The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodriguez Australian Tour 2007[edit]

Rodriguez Australian Tour 2007 (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, orphaned and non-notable concert tour that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT. The article has been tagged as only using primary sources for over seven years, but it actually has no sources. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not notable, fails WP:CONCERT TOUR. Keri (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss and Mister Catalan Nation[edit]

Miss and Mister Catalan Nation (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 based on dead links with no articles at all for the winners. This pageants with just three mentioned editions, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. Keri (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Elias[edit]

Marcos Elias (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)

Technically unsourced biography of a living person, because most of the external links are dead. Those that work, are either self-published by the subject, or do not mention the subject at all. I do not see notability established. bender235 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. Keri (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paralyzed (Agnez Mo song)[edit]

Paralyzed (Agnez Mo 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)

Unotable album that is a coi also. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janji-Janji Wgolf (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. Keri (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naraparaju Ramchander Rao[edit]

Naraparaju Ramchander Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced article that reads like promo for this politician The Banner talk 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now meets WP:POLITICIAN#1 as a member of the Telangana Legislative Council.[1] Though the article could do with a thorough rewrite - it was fairly obviously written in support of the subject's candidacy, and the only thing saving it now is that his election was announced last week. PWilkinson (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All Politicians do not meet [Wikipedia:BLP|BLP]]. This article does not qualify BLP marginally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, per WP:POLITICIAN all state assembly members are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLITICIAN; agree with Peter above that it does need some fixing up, however. Keri (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus that the article is notable (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GMB Akash[edit]

GMB Akash (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 written like a self-promoting resume. Not notable enough as a photographer. No non-trivial coverage on news and media found. There are many photographers of similar profile in Bangladesh; we are not gonna make a directory of all of them on Wikipedia. nafSadh did say 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. nafSadh did say 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, on the basis Akash has won a number of significant awards, as proven by the UK news articles. He seems to be a widely exhibited international photographer. The excessive tag-bombing last month was not entirely justified. Of course, I'm not convinced everything on that list is actually an award and the article could do with better secondary sourcing. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could say WP:TOOSOON, but it is too too soon. ~ nafSadh did say 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Represented by Panos Pictures. (Which is currently a red link, which just goes to show that Wikipedia is a bit ... challenged.) Poor article, dismally sourced, on somebody who is clearly noteworthy. If there are indeed many photographers of similar profile in Bangladesh, I hope we are gonna make a directory of all of them on Wikipedia. (Though of course reliably sourced.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable photographer, poor quality of article is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Keri (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete all j⚛e decker^talk 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society[edit]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society (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)

Appears to be a non notable "award mill". Some mentions online, but those are mostly blogs and industry publications, not mainstream reliable sources. Wikipedia really doesn't need an article on every award mill in existence. Additionally, I am nominating:

• Comment Ok, I think that is everything. Safiel (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of them - non-notable WP:PROMO. terrible. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of them for reasons above, and for parity with other non-notable regional film-critic groups that have been deleted for lack of secondary sourcing for notability and whose greatest exposure comes from Wikipedia itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was IAR close. The nomination has been withdrawn and discussion has moved to Talk:Bombay_Time_(time_zone)#Requested_move_2_April_2015. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Time[edit]

Bombay Time (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)

DAB page where only one article belongs now (since the other was deleted Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC) withdrawn[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as Housekeeping, and move Bombay Time (time zone) -> Bombay Time. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 1st entry does meet MOS:DABMENTION and there is a very similar see also I've added. I think it is borderline whether this should be a requested move Bombay Time to Bombay Time (disambiguation), and the time zone put at the primary, or just establish time zone as primary with hatnote(s). Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No need for a dab page: add both hatnote links to the time zone article and move it to the base name (ie Boleyn's 2nd option). Needs to be a formal WP:RM of the time zone article, I suppose. PamD 09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the hatnotes to Bombay Time (time zone). @Wgolf: would you like to withdraw the nomination so we can put this up at WP:RM? (I'd have done it myself but I think it probably gets complicated to have an AfD and a RM going on simlutaneously) PamD 09:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Done! Wgolf (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: RM now at Talk:Bombay Time (time zone) PamD 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: "Keep" doesn't seem quite accurate as a description of the outcome here. As I understand it, the outcome is to move the discussion to Talk:Bombay Time (time zone), where an RM request has been opened. The outcome of that RM might confirm the suggestion to delete the dab page that was the topic of this AfD. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note self reverted NAC closure after the above comment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted.. Sam Walton (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scopia Effect (movie)[edit]

The Scopia Effect (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recently released film which doesn't appear to be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Johns[edit]

The Johns (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)

Obscure band with no refs at all and can't find any notability. As a side note I also just prodded a article under The Johns (Chicago band) (which the only reason why I found this was because I was wondering what the johns would link to-trying to avoid making a toilet joke lol) Wgolf (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

somehow this got afd twice. Not sure how that happened! Wgolf (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - clearly WP:PROMO. looked for sources, found none, although the creator's edit note reads "(Established page for The johns, a top performiung act out of NYC with international name recognition)" I think that says it all. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced, promotional, non-notable under any criteria, this source is a copy from Wikipedia. This video] shows a live performance with about half a dozen spectators. Kraxler (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Baron[edit]

Natalia Baron (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)

Actress with little notability who basically is just a guest star on tv shows (if you can consider her a guest star since she wouldn't be notable enough to be one). Outside of Boston Public all of her guest appearances are basically 1 or 2 episodes a show. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A series of guest appearances don't get past WP:NACTOR, nor does an infrequent supporting role on a show. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This looks like a vanity page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1769 Carlostorres[edit]

1769 Carlostorres (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)

Doesnt meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• keep (redirect to list) per WP:NASTRO and estensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST these should redirect to the list -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. It's accepted practice! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, Astrocog, I think it is, but Tom.Reding may want to comment here, because Tom asked me to stop redirecting the asteroids below the number 2000. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just reflecting the consensus I noticed earlier this year here regarding another user redirecting asteroids <= 2000, which were eventually unredirected. As long as the relevant projects are notified, I don't care.

It might be more appropriate for you to do the notification, however, since the number of users watching these pages is probably low. I'm glad 65.94.43.89 happened on these.

Redirect My opinion, if the only information on these pages can also be fully expressed in a list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AFAIR, the idea was that for asteroids <2000 that each be evaluated independently and individually, and not end up in bundle nominations or bot-assisted-redirection or mass redirects (such as AWB) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Astrocog. I couldn't find any suitable scholarly references; only Schmadel (2003). Praemonitus (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarón Fernández Sorroche[edit]

Aarón Fernández Sorroche (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY, never played for anything above Segunda División B. PROD was contested based on inadequately supported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I've added a PROD before, never played in any professional level and is not notable enough. MYS77 ^✉ 20:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG --–Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, they've said the policy above, never played in the pros. Kharkiv07^Talk 04:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 3rd level players are not default notable, nothing else would cause him to pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1579 Herrick[edit]

1579 Herrick (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 WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Could be worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep (redirect to list) per extensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST and per recommendations at WP:NASTRO -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Follows the practice of our WP:NASTRO guideline. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Astrocog due to lack of suitable sources. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoaxa! j⚛e decker^talk 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O-Ha![edit]

O-Ha! (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)

Short lived tv show with only 4 episodes (even though oddly it says 29 on the side bar) that has no refs at all and can't find info (but to be fair-with a title like O-ha it be kind of hard to find the exact title) Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This show may never have even existed, given that most of the few Google results for it are Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning-I just tagged it as a hoax and am going to send it to the hoax talk page. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-the creator of the article was blocked for creating hoaxes it seems. I have tagged a few of his articles recently for being unreferenced and possibly non notable(surprised none of them had these tags!) Only about 2 or 3 of the shows I have found he created articles for actually had either a IMDB page or a wiki page in another language even! Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Zero references to this television programme; not even IMDB has a page about it. Thus this programme is a fake. The Snowager-is awake 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no non-Wiki references when using Google. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tempe Girl[edit]

Tempe Girl (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 second AFD from Template:Unidentified decedent after fellow non-notable not-news subject Lyle Stevik. The most notable thing about this article is that it hosts the authors own original illustration of the subject.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no historical significance to this death. Aside from the local news sources, the subject has been the subject of a single CNN article in their cold cases column, and an appearance in a forensics trade publication. This is not significant coverage, every national newspaper covers more notable topics on every single page, every single day. - hahnchen 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, subject is notable per WP:Victim and WP:ONEEVENT. CNN is still a nationwide publication, yes? Still a reasonable amount of recognition if the topic makes national news. See related discussion at this link which adequately applies to this nomination. As mentioned in the AFD for Pemiscot County Does, the fact that this article contains "amateur self-illustrated portraits" has absolutely no relevance to indicate if the cases are notable but simply reduces the amount of non-free images to be uploaded --GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject meets WP:VICTIM.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is clearly forum shopping by hahnchen to impose his subjective (not objective) view of what Wikipedia should be. Paul Austin (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG - Notability is there so seeing no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (keep). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 18:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Boulevard[edit]

Brussels Boulevard (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 difficult, because I don't speak Bulgarian. I couldn't establish that this street meets WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged as such for over 3 years (tagged by MilkStraw532. It has mentions online/in the news, but not enough that I am convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:GNG explicitly permits the use of non-English sources as evidence of notability. Just a few seconds of searching yields plenty of coverage from the likes of Bulgaria Dnes, bTV (Bulgaria) and TV7 (Bulgaria). [2][3] [4] That's probably why Andreas Philopater de-prodded the nom's prod. English language editors not speaking a foreign language or not bothering to do a translate of web-available foreign language work is not a reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oakshade, there is no need to be rude. From reading my nomination, you can see that I have written that it has mentions online and in the news. My concern is whether they meet the criteria of being significant mentions and whether the mentions add up to WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• By reding your nomination you indicate that you didn't know if it was notable because you "don't speak Bulgarian." Not being being able to determine the significance of coverage in non-English sources, or not even trying to (see WP:BEFORE), is not a reason to AfD an article. AfD is used when we truly believe a topic doesn't merit an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your total misreading. I stated that 'this is difficult, because I don't speak Bulgarian.' That is a little different from 'This should be deleted, because I don't speak Bulgarian.' The rest of my discussion - ' It has mentions online/in the news, but not enough that I am convinced it is notable' shows clear WP:BEFORE. Please don't assume bad faith and bite people's heads off based on your misreading. Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This road seems to be on a par with roads such as Norodom Boulevard, which is notable. If sufficient sources can be found, as users above have indicated they can, then there is no reason this article cannot be kept and expanded. Rcsprinter¹²³ (relate) @ 09:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade and Rcsprinter123 - Nominating because "you don't speak Bulgarian" is pretty much disruptive - I don't speak German so should we get rid of every German-related article on here?, Anyway even I have found sources [5][6], Think I might go and nominate Hohenzollern Castle on the basis that I can't read German... –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Davey2010, you've completely misread my words, which I have also clarified above. I in no way said that I nominated this because I don't speak Bulgarian. Happy to withdraw nomination accepting the assessments above. Thanks to everyone who commented on the notability of this article. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Boleyn - It too me honestly reads like "I don't know the language so I'll nominate it", I sincerely apologize If I'm wrong but that's how I perceived it to be, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Gopinath[edit]

Suhas_Gopinath (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete - This article contains content that is written totally like an advertisement. Even though Gopinath is not at all a significant entrepreneur to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for people who have just received some awards, even though the awards are also not significant. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In support to Keep the article I would like to share these independent links to enhance the credibility of the article and even Jimmy Wales has supported against the vandalism on this article two times. None of the News Agencies have used this article as the source of reference. Even the press about Suhas Gopinath by The Economist is also a validation. I am surprised that this article that has been there for so many years is flagged for deletion, request to independently verify the news sources below:

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 122.167.220.86 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Naveen Bombatkar — 122.167.220.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note to Closing Admin - I wouldn't be surprised to recognize the above 'Keep' vote by Suhas Gopinath himself in order to defend his article from getting deleted. Moreover as per the archives the claim made above that "Jimmy Wales has supported against Vandalism for this article is rather a false claim and should be simply ignored. Dormantos (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Dormantos^buzz 07:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Dormantos (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Dormantos seems to have registered specifically to comment on this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Dormantos has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. As such, I have striken his comments on this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject passes the GNG as indicated by the many reliable sources already in the article and others found in a quick news search. Past promotional editing (even if it occurred) is never a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Okay thanks ThaddeusB for your explanation. So shall I take it as you oppose my one point and accept my rest of the points mentioned above. I believe Wikipedia accept articles that have coverage in regular media and not creating sources based on claims made primarily on Wikipedia. I will surely respond if you have any queries regarding my research over the article. Dormantos (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dormantos, I think Suhas Gopinath is trying to be smart! And creating buzz for his article. Note for Suhas Gopinath & Globals Media: Nobody is late to enter in Wikipedia but you need to achieve a lot more in real life than you think. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the basis subject meets WP:GNG with online and (now) offline news coverage from 2003 to date. The sourcing could certainly do with tightening-up and improving, but that's not a reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Holds the title "The Youngest CEO" by the India Book of Records.[26]. Meets WP:SIGCOV as there are numerous sources available. Mkdw^talk 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of coverage in independent reliable sources, both in India and internationally, including a full-length biographical article in Der Spiegel. Easily passes WP:GNG. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I refactored this AFD. The nominator's statement had been pushed down out of order and the comments by Dormantos and others were nearly unreadable due to the mass bolding and prose/paragraph styles. The links were in long form as well. The discussion before the refactoring can be found here. Considering the edit patterns and format style of both the nominator and Dormantos, I have concerns about socking on both sides of this discussion. Mkdw^talk 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / Delete / Keep - OK everyone! If Wikipedia is now accepting the articles of these type of entrepreneurs by there publicity only and without knowing there financial details such as turnover etc. even the company is not also on Wikipedia then, I must say I have 100+ names of more popular entrepreneurs to write about. Shall I start writing about them? or This article is old, so that we have to give any kind of privileges. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Sharma's Knowledge, notability is not determined by things like financial detail and turnover. If enough reliable and independent sources have written about an individual, they are considered notable. Notability and success are two different things. Moreover, we treat companies very differently than how we treat articles about people. If you have 100+ other individuals, whom meet our WP:GNG policy, then I would say go ahead. However, you need a clear understanding of how GNG works to do so first. Mkdw^talk 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, Thanks for your deep explanation. I am reading Wikipedia from years and thought that the Wikipedia platform is for the people who are extremely popular in there work industry and have extreme Media Coverage. THE REASON OF NOMINATION - Because for example if industry icon such as - Manu Agarwal, Founder of Naaptol & others are not on Wikipedia then, a entrepreneur like Suhas Gopinath without having much popularity or financial releases in Media should not be on Wikipedia by my point of view. Else I am an Editor and the decision is in your hands as a Administrator there is no reason to debate further. Thanks Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have no more authority in AFD discussions than any other editor aside from closings. Your opinion and comments are equally valued to mine and it is the merits of our talking points against current policies and guidelines that should decide the outcome. The issue of what constitutes notability is a hotly debated topic and you are not alone in thinking that the current inclusion criteria is too relaxed. I would encourage you to continue to participate as notability can change as determined through consensus by the community. WP:NMUSIC is a good example where the criteria changed a considerable amount in the last few years. Mkdw^talk 20:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, Thanks for your explanation. I have created an basic article of Manu Agarwal, Founder of Naaptol. I am still in the process of editing and making article good, hope for your best support. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easily notable, if it's poorly written WP:JUSTFIXIT, don't drag it into AfD. Kharkiv07^Talk 05:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Referring to the List of Indian entrepreneurs, Kochuousep Chittilapilly, Anand Deshpande, Byrraju Ramialinga Raju, Dr. G. Surender Rao do not have their article even though their companies have a Wikipedia article. Also refer that Varun Agarwal has got a Wikipedia article even though his company Alma Mater Store hasn't got one. This was in reply to @Preeti Sharma's Knowledge. Commenting on accusing me of sock-puppetry by @Mkdw, it's quite surprising to see that anyone who opposes you are considered as sock puppets by you in your Wikipedia. Even I know that the consensus for this article is obviously keep and neither I have forced anyone to vote in my favour. I have listed the dead links and links to personal blogs in the article of Suhas Gopinath that needs to be rectified with more valid sources. I am new to Wikipedia and I need time to familiarise with it's policies. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Dormantos (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the SPI tag to the top of this AFD because you raised concerns about sock puppetry in the discussion and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Globals_media. You also listed several IPs in this discussion in a note to the closing admin. It was then I noticed that other editors had filed an SPI against you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64. I find it quite surprising that you'd come to the conclusion that "anyone who opposes [me] are considered sock puppets". I rarely participate at SPI nor did I file anything against you. It's rather ironic because I added the top template in support of comments you made. I think WP:BITE is a great policy, and aside from the SPI, which you shouldn't take personally, because if no wrongdoing has been done then it will settle the issue. I don't think anyone has mistreated you and plenty of people have taken the time to explain their positions despite this being a fairly clear cut case of meeting our main policy on notability. Likewise, if you expect others to be nice to you, then I suggest you carefully measure your words and avoid strong accusations like the broad statement you made about me in what I can assume good faith was a misunderstanding. Mkdw^talk 17:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Mkdw. I apologize for being harsh to you. I really don't know why I was under constant attack when I joined Wiki and posted on this Afd. Yes I do accept that I did vote numerous Afd seeing the content only and not going by the policies. But now I have gone through complete policies of WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:AFD, WP:AUTHOR as well. I am sorry for using hard words at you. Regret for that. I would expect this Afd to go in a healthy manner. Thanks for your polite correspondence. Dormantos (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kharkiv07 above. Easily notable per WP:BIO, strong coverage from multiple WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selia Elizabeth Jindal[edit]

Selia Elizabeth Jindal (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 and is known only as the daughter of Bobby Jindal. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• obvious delete Minor daughter with no claim whatsoever of personal notability. We should probably speedy these. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sounds like a prank. Not even a stub really. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BLP requires respect for minors. This may be WP:TOOSOON of course. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Definitely too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Seems speediable to me. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Snowball close. per all the above. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability = none, this probably should have been hit with a CSD. Kharkiv07^Talk 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Shaking my head that this made it through the speedy process (unsourced BLP of a clearly non-notable minor child of a politician). Carrite (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

California Writers Club[edit]

California Writers Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not 100% convinced on this, but as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years now, I felt that if I couldn't establish notability, it should be taken to AfD. Pinging Rbifan and Orangemike. The info in the article suggested notability, especially the CWC week and the connection to Jack London. However, London's group doesn't seem to be really connected with the organisation today. Essentially, although it looks notable, I wasn't able to verify it. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-The fact that Jack London was connected to this club is what actually made me not want to put this on a afd to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - please take a look again. Cited sources were on the page, just not incorporated as inline cites. I don't think this is a WP:GNG issue, this looks like a cleanup issue. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination Thanks to both the above commentators. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sinhagad[edit]

Battle of Sinhagad (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)

NILL sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have added a first source, found easily from a Google Books search. Was a WP:BEFORE check done for this nomination? Lack of references is a matter for article improvement (which can be prompted by adding an Unreferenced tag) rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The article gives asource. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind it. The first step should ahve been to tag as unreferneced, not for AFD. However, it is only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ballads sing of the martyrdom of Tanaji Malusare, the use of a ghorpad (lizard) in this battle. The fort was called Kondana at the time of the battle and renamed Sinhagad, in honour of Tanaji after the battle. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pratapgarh[edit]

Battle of Pratapgarh (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 FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: The article has a list of 6 book sources, so the two word nomination is incorrect. In addition, a WP:BEFORE check would locate more. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No Checkable / Verifiable sources. This makes edit warring to easy between contesting editors, therefore expending editors time when IP editors oppose each others interpretations. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The article gives SIX sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. They may not be Internet-accessible, but that does not mean they are not WP:RS. I know that they are not in-line referneces, but that is nmot a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-- This is very Important Article and give very important information with numbers. This article must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra.Kadam20 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pavan Khind[edit]

Battle of Pavan Khind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There aren't enough sources to warrant inclusion of this article in an encyclopedia. Even JSTOR comes up empty handed FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The article gives FIVE sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous Marathi sources would be available for this. The martyrdom of Baji Prabhu Deshpande in the battle is celebrated in Marathi folk songs and literature. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kolhapur[edit]

Battle of Kolhapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The article gives two sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per invalid deletion rationale, "it's unsourced" is not a reason to delete a page about a notable subject, that's why we have WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 12:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Bronxelles[edit]

Jean de Bronxelles (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 notability for living persons. Quick gBooks and gNews search reveal no references mentioning the article's subject. Possible unsourced BLP, as the sources cited lead to dead links. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable evidence of notability, and I would say the same about the African Wildlife Defence Force (AWDF). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I, too, WP:GOOGLETESTed this and found no evidence of notability. He does have a facebook page, however, implying that the subject exists. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimley School[edit]

Pimley School (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 was prodded. I removed it preferring to bring it here for discussion. Things I have seen on other pages have led me to believe schools have more leeway when it comes to notability. I would rather it be discussed here and left to the community to decide if the article should be kept or deleted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's a high school, and conventionally such schools are considered notable per WP:NHS. PamD 17:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - High schools are notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The school is not really notable because the school is not in the news at all, the only page sources are the school website, and the most one can write about Pimley school would still be a stub. Since it could only be a stub, why not just create a page about Ermine (organization), which owns the school, and then put the date on Pimley school and the other Ermine schools there? Kges1901 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does something need to be in the news to be notable? The media does not cover every story out there for a variety of editorial reasons. On top of that, IMHO, schools are extremely important because your future as well as mine depends on an educating today's children. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's nothing wrong with stubs, and in some cases there turns out to be sufficient content for a high school article to go beyond that. It might indeed be reasonable to write an article on the company that owns it. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Their website indicates ages 4-15, which isn't a secondary school so far as I am aware. Redirect if possible. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite. Whether or not the school is a secondary school or not is irrelevant (BTW, it sounds like it is a combined elementary and secondary school since secondary schools include junior highs) since the text can always be edited to reflect that. What matters is whether or not the school itself is wiki worthy, regardless of the ages of the students. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They educate to O level, which is the school leaving qualification under the British system. It is therefore very definitely a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 22:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyBachat[edit]

PolicyBachat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed by the creator-comes across as a advertisement and not quite notable Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources provided include press releases, blogs and other obvious non-RS sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing reliable, third-party coverage, which would be required to evidence notability. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jian (singer)[edit]

Li Jian (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

The article clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO CarlosWagners (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisifies WP:MUSICBIO at least #9, most recently with second place in I Am a Singer (Chinese TV series) season 3, and a handful of other awards dating back to 2006. Do see zh:李健 (歌手) and search by the Chinese name for expansion, where you should find at least the sort of interview with a Chinese newspaper. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisifies WP:MUSICBIO #2, he have been active in music industry for at least a decade with multiple albums recorded and sold in Asian region. His list of albums can be found in the chinese version of this page - zh:李健 (歌手) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.182.78 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:BASIC. zh:李健 (歌手) shows he has sufficient notability independent of the reality show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigng (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No argument for deletion was made by the nominator (just an expression of confusion that would have been better made on the talk page, if at all), so no point to relisting for further discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq[edit]

Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq (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)

What is the point of this article? Is it a disambiguation page? A list? Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is more or less a list. It can't be a disambiguation page because WP:DABCONCEPT (the terms are not independent, but subtopics of a general topic). It could be merged into 2003 invasion of Iraq, but that article is already enormous. bd2412 T 15:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Isis[edit]

Apache Isis (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 this WP:NOTABLE? I couldn't establish that it was, so have brought it to AfD as it has been tagged for notability for over 3 years. Tagged by Edison. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mercer[edit]

Heather Mercer (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 she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG; seems to be WP:1E. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Pinging those who have looked at it snotability before: Good Olfactory, Fourthords. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly worth a redirect to Prisoners of Hope. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd go along with BLP1E. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to Prisoners of Hope. But if a redirect is done, the bio information should be moved to Prisoners of Hope. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as she does have a notability or Merge. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BASIC. USA Today, CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has notability. Kharkiv07^Talk 05:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - GNG is satisfied and the BLP-1E objection overcome by the fact that she has received coverage for her "Global Hope" NGO. See, for example, THIS in Christianity Today. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Carrite -- as noted, she's notable for more than one event. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE without prejudice to the creation of a redirect j⚛e decker^talk 02:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliburn[edit]

Eliburn (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 WP:GNG, it has some basic Ghits but not much. As for WP:NPLACE, it depends if this is considered a 'larger neighbourhood' or 'smaller suburb' and I couldn't be sure that this falls into the former. As this has been tagged for notability for 7 years and I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY, I've taken it to AfD. If found non-notable, could be worth a redirect to Livingston. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0-41*[edit]

0-41* (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)

Could find no signs of notability for this movie in Malayalam. Be advised that I have removed the Plot Section as it was a copyright infringement. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-no info at all. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify notability at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per being TOO SOON. I found it on IMDB and found its official website and so gave the article a minor face lift but, as we do not have evidence of release and lack reliable sources, we have a failure of WP:NFF. Undeletion can be considered if or when inclusion guidelines are met. 08:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K Rend[edit]

K Rend (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 good independent refs that show notability outside its own professional niche. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability missing, searched for secondary sources didn't turn up anything. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per author's request. Not a notable company. -- haminoon (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY 8/24/04[edit]

Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY 8/24/04 (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)

Totally non notable "instant live" recording. Fails all notability guidelines. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation, no statements or votes were given in support of keep. Safiel (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete can't find any sources to verify this - SimonP (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This recording does not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. "P.S." Another one along similar lines -- and that was included (by me) in the first AfD nomination -- is Rosemont Theatre, Chicago, 9/01/04. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Techyantran[edit]

Techyantran (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)

Could find no signs of notability for the college event. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Chappell[edit]

Ken Chappell (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 he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Pinging the person who applied the notability tag Nancy and the person who nominated it for speedy deletion, WWGB. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not seem to be enough here to evaluate. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Paucity of sourcing showing, fails GNG. I would do more digging, but if my inclusionist friend Billy Hathorn says it isn't there, that's good enough for me. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Tidy-Harris[edit]

Sylvia Tidy-Harris (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 she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get resolution. Tagged by Trident13.Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG[edit]

Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG (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)

Satirical candidates are frequent in elections, especially in constituencies with well-known figures running. Unlike The Pub Landlord (who is known for his routine more than political activity) and the Monster Raving Loonies (a regular and widespread party), this is a one-off. Non-elected candidates are rarely notable, and this seems to be a one-man act, i.e. an Independent candidate with an eccentric routine '''tAD''' (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 3 sources, one of which is a tabloid. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN (as this appears to be a one-man band). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--withdrawn by nominator and no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 11:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashya King case[edit]

Ashya King case (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 lasting significance. Generated acres of newsprint and sensational coverage while it lasted, but Wikipedia is not news. Although not titled as a BLP it sails on the cusp of BLP1E. The case resulted in no changes to UK legislation and the individual is likely to return to being a low-profile individual. Keri (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New information emerging that proton beam therapy centres are opening in the UK for NHS patients. As this may be as a result of the King case, I'm withdrawing the nom at this stage. Keri (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfed[edit]

Tinfed (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 they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has beent agged for notability for 7 years (by TenPoundHammer) so time it was resolved. Possibly worth a redirect to member who later became notable elsewhere, or the film soundtrack they wwere featured on. Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, outside the Allmusic bio I can find no reliable sources nor any other way that they seem to meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find reliable, secondary coverage providing signficant coverage. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTEDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panther (development tool)[edit]

Panther (development tool) (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 can find no reliable sources about this tool and therefore no evidence of its notability. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probalign[edit]

Probalign (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)

Can't see any evidence of this tool's notability. This was the only source I could find with any depth that wasn't written by the creators. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, even though your linked source is in fact written by the creators - it's the paper they published describing the method. The paper has been cited 140 times, and the method was still producing reasonably competitive performance as recently as 2013-2014 benchmarks (described here and here). When other scientists discuss the method and compare it to their own work, that's perfectly good "secondary coverage". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A relatively well known method. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument advanced of separate notability. Merge is counter-indicated for copyvio'd material. Closure is without prejudice to a redirect. j⚛e decker^talk 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Canterbury Tales: The Reeve Prologue[edit]

The Canterbury Tales: The Reeve Prologue (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)

Dubious article about a prelude to The Canterbury Tales. I guess it would be notable if we could demonstrate that it exists, but the text here is copyvio from another non-free site and a dump of -- well, it's not a table of context, but there's no context given to describe what the list means. Almost speedy because of the copyvio, but not quite, so we're here at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does exist, insofar as the material being covered here is the introduction to Oswald the Reeve from the General Prologue, lines 589–624. However, I can't see any basis for dealing with the General Prologue in this manner. What is sometimes called the "Reeve's Prologue" is his sermonizing at the start of The Reeve's Tale. Add in the potential copyright issues with the prose here, and I don't see anything worth retaining. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So best to delete, or redirect to The Reeve's Tale, or merge to that same topic? OMG LOL IDK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm not seeing keeping an article on what really isn't a separate section. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner Twins[edit]

Winner Twins (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)

Plenty of press releases and primary sources, but only one arguably third-party independent reliable source, a small piece from the Orange County Register, a local paper where the subjects live. Articles (especially biographies) require multiple third-party reliable sources, and this subject has only one. The subject has been tagged since July, and has had these issues since 2012. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; an article needs more than press releases being churned out to make it a notable subject. Aoidh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Nom. All that hype and 29 Twitter followers. Seriously, I can find nothing beyond a couple of articles in the local Orange Country Register.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valence Industries[edit]

Valence Industries (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)