which is not a reliable source. The only reliable secondary source used in "Skin" giving significant coverage outside of album reviews is Idolator. It would need multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews to warrant a separate article. Passing WP:GNG isn't always enough to warrant an article, particularly if its only significant coverage is from album reviews. The word of someone closely involved with its creation is also not something that helps pass GNG or any other notability criteria. No matter how much detail an album review gives on a song, such reviews do not count as sufficient coverage for a song as the review pertains more to the album than anything else. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, since when was an interview a primary source? That's a ridiculous claim. It's an interview/section of an interview specifically about the song, with one of the most major music sources (at least traditionally) there is; not a primary source. Roc Me Out, I can give you that one, I'm not an expert on sources in this area. With Skin, again, you're cherry-picking a quote from a guideline and attempting to use that to trump GNG, regardless of if the subject actually meets GNG or not - not how things work. Sure, just passing GNG doesn't mean that you necessarily need an article, but there's enough content that can be written about most of these that passing GNG here is enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is simply the minimal threshold to merit any article. WP:NSONGS is a more specific notability criteria. We have specific notability requirements for a reason, so they should be put to use. The additional requirement of WP:NSONGS is that it can't be from an album review. Interviews are primary sources since they rely on the word of the creator. People commenting on their own work doesn't count as notable coverage per any notability criteria, as that is essentially self-promotion. WP:NSONGS states that notable coverage excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. When much of a song article's content regurgitates its album article, that's not a good sign. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure your interpretation of what makes a source primary is completely erroneous. Regardless, it's clear we're not going to agree on this one, no point going round in circles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cold Case Love" does not pass notability. Bar a few passing mentions, virtually all of its information comes from album reviews. The background/production section, excluding one part about the song being Rihanna's favorite from the album, is exclusively about the album and not even the song. The final paragraph is just a fluffed-up version of the credits from the liner notes. Just because some of our editors here can do a good job of making something from virtually nothing doesn't mean that the subject passes notability guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) The song has an interview from JT. 2)Interview where she labels it as her favorite song from Rated R. 3) The song is about the incident with Chris Brown, incident active in their careers more than 5 yrs. 4) It has enough composition and critical reception information to stand alone (even though it's for album reviews as you would say, that's because this is a SONG, not a SINGLE). 5) She performed it live on more than 90 concerts and reviewers wrote about the performance. And just so you know liner notes are often used in GA's and FA's. The song perfectly passes the GA and criteria to standalone. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/2. Re:Timberlake and Rihanna interviews: see SNUGGUMS' comment above about NSONGS mentioning that published works about subjects "[exclude] media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work."

    3. Notability is not inherited.

    4/5. The album/tour reviews are about the album/tour; the song is only mentioned in passing. That is not considered "significant coverage" by the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments are so lame and I don't plan to continue arguing about the notability of the article cause there is notability and that is more than obvious. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DID show my arguments why they are notable, but according to you they are not, but I don't really care, because I am so over it. My arguments and the arguments of seven other users show that they are notable so... — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of your arguments for why these songs are notable are rooted in guideline or policy, save for your erroneous OWN and INDISCRIMINATE claims. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yours OWN. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "virtually all of its information comes from album reviews" then that means there is at least some sourced information from other sources. So the album reviews are not being used by themselves to establish notability. If the album reviews are not being used as the sole basis for establishing notability, NSONGS does not override WP:GNG if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria for use as sources. Rlendog (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria" - but... they don't. per the "significant coverage" aspect. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you created the article and are trying to protect it. I sympathise. But you would get on better by making arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than blindly disagreeing with any point you don't like. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, most of the material IS NOT on the Rihanna albums, because if it would be, the albums would be like 200kb long, that's the reason most of the articles from Talk That Talk and all the articles from Loud have its own separate pages... — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier in this AFD you responded to policy-based reasoning with "your arguments are so lame" and also expressed a belief that there is a conspiracy to single out articles relating to Rihanna. I'm afraid I don't see the point in trying to discuss my viewpoints with you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lolol. Trust me, I don't want to discuss with you either, but it's obvious you are a little bit confused thinking all the articles on Wikipedia should become FA. Bye! — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, myself and Tomica had to cut down Loud so much because of how much info there was about all of the songs, not to mention that 7 singles were released from it.  — ₳aron 10:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cut out some of the unnecessary text on the album articles. That would also put you a step closer to FA. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about making it an FA? No one. So your reason is invalid. Not that these articles would affect that anyway.  — ₳aron 12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I said that if the dross was cut out then the album articles would stand a chance of getting to FA. My reason is completely valid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, because it's not nominated for FA and there is no plans for it to be nominated for FA! It's an invalid comment as it is purely speculation as to what could happen if x happens.  — ₳aron 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Kirby[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. One contemporary news account refers to her as an "accomplished actor", but this is a trivial mention. Although it's likely that there is some bias regarding online sources due to the era in which worked, a 1974 book claims that she never "achieved anything more than serviceable professional status in the ranks of film players", which is about the closest anything is ever going to come to flat out saying "she doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER", and suggests strongly that contemporary sources establishing notability don't exist. Canadian Paul 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let a Woman Be a Woman[edit]

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

I know that charting is an indication of notability but do we really need this stub? Much of its sourcing is consequential to How You Like Me Now?, and notability is not inherited. The chart information can be carried at Dyke and the Blazers. Launchballer 14:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad San Juan de la Cruz[edit]

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

I'm aware that universities are normally considered notable. However, I'm having trouble persuading myself that this one exists at all. It doesn't have an .edu domain; it doesn't have a street address; it doesn't get any hits on Gnews or its archive. Yes it was authorised to grant degrees in 1996, but that was eighteen years ago. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttal:

Universidad San Juan de la Cruz (http://www.universidadsanjuan.ac.cr), does have a street address @ 100 metros al Norte Palacio Municipal San Pablo Heredia, Costa Rica 40203 [11], (ICAES), Apdo. Postal 75, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica [12] and the U.S.A. @ American Learning Center 8300 Old Courthouse Rd Vienna, VA 22182 [13].


The University has both email as well as phone contact information listed within its websites. SJDLC University has an {ac.cr} domain, which is equivalent to a USA {.edu} domain, > example: University of Costa Rica (http://www.ucr.ac.cr), a Costa Rican State University.[14]


The University is affiliated with the Costa Rica Bar Association ("abogados.or.cr" "U San Juan"),> Google. Central America Workers Movement / as Costa Rican solidarity CMTC [15], CMTC Programs for People with Disabilities [16], Central Institute of Social Studies (ICAES) [17].


The University is affiliated with the Costa Rican, SOER [18], SOER, Disadvantage Youth Programs [19], National Academy of Sciences (ac.cr) [20], California University FCE pcu.edu (http://www.cufce.pcu.edu), and Akamai University, U.S.A. [21]. SJDLC University is recognized by several (http://CHEA.org) Higher Education Organizations as well as Foreign Ministries. > See, Wikipedia Revised Article <


SJDLC University (Campus location) @ 100 metros al Norte Palacio Municipal San Pablo Heredia, Costa Rica 40203 [22]


SJDLC University (Affiliated Campus) @ Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales (ICAES), Apdo. Postal 75, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica [23]


SJDLC University (Affiliated Campus) @ American Learning Center 8300 Old Courthouse Rd Vienna, VA 22182 U.S.A [24]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.215 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — 173.66.168.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________

Department of Technical Analysis and Curriculum, CONESUP > Phone: 2221-4465 / 2233-2832 / 2233-2909 ext. 2061/2063/2079/2083 Email: [analisis.conesup@mep.go.cr]

Department of Inspection and Registration of Securities, CONESUP > Phone: 2221-4465 / 2233-2832 / 2233-2909 ext. 2075/2076/2077/2078/2088 Email: [inspeccion.conesup@mep.go.cr]

Department of Administrative Management, CONESUP > Phone: 2221-4465 / 2233-2832 / 2233-2909 ext. 2060/2064/2065/2069/2070/2071/2072 Email: [gestion.conesup@mep.go.cr] _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.215 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Council of Private Higher Education University (CONESUP) and the National Council of Rectors [30], (Spanish) [31] prescribes, approve, inspect as well as accept complaints regarding private universities. Universidad San Juan de la Cruz is listed as recognized under (MEP-Conesup) [32]. MEP-Conesup and the National Council of Rectors are recognized by CHEA - Council for Higher Education Accreditation Washington, D.C. [33]
  • Yes, that repeats what has already been established - that it is registered with various institutions or associations of higher education. I'm not trying to nit-pick when I point out that "prescribing" and "approving" are not the same as "accrediting". If that is what you mean then we're a step closer, though it would still need verification. But please try to find instances of coverage, the sort that would allow the subject to meet WP:GNG, rather than simply repeating what the institution offers or who has acknowledged they exist. Wikipedia requires a higher standard than simple existence. It's worth pointing out, also, that by international standards, 2000 graduates in 14 years is a staggeringly small number when compared to even the smallest universities in other countries. That's about 140 a year, or less than many high schools. St★lwart111 11:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The higher standards needed are located within the affiliate Institutions and (MEP-Conesup) accreditation. Wikipedia has plenty of Diploma Mills listed with fake locations, accreditation as well as online (internet only) presence. Universidad San Juan de la Cruz actually hold college classes at the (ICAES) Campus - Apdo. Postal 75, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica, which is a physical location within Costa Rica. [34] Universidad San Juan indicates this location in its website.[35] MEP-Conesup maintains a list of approved physical locations from which Universidad San Juan de la Cruz operate college programs. The nearly 2000 graduates in 14 years is a staggeringly small number, but that number is Costa Rica only and does not include Universidad San Juan de la Cruz international college affiliate programs.
MEP-Conesup and the National Council of Rectors are the only authorities recognized as accreditation by the U.S. Department of Education and CHEA. SINAES and UNIRE are the two accreditation programs recognized in Costa Rica under MEP-Conesup and the National Council of Rectors. UNIRE.or.cr performed an inspection upon Universidad San Juan de la Cruz and submitted an inspection report on November 3, 2010 [36]
Reference (Spanish) Page# 6
Scanned Document - UNIRE.or.cr
[37] de julio del 2010 y N°655—2010, celebrada el 21 de julio del 2010. ..... Univermdad San Juan de la Cruz sin autorización de la propia Univer5idad. 38.
There are four universities within the San Pablo de Heredia area, I believe that Universidad San Juan de la Cruz probably operates affiliate college programs from one or more locations. (Google Maps)[38]
  • Yes, it exists, but how is it notable? If you're relying on its mere existence then this article will probably be deleted. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the subject is notable and that the facts included are verifiable. And please learn to indent properly and add to this discussion in a helpful way, rather than simply adding a line rule and repeating things you've already said. Read the policies and guidelines being cited and contribute something to the discussion about why this is a notable subject per Wikipedia standards. St★lwart111 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no burden upon me in that it is not my decision. Thanks for allowing me to contribute, may God Bless everyone!
  • You're mixing decision-making with argument-making. Decisions here are based on community consensus to which you may contribute. If nobody makes an argument for this to be kept it will simply be deleted. St★lwart111 06:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many notable people that have graduated from Universidad San Juan de la Cruz, three are listed. Contributing special education to people with disabilities as well as disadvantage youth are very notable causes for any University.
  • You're confusing nobility with notability. Those are noble causes for a university, as is the cause of educating celebrities. But the institution doesn't inherit notability from its notable students. There are institutions entirely dedicated to educating those with disabilities. That does not, unfortunately, make them notable. St★lwart111 09:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Except, DGG, we haven't actually established that its a degree-awarding university. Proponents here claim it is because they call the certificates they hand out "degrees". But so do the Freemasons. If you look at the website (the institution's own translation) the courses in questions are a few months long. They aren't standard 3 - 4 year degrees like the ones you would get as UCLA or Sydney University or the University of Mumbai. St★lwart111 07:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the discussion as saying they are given in multiple 3 month blocks rather than a continuous program. Many new institutions --of admittedly variable reputation--do that. But this sort of thing can be quite difficult to pin down, especially outside an educational system we're familiar with. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why I spend most of the above trying to establish exactly that. They do seem to be multiple 3-month blocks but, in some cases, only two or three of those. That's less than 9 months for something they are suggesting is a "degree". I'm honestly not sure and proponents have been no help whatsoever. St★lwart111 11:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – The Bachelor Degree programs are eight semesters in length.

[43] The professional degree or master degree programs are two to four semesters in length. [44] Each semester requires 4 months of studies. Bachelor Degrees - 32 months [45] Professional Degrees - 8-12 months + Dissertation (Requires a Bachelor Degree to enroll)[46] Master Degrees - 16 months + Thesis (Requires a Bachelor Degree to enroll)[47] * Each Advanced Degree program requires a Thesis, Dissertation or Project + extra academic studies. [48]

Question since you seem to know the university, could you give us some information about how many of each degree have been awarded so far? DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Contact by email > MEP-Conesup for Universidad San Juan de la Cruz degree awarding statistics [49] or contact the Universidad San Juan de la Cruz [50]
  • No, that would require us to conduct original research and the resulting information could not be used to verify anything, let along substantiate the claim in question to a standard required for notability. St★lwart111 23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • On 8/26/2010, an archived Universidad San Juan de la Cruz website cites more than 2,000 Graduates since its 1996 inception.[51]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Reed (attorney)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be any more notable than thousands of other lawyers, judges, or congressmen that have lived. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, where would it be merged to? Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 October 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 01:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article on Wikipedia — it's a judgement on the quality of the article that exists at the time of the deletion discussion. If he wins the election, then yes, he'll absolutely qualify for an article at that time, because his basic claim of notability will have substantively changed — and we even have the ability to restore the deleted article if and when it's needed. But we don't have to keep the current version of the article pending the possibility that he might qualify for an article in the future — because deleting it today isn't preventing it from being recreated in the future if circumstances change. But I should also point out that given that election day is inside the seven-day AFD period after the relist date, we'll already know whether or not he won by the time this discussion is even eligible to be closed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N notability is function of the world-at-large.  A deletion on wp:notability tells us nothing about the quality of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point entirely — "not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article" was the substance of my point. A person's notability can change over time — they might accomplish something a week or a month or a year or a decade from now that puts them over an inclusion criterion that they don't pass today; the availability of reliable sourcing about them can change over time; and on, and so forth. But we don't keep an article about the person just because the possibility exists that one of those things might eventually happen; if it hasn't already happened as of today, then we delete it today, and then it becomes eligible for recreation again in the future if and when the circumstances change.
That's my point: we keep or delete an article based on the state of things as it exists today, but that doesn't prevent him from becoming a valid article topic again in the future if stuff changes. Obviously if the notability is already there and the article just isn't doing a good enough job of explaining it, then we keep and fix the article — but the claim being made wasn't that he was already notable, but rather that we should withhold judgement pending the possibility of him maybe getting over an inclusion rule in the future that he didn't pass at the time of nomination. But that's not how things work on here. We don't keep articles about unelected candidates just because they might eventually win — if they're just unelected candidates now then we delete them now, and then we can recreate them in the future if and when they do win the election. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that we are not discussing the quality of the article here, only wp:notability.  Notability is not a deletion test, it is stand-alone article test.  If the topic is not notable, we redirect it.  The exception would be if there was no target for redirection, but that exception is not applicable here, so there is no deletion to discuss here.  Which goes back to my initial question, which means that this topic could have been redirected to a suitable target without bringing the topic to AfD, and if the topic won, a non-admin could restore the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the subject does not appear to be in the position to win this election (36.7% of the vote with 28.1% of precincts reporting at the time of this post), therefore, the article should be redirected to the section about the election per WP:BIO1E, California State Assembly election, 2014#District 3. If the subject receives significant coverage outside of this event (the election), the article can be recreated at that time. Being a perennial candidate may lead to meeting WP:GNG, as other redirect targets include United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012#District 1 and United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 2 but that does not appear to be the case yet IMHO. As a former college football player the subject might have received significant coverage, but so far I have not seen anything suggesting the subject meets WP:NGRIDIRON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, with 100 per cent now counted he definitely didn't win the election. But we should always wait until all 100 per cent of the ballots are counted, rather than basing a conclusion on what the situation looks like at just 28.1 per cent — not all parts of a district actually vote the same way in the same proportions, so it does happen sometimes that a candidate is behind at 28 per cent of the count but then surges ahead to actually win in the end. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Hughes[edit]

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

Re-nominating after the previous AfD went away from the matters at hand. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he hasn't held any elected office at international, national or state level, and has not received any significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject - an automatic fail for WP:N. His former party, People Power, was not a major state (sub-national) party and this means WP:POLOUTCOMES is also a fail. The three independent sources do not provide the significant coverage required and the remainder are not independent, except for the Latham Diaries which is apparently a single mention only and therefore an example of namechecking and in this case attempting to inherit notability. The lack of proper citations of the last three sources makes them unreliable and they only support commentary by the subject and are therefore not independent. They also appear to be only contributions and not full presentations as such. This all being the case, this article is in effect promotional and should be deleted. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking nomination in light of the work done by Jtydog. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A no-consensus close is exactly the type of situation where it is appropriate to relist for further discussion — a "no consensus" is not the same thing as a "keep". So no, it's not "inappropriate". Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is rough consensus that the subject does not meet the requirements of FOOTY, so that leaves the GNG argument. A list of sources is presented, and a list of arguments for why these sources don't add up to the significant coverage required by the GNG. These arguments are not refuted, and perusing them shows that indeed many cases are mere mentions, or not mentions at all, or indexes of articles that contain the name. So it must be delete. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Cárcamo[edit]

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

Relisting: Was nominated recently as second article in a single nomination and got completely ignored both by the comments and by the closing admin, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Júnior Padilla. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league and has not played in a FIFA sanctioned senior international match. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is met, WP:NFOOTY doesn't need to be The FAQ on WP:SPORTS states "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist".Becky Sayles (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Becky Sayles: thank you for the links. I had not checked those links during the last AFD because a better reason to keep the other article was already posted and I assumed the links were about the other article. I have checked the links you provided (note link 5 is about the other article), and agree that there is enough to fulfill WP:GNG. Since there are other delete votes, I cannot widraw the nomination, but I am changing to neutral. All the best, Taketa (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[69] - an interview of reasonable length, could with other links indicate GNG.
[70] - routine match reporting / speculation, this is about an upcoming match not the player in question.
[71] - This is about Junior Padilla, a completely different player.
[72] - a couple of brief quotes from the player. Nothing actually about him, just him commenting on his team. No GNG here.
[73] - the same link as number 2, cannot be used twice!
[74] - v brief comments by the player himself on his own fitness. No real substance to the article.
[75] - Simply a list of articles in which he is mentioned. Does nothing whatsoever to indicate a significant level of coverage, merely that his name crops up in match reports.
[76] [77] - Simply a list of articles in which he is mentioned. Does nothing whatsoever to indicate a significant level of coverage, merely that his name crops up in match reports.
[78] - This is a mtach report from the Motagua v Real Sociadad match. This is not about the player in question at all. He is mentioned only as a part of a wider whole in a routine match report.
[79] - Briefly mentions Carcamo, but actually about another GK, John Bodden in the main.
[80] - Thisi s the same link as number one so cannot be used again.
[81] - This is not an article about the player, he is merely mentioned as one of many in a poll to see who should be thee national keeper. other players get far more prominance in this article.
[82] - five line routine match report with extremely brief passing mention of the player. No in depth analysis of his performance or interview with him.
[83] - Routine match report, player mentioned v briefly to say he had a bad start.
[84] - routine match report with extremely brief passing mention of the player. No in depth analysis of his performance or interview with him.
[85] - the same link as number 2 and 6, cannot be used three times.
Aside from the fact that five of the links are repeats of only two separate articles, bar the first link provided, everything else is routine match reports, brief quotes or links to searches for the name. It is clear that this person is a regular player for a team, it is far from clear that there is significant coverage of the player in detail. Where the player is not the subject of the article, the mentions of him are exactly of the trivial sort GNG explicitly forbids. @Taketa: you might like to have another look at these? Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Botterill[edit]

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

this person lacks notability (WP:SPIP). The article is also an orphan. GillsMan (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Data_erasure#Standards. No prejudice against changing the redirect target if someone writes the article that DGG has suggested. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFSSI-5020[edit]

AFSSI-5020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets any section of WP:NOTABILITY. It has previously been prodded (by @Oo7565:) which was removed without a reason given by @76.66.195.159:. It was then re-prodded by @Luk:, but this was removed because it had already been prodded, so needed to go to AfD. Has been tagged for notability for six years. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:54, 7 October 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 14 October 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, Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 19:00, 21 October 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, MBisanz talk 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Standard. I'm redirecting, but this doesn't preclude a merge of some of the content if someone wants to take that on. Fairly clear consensus that this should not be a separate article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Islamic State[edit]

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

Duplicates Black Standard and it is unlikely that additional info can be added that is not now or should not be in the other article Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL
  • Comment the ISIL flag has it's own stylizations. Are those also used in other variants of the Black Standard? (ie. the shape of the lettering and circle) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Black Standard article has long detailed the flag variant used by ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the flag used on the ISIL page is not as circular as other similar flags, which is what I said about stylizations. As most ISIL flag images I've seen used the not-circle, while most similar flag images that are non-ISIL use a circle, is the not-circle particular to ISIL? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67.70.35.44, No. See: File:AQMI Flag.svg as used by two of the few groups using black standard as listed at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that it's not notable. The Black Standard is and ISIL is but ISIL flag doesn't inherit that notability.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 the story is that it is a flag commonly used with other groups. I don't see how the article can be develop and be revised unless its called the "such and such flag when used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flag of the Islamic State at Flags of the World even thought the article, unlike genuine mid-east nations that I checked, contains no "flag of ..." designation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It isn't even remotely disingenuous as the "flags of the world" website is neither written by experts on Middle Eastern history nor is it the final arbiter of what is or isn't a separate, unique flag. It's just one website about flags. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, if you like. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers in Korea[edit]

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

not serious Ueberzahl (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Na Jeona[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:24, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Prodip Joley[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:24, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Kanungo[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The mid-day link in the reference section is false/dead. Harsh (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projapoti E Mon[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Prithibir Pore[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aao Huzoor Tumko[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:19, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monero Ronge Rangabo[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kajra Mohabbatwala[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beder Meye Jyotsna (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aguner Din Sesh Hobe Ekdin[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erene[edit]

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

Singer does not appear to be notable. She is unsigned, has very few secondary sources available with little media coverage, and has a very short and non-notable discography. Additionally, the two major contributors to the article have conflicts of interest, resulting in the blocking of one due to it being an account strictly for promotional reasons User:Ereneofficial. Since then, the article has had some minor edits made by IPs, but still does not meet notability guidelines. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 16:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:16, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kotha Hoyechhilo[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Buke Boichhe Jamuna[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiboner Golpo Achhe Baki Olpo[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 12:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:14, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MultiSafepay[edit]

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

I have originally prodded it under the following rationale (which I believe is still valid): "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." It has since been deprodded by creator, User:GameLegend, who added some sources and asked me for a re-review. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the article, even with the new sources, meets the cited policies; the added sources don't seem reliable/mainstream enough to change my original assessment. Time for a wider community discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan(banladeshi actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable. The cited source doesn't provide enough reliable information. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:12, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panchi Nadiya Pawan Ke[edit]

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

No reliable source. It uses YouTube videos and other Wikipedia articles as references. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:12, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Na Jao Chhodkar[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chupi Chupi Bolo Keu Jene Jabe[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piya Piya Piya Ke Dake Amare[edit]

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

Not notable. The article is unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(({This article was made yesterday, November 6, by the same editor who created the 2014_Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu_ramming_attack article with SYNTH/fabrications in its original version and has since sought to reintroduce his choice of terms ("X was a terrorist" among them, which is not in any of the sources he provided) and also attempted to POVize the title of the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, which I was able to revert without needing an admin. A summary of this editor's activities can be found here and the nature of the POV problem laid out in the section before that. Gist of the POV problem is that branding this event, and the one in Ottawa, as "terrorist attacks" is under dispute in Canada, where even major media are avoiding such terms in favour of simply "gunman" instead of "terrorist" and "attacks" or "shootings" rather than "terrorist attacks", and the Leader of the Opposition, among many others, has said flatly that they were not terrorist actions but "criminal acts", and a widespread public sentiment is that these were people with mental health problems, not members of any organized terrorist organization of campaign; both had major drug problems and pyschological issues. Another widespread sentiment in Canada is that the use of "terror" words by the government and RCMP is part of a political campaign to mandate/validate the government's long-standing desire for Patriot Act-style laws in Canada, which is widely opposed.

The same editor created Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada in 2014 at the same time as his original heavily-POV first version of the St Jean sur Richelieu articles, which I've been meaning to CfD but held off because of a then-ongoing RM and related discussions on the POV abuse of the "terrorism theme"; I will file the CfD next, as Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada exists, without any date, (and even so IMO should not include the recent events so blithely, to suit someone's "hobby" of creating /hyping politicized articles on "terrorism".

Given the false/misleading edit comments and blatant POV I've seen, I'm of the opinion that the editor in question's user contributions may need extensive review. I believe the article nominated is POV and SOAP in origin, and like the St Jean sur Richelieu article's first edit is rank SYNTH; I have not removed the passage about SJsR in this article (yet) as it is cited (though misleading) but did remove the unrelated NYC hatchet attacks and an unrelated event in Jerusalem. Vehicle-ramming has been a criminal tactic since the automobile was invented.

All of this should perhaps have gone to the POV discussion board, but it has a backlog; and the continuance and propagation of more questionable SOAP articles needs to be stopped in its tracks. Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda campaigns in the way that this has been.))}Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "well supported by sources" is a blatant lie, as an examination of the intial version of that article vs the sources provided will clearly show, and as I have already referred to. The phrases "was a terrorist attack" and "a 25 year old terrorist" you led off with are nowhere in any of the sources provided, it is entirely your own fabrication/interpretation/distortion. Your track record of terrorism-related articles is of relevance here, as as your attempts to re-introduce SYNTH/POV wordings i.e. more additions of "terrorist attack" and the like; terms which are increasingly avoided in the Canadian media for both events and with good reason, and the government and police items stating that have been widely challenged in the Canadian media and blogspace; your inclusion of it in the creation of this article, which happened on the same day as your attempt to rename the St Jean-sur-Richelieu and also your attempt to reinsert your POV language as as "improve, I hope" and the further claim on the move of the title was "in line with rapidly emerging terminology". Rapidly emerging by your own propagation of it, is my view of the matter; and in the case of the RJsR "rapidly emerging terminology" about that event is "mental illness", not "terrorism". I repeat my suspicion that many of the other articles you have created similarly distorted sources or outright fabricated lines, and your dishonesty here and in the edit history supply ample reason for that suspicion.Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legitimate debate about whether words like "terrorist" can be properly applied to incidents in which a lone individual who drinks deeply at the well of hatred published by a terrorist group but had no direct contact with members of the group can be called a "terrorist", or whether an action must be carried out by a committed, definable organized group. Wikipedia is not the place for such debates. Let's confine ourselves to reliable sources.ShulMaven (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed there is indeed a legitimate debate and a very heated one in Canada about both events, and also about how "terrorist/m" has been used by some for environmental and native groups as well as re anti-Islamic cant; And don't presume to say "let's confine yourselves to reliable sources" when you yourself haven't done that, only imposed your interpretation (SYNTH) of sources, as already pointed out re your initial article's complete fabrication of phrases and terms and your attempt to add "terror" to the title even though it's clear by now that is POV. "Wikipedia is not the place for such debates" is why this article should be deleted, as you are advancing an idea of your own, and have blatantly twisted sources with your own imposed words. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda campaigns either, and your creation of this article to go with your attempts yesterday at re-POVizing of the St Jean sur Richelieu article and title is very much relevant to your motives and purposes re all the other "terrorism" articles you have made a career out of.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Anazia[edit]

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

Non notable actor/producer/director. No credits listed on IMDB. The LVS article is a press release from him and the indiewire article is a "Tell us your story" article. No RS Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Napier[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, specifically, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Our notability rules for who should be subject to a WP:BLP are much more strict now than they were in 2007 when we last discussed this article and there are no more forthcoming sources on which to write an encyclopedic article. jps (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion that there are no sources is simply untrue. You have to look under William, as well as Bill, moreover, since he is not the only notable William Napier, you have to add a search term lime "comet" whereupon you run into the other famous astronomer named Napier. I'm adding some stuff. Like many Wikipedia articles it needs more attention.ShulMaven (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 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, BusterD (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right that bad reviews don't offset reliable sources. Unfortunately, I don't find the latter. LaMona (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Polyphonte. There seems to be some agreement that a redirect, rather than a straight up or down "keep/delete" closure, is acceptable to everyone and a good way forward. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrius and Oreius[edit]

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

In effect I am submitting that everything mentioned in the Agrius and Oreius page is also mentioned on the Polyphonte article. Agrius and Oreius are mentioned only in conjunction with the story of Polyphonte and the only classical sources, Antoninus Liberalis’s Metamorphoses, lumps them together in one chapter. As such the presence of two separate articles leads to needless repetition. Deleting the Agrius and Oreius page would accomplish a successful merger of the topic and make things simpler for those potentially researching the subject. Nyctimene (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Antoninus Liberalis"+metamorphoses in GBooks seems to produce hundreds of results. James500 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed 5,490 to be exact. As far as I can see from the first 5 pages though all these results are either translations of the one book, Metamorphoses by Antoninus Liberalis, or references to him in anthologies of Greek Myths. I would suggest the mere fact that an author, and his work, are frequently referenced does not mean every character in the work deserves their own article. After all I'm sure you could find even more results if you typed "Bible" into GBooks however that wouldn't justify giving every minor character referenced in the genealogies their own page.. Nyctimene (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the relevant policy here. In effect you shouldn't redirect from an article which contains content. If nobody objects the article can have all content removed and then be redirected however people have objected and hence policy was followed by requesting deletion. Nyctimene (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unclear why you think it is a waste of time? If you are redirecting all traffic away from a page why keep the page intact? Surely it makes sense to delete the page; just because Wikipedia doesn't have the same space constraints as a written encyclopedia doesn't mean it should be cluttered up with hundreds of articles nobody is able to read. Nyctimene (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A blank and redirect does not involve deleting the page. A blank and redirect leaves the page history intact. Article deletion is a different process that removes the page history. James500 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that but you can't blank a page if another user objects. In such circumstances the policy I cited above states that an articles for deletion page should be opened which I have done. Out of interest if the page is, as I claim it is, complete repetition what value do you think there is in preserving the page history? Are you concerned simply with leaving a record or do you think keeping the history actually accomplishes something I've overlooked? Or do you think the page is not mere repetition? It would be good to know why you actually object to deletion beyond the bureaucratic scruples you have expressed. Nyctimene (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of putting this to rest once and for all here is the relevant policy in full:
"Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot reach consensus, the article should be formally submitted to a deletion discussion." (Emphasis added) Nyctimene (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly that is a rather rude assertion which doesn't assume good faith on my part. Secondly blanking the page and redirecting would be pointless and expressly contrary to policy because Rtkat3 clearly objects. As such if I did blank the page he would simply put it back and I would have accomplished nothing. It was for this very reason that this article for deletion was started. You are of course entitled to your own view on the matter but I would ask, in the future, that you advance your argument on its merits rather than by insulting me personally. Nyctimene (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the substantive point the article ought to be deleted because it is an example of needless repetition. Needless repetition is obviously undesirable and should be avoided where possible. To me that seems like an entirely valid and logical rationale for deletion. While you have questioned whether this article for deletion has followed proper policy, as far as I can see you have, at no point, actually engaged with the merits of the argument. It seems to me, therefore, slightly unfair to say no rationale has been given when you haven't even tried to address a perfectly reasonable rationale which has been clearly laid out multiple times on this page. Nyctimene (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria one of WP:SK gives the following reason for a speedy keep, 'The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.' This is clearly not the case here for two reasons. First I have advanced an argument for deletion and secondly Fuhghettaboutit, someone other than the nominator, also recommends deletion. Criteria B1 of WP:BEFORE asks one to carry out the following check prior to starting an article for deletion, 'Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.' None of these criteria are met. Finally criteria C1, 'If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.' It cannot be fixed through normal editing because there is no consensus to blank and redirect. As such none of these criteria in any way contradict the text cited in WP:R. I strongly disagree that that WP:R is, 'obviously wrong' and would suggest none of the criteria you have cited have any bearing on this case. Nyctimene (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The words cannot be fixed though normal editing in criteria C1 mean cannot be fixed without deleting the page. They have nothing to do with consensus. They refer to the use of the page deletion user right (sometimes referred to as a button or tool), which non-admins do not have. James500 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text reads, 'cannot be fixed though normal editing' not, 'cannot be fixed without deleting.' That may be how you interpret it but I suggest you are mistaken in light of the WP:R policy. If my interpretation is correct both are perfectly compatible whereas your interpretation demands a conflict between them. Anyway we are getting off topic, might I refer you to my suggestion below... Nyctimene (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this time, the only thing I object to is deletion. I have not had time to check the notability of the characters, so I am neutral on the possibility of redirection without deletion. James500 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I would be most grateful though if, when you have more time, you could take a look. I think that's probably the best way forward at this point. Nyctimene (talk) 18:57, 29 October 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 02:26, 30 October 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 04:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:WITHDRAWN by nominator §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EPD Eukaryotic Promoter Database[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being myself the creator of EPD, I'm not going to make any recommendation as to whether or not to delete this article. I just would like to summarize a number of facts that may help to reach a decision. Global impact on research: Today, EPD is one of several promoter databases Among them, it is by far the oldest. It has been electronically distributed and regularly updated since 1986. As such, it had a big impact on promoter research. During the 90s, computational analysis of eukaryotic promoter sequences (in particular the development of promoter prediction algorithms) was almost exclusively based on EPD (see e.g. review by Fickett and Hatzigeorgiou 1997). At least 1000 scientific papers cite EPD as a resource without which the work described in these papers could not have been done.

EPD in the textbook literature: A large number of textbooks on bioinformatics and computational biology include a description of EPD, often under a corresponding subsection heading. Below are just a few examples:

Relative notability: Other promoter resources not necessarily more notable are covered by a Wikipedia article, for instance DBTSS and MPromDb. The latter is based on information imported from EPD (according to Wikipedia).

Merging with Article on RNA polymerase II: EPD could indeed be mentioned in this article, preferably together with other promoter databases such as DBTSS, FANTOM5 and SwissRegulon. --E1p98d6 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 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 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! This is now completely different page. Keep. The database is definitely notable, as justified by cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 7 November 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 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 agree with the nominator's point that WP:LOTSOFGHITS is not an indication of notability. I am open to userifying if NealeFamily believes they can go beyond what is there now and are willing to submit their draft to AFC for review by an uninvolved editor §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biomatters[edit]

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

This started at List of bioinformatics companies, where I noticed both Geneious (a product) and Biomatters were listed. After removing the product, I noticed the product wasn't sourceable, so redirected to the company (this article). Then noticed the only source was a blog on their own website, and couldn't find anything that passed WP:RS using the most generous of definitions, so here we are. Fails WP:CORP. Dennis 2¢ 14:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 October 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 02:27, 30 October 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 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that has insufficient "mentions", it is a lack of WP:SIGCOV or awards of any importance. WP:CORP requires that. If it has any real coverage, actual articles from reliable sources, by all means, provide the links, but simply seeing their name mentioned randomly in a google search isn't enough. What NZ awards? Are these notable awards? etc.Dennis - 2¢ 17:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a quick upgrade on the article with purely on line sources (some were self promotional so not RS, but until I find a better source I have used them to verify some statements made). The company is international, has a product in global use, and has had coverage in the major papers within NZ. In its context it is notable enough to remain meeting both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Someone with access to scientific papers should be able to add from what is now there NealeFamily (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but those new links are utter and total garbage. Those are links to instruction guides, the Reuters link was a press release from Business Wire. What you are doing is link padding with promotional links, and frankly, that is worse than NO links. All you have done is waste a great deal of time, forcing someone to read through all of those. The Computerworld is RS but it is about Candace Kinser, not Biomatters. The NZ Herald is fine but local. The rest is garbage that fails WP:RS. A flood of bad links doesn't help the reader, nor demonstrate notability. While it is not typical, I would ask for a third relisting, as only two people have opined here and we need more input. Dennis - 2¢ 00:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Team ECHL All-Star in 2004 achieves criteria 4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Cheers, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As Orlandkurtenbach points out, he meets WP:NHOCKEY criteria 4. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:56, 27 October 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 02:29, 30 October 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 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Notability established. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Ellis[edit]

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

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject falls well short of wp:nhockey and there's no indication of notability per WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:38, 27 October 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 02:29, 30 October 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 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph LaBate[edit]

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

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the relevant criteria mentioned by the nominator and fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:25, 27 October 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 02:30, 30 October 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 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Subban[edit]

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

Is not presumed to be notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. See examples here, here, here, and here. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:11, 27 October 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 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Tchaliburton. A quick search reveals there are other notable sources beyond those he identified as well. This article seems to meet WP:N standards and simply needs to be updated and expanded, and there is no deadline required to do so. — Hunter Kahn 05:07, 6 November 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 03:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notability has been established. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that good quality sources were found towards the end of the discussion. One of the "delete" votes actually provides a bunch of independent references, the other fails to note WP:NTEMP Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sugam Pokharel[edit]

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

BLP sourced solely to the subject's own website. No usable sources in a search. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 October 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, MBisanz talk 12:06, 30 October 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 03:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. The person never generated any coverage, as far as I can see from this debate. The event was broadly covered at the time (up until about a year after the event) and then there was a single follow-up article 46 years later (not counting one that referred to the event but did not nae the victim). Based on this, several editors find that there is lasting coverage. Personally, I would !vote delete on this one, but as this has now been around for almost three weeks, I am going to close it instead. As closing admin I have to evaluate the consensus in this debate and I don't find one, hence I close as "no consensus". There are suggestions to rename the article or to merge it elsewhere (which I think are excellent suggestions), but that can be discussed and decided on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Wasilewski[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:GNG. Search for additional coverage has turned up nothing. Author removed WP:PROD after adding one contemporary source, so I'm assuming they, like me, were unable to find any real coverage even of this event, nevermind the person. Even if the event was significant, per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS, it's not clear that this passes the threshold. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. That's a huge bump in the direction of notability, frankly. It's not even mentioned in the Cry Baby article. Good catch there Location. I don't have time for it right now, but this might help open up the search terms a bit. Probably won't go to notability for the BDP, but it might be worth a merge to Death of Carolyn Wasilewski or, as you say, a merge to Cry Baby. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 02:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took a closer look at this and it seems to me that it wasn't such a big story that a movie was made about it, but rather that it was a local story that affected John Waters, a Baltimore native. Unless I'm missing something, I think that we should merge some of the content from this page into Cry-Baby and add a section about the inspiration for the film/musical, based on sources such as this one. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am still a delete vote, and I think Location is as well. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would suggest a merge and redirect to Cry-Baby. - Location (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Cry Baby references located above, which are powerful, along with a recent Baltimore Sun column describing the murder as a "Baltimore legend" without using her name.ShulMaven (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typing her name + murder + Baltimore into newspaper archive searches turns up scores of articles from around the world, coverage that continued for over a year after the murder. I believe that deletion would be a case of WP:Presentism. i.e., if this had happened in 2014, there would be no doubt of notability (in the category sensational murders drawing wide attention due to lurid lipstick details and failure to identify culprit). I think the same criteria should apply to old sensational murders as to recent ones, because WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ShulMaven (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched "Carolyn Wasilewski" + "murder" + "Baltimore" which turns up GNews hits right after the murder in 1954 (not uncommon), but only one recent news hit: an article in the March 18, 2000 issue of The Baltimore Sun. (A previous article in the March 11, 2000 alludes to the murder but doesn't even mention her name.) That's it. Per WP:EVENT, lasting coverage reflecting interest beyond the local area is usually required. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Sartory and a lengthy write-up of that subject in a local magazine.[98]) - Location (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be in direct contradiction with the facts. It was covered in the 50s and there was two follow-up story 50 years later, one of which, as Location mentions, didn't even mention her by name. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight, in fact, I didn't come here to fight. I came because I got curious about the AFD process, and the AFD process as it goes forward with murder cases. I am sorry if I was not clear. There were 2 Baltimore Sun column in 2000, one that mentioned the murder without naming the victim, but that provoked a 2nd columnist to revisit the affair. I have access to some archives of old newspapers, so I typed in her name and the wire service stories with their lurid lipstick detail ricocheted around the country and the English-speaking world for a little while. This happens with murders, but not with all murders, just murders that, like this one, catch the public imagination - however briefly. What is on the page is pretty much everything I know about the murder, but to me it seems sufficient to keep. Interest among Baltimoreans continued 50 years after the death. A playwright remembers the case and it influences him to write a musical about greasers and hotrods.ShulMaven (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A number of national AP and UP articles from 1954 are confirmed, as are a string of subsequent Sun articles and elsewhere to the present day. Far more notable than many other murder articles that have passed AfD in the past, except perhaps that this one is 60 years old and it requires a bit more work on our part to source it.
  • Nov 9, 1954 UP [99]
  • Nov 9, 1955 AP [100]
  • Nov 11, 1954 AP [101]
  • Nov 12, 1954 UP [102]
  • Nov 14, 1954 AP [103]
  • Nov 16, 1954 AP [104]
  • Dec 17, 1954 (Sun) [105]
  • May 17, 1955 (Sun) [106]
  • May 29, 1955 (Sun) [107]
  • June 15, 1956 (Sun) [108]
  • Oct 24, 1958 (Sun) [109]
  • Jan 14, 1959 (Sun) [110]
  • Jul 1, 1960 (Sun) [111]
  • March 18, 2000 Baltimore Sun [112]
  • April 3, 2008 (Broadway.com) [113]
--Milowent • hasspoken 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The murder was on November 8, 1954 and your results show that coverage of it outside of the Baltimore area ceased 8 days afterwards. The 2008 article in Broadway.com gives three sentences to the murder in a blurb about Waters' inspiration for Cry-Baby. This likely warrants a sentence or two in that article, but for a stand-alone article one trivial mention in 60 years outside of the local area is insufficient to pass the WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE subsections of WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, the murder did receive coverage in places far from Baltimore and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There is also the Baltimore Sun coverage continuing for years afterwards, and the two columns from 2010. Plus the fact that in addition to the article you mention, Waters discussed the murder in his autobiography. Why delete a well-sourced article on a murder that was once something of a thing in Baltimore?ShulMaven (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, this is an article about an event (i.e. a murder) and the most relevant guideline for events is WP:EVENT. There is no indication that Murder of Carolyn Wasilewski would ever have passed that guideline, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't apply. - Location (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you guys don't mind, I cleaned up the formatting of this discussion to make it easier to follow. Agree that WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply, since it's definitely an event. Per WP:BIO1E, I think it is uncontroversial that if we keep this article, it will need to move to Death of Carolyn Wasilewski. I would agree that there was at least national coverage of the initial murder, but there doesn't seem to have been any persistent interest outside of the local Baltimore papers. All references to the murder after 1954 are either in the Baltimore Sun (which for most of them is just reporting on the continued progress of the local investigation, and for the more recent ones are essentially local flavor pieces), or John Waters mentioning the event in connection with his film - which isn't actually about the event, just inspired by the event. The fact that the highest profile coverage of the event is directly related to Cry-Baby is a point in favor of a merge-and-redirect. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:19, 7 November 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 03:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this argument anything other than WP:OTHERSTUFF? I'll also note that Moors murders is an Featured article with extensive citations from various reliable sources, including several books on the topic of the murders. As far as I can tell, the extent of the coverage of this Carolyn Wasilewski murder is a brief spat of international coverage, and then intermittent local-news (local to where the event happened) updates on the progress of the investigation, which peters out in the 60s, and then one or two, again, local-news follow-ups on the story 50 years after the initial event. The two aren't even remotely comparable in notability or coverage. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 19:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Absolutely. Keep and rename. Some murders are notable precisely because of the attention they draw.ShulMaven (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Dueno[edit]

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

non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Martínez (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable run of the mill minor league player. Fails GNG. Sources are all routine. Yankees10 03:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa County Association for Paranormal Scientific Studies[edit]

Mesa County Association for Paranormal Scientific Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG, no in-depth coverage by independent secondary sources that demonstrate lasting or widespread notability, aside from trivial mentions in seasonal (Halloween) stories on a local news website. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copy vio problems have been taken care of, and consesus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pond Creek Masonic Lodge No. 125[edit]

Pond Creek Masonic Lodge No. 125 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable building. Sammy1339 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The property is on the NRHP (10000622), but NRHP nominations are not public domain. Articles have been deleted as copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given that comment, I've deleted the (possibly) copied text, which was excessively detailed in any case. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G7: the creator/sole contributor has requested deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson-Campbell Subset Algorithm[edit]

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

This looks like garbage to me and is probably OR. It was prodded for these reasons, but I thought it was too technical a subject for that process so I listed it here instead. Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeskAlerts[edit]

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

WP:CORP - sources do not appear to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. The article was moved out of the Draft namespace by a SPA which seems very suspicious to me. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More