The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, borderline WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Russell (professor)[edit]

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

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

Non notable professor and politician-was unsuccessful in a congressman race. Wgolf (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete running in a local election [1] just isn't enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of passing WP:PROF yet. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither WP:PROF nor WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable at this time —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 18 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 moot at the moment. Johnstontouch has moved the article to Draft space, and I'll delete the redirect from mainspace per CSD R2. If/when the article is restored to mainspace, anyone is welcome to renominate it (or tag it for speedy deletion if appropriate). Deor (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Boy: Tales of a Teenage Zombie (Animated Series)[edit]

Z-Boy: Tales of a Teenage Zombie (Animated Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of significance or notability. Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you actually let me edit this article, I can show it's significance and notability. I just started editing this article. johnstontouch (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Email a copy to Johnstontouch and delete the original. Neither Kickstarter.com nor Buzzfeed are reliable sources. If Wikipedia article author Johnstontouch could cite the online version of a widely-circulated print newspaper or magazine, that would be ideal. However, I suspect that such sources probably don't cover this web series. Therefore, I believe this article should be moved from Wikipedia to another location. Once we establish a consensus the article is unwanted here, we should email a copy to Johnstontouch and delete it from Wikipedia. Johnstontouch can then repost the article on a wiki which is about web series or about animated series, or can repost it on Everything2, Wikinfo, h2g2, or the Annex. Also, dear Johnstontouch:
  1. Since you are a new Wikipedian, you can learn a lot from other Wikipedians about Wikipedia's rules and norms. It is unwise to ignore their words, and it is unwise to revert their changes without explanation — and you seem to have done each of these things at least once already. If you keep it up, you may end up wasting significant time on writing articles which just get deleted in the end. Also, you may develop a reputation as an editor who is stubborn and who does what he wants instead of what is good for Wikipedia. This will encourage other editors to be merciless when considering whether or not your work should be deleted. It will also discourage other editors from helping you.
  2. There's still some hope for you, but you've been proving yourself mostly unworthy so far. I have turned upon other users before. I believe that I played a part in getting COI SPA User:Wiki12rt to leave Wikipedia in frustration[2], and in getting paid advocate User:LukeGilkerson to leave in frustration also[3]. Again, I do encourage you try to become more flexible and to respectfully consider what the community would like instead of just what you want.
  3. It can take some time to develop a good sense of notability judgment. You might even want to check your judgments with our live help chat volunteers until they improve sufficiently.
  4. I pointed you to WP:42 two months ago.[4] Have you read it yet?

Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks!!! ;) I have a request, can you help me turn the page into a draft? I am still editing it. As a human being who works 2nd shift for a job, I want to be able to contribute when I can. Nobody's perfect, and I'm still trying to get the hang of Wikipedia. Let's work together. I am also aware that those two sources are not credible. I believe more sources will arrive when the project pushes its way into mainstream animation. —johnstontouch (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was able to move the page to drafts, I want to work on it more and provide more sources. Just an FYI, and thanks. I have to improve on the standards. —johnstontouch (talk) 01:23, 16 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. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippines international footballers born outside the Philippines[edit]

List of Philippines international footballers born outside the Philippines (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)

It is not notable because it is trivial and no references. AndaleCaballo (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - too random; see WP:LIST. Why does this matter? Bearian (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, entire article is subject to WP:BURDEN. Why can't this be an embedded list in Philippines national football team?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Given that football only really became big here a few years ago, and thus there aren't that many locally-bred players yet, this list would become too big to handle. A selective merge to Philippines national football team is a possibility, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 17 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda's Sweet Shoppe[edit]

Zelda's Sweet Shoppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Illinois bakery, minimal WP:CORPDEPTH, tagged for notability for almost 7 years so it's probably well past time to discuss this. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Cheap promo article. Educationtemple (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Some coverage exists, such as [5], [6], but not finding significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suggest the best thing for this content would be to list the shoppe in WikiVoyage, it sounds like a cool place. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails all of the relevant notability guidelines. Kharkiv07^Talk 21:42, 19 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.  Sandstein  20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Visual Effects Companies In India[edit]

List of Visual Effects Companies In India (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 page contains four VFX studios "based" in India. Famous Studios is based in Miami, FL; Trace VFX is based in New York City, NY. The only two companies that are actually based in India are Red Chillies Entertainment and Prime Focus Limited. It is unnecessary to create a "List of..." article that only includes two items. Rayukk (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rayukk (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is hard to believe that there are just two visual effects companies in India. It seems much more likely that the list is just incomplete and needs expansion. We should ask, what kind of criteria should this list article have? Common selection criteria is outlined at WP:CSC. A brief search turned up this, which mentions Crest Studios. There are probably more out there that research can turn up. Rayukk, what do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you, there are definitely more than two vfx companies in India, but I hardly believe this article qualifies as encyclopedic content. Most countries probably have more than two VFX companies, but there are no articles for that either. I think it would be sufficient to create a subcategory (e.g. "Visual effects company based in India") under companies, vfx, India,... and be done with it. Rayukk (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if it has not been done before, we could be onto something new. :) As for replacing the list with a category, WP:CLT says that categories and lists should not be considered in conflict with each other. Sometimes we can have both, sometimes we have one or the other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  BeenAroundAWhile, why is it not encyclopedic? WP:NOTESAL covers the notability of stand-alone lists says that there can be a case for "more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria [that] may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". For example, we see list of companies having different lists of companies. A list of visual effects companies can exist, it is just that no one has done it yet. It seems appropriate to group these companies further by territory, which we often do in film-related categories. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is pretty obvious this article was created by someone who is probably proud of his country for being home to VFX companies. Of course that's not a bad thing, but I think it's unnecessary for the sole reason that it's unencyclopedic. Here you can find the version of the article when it was first created. After the two companies that are not based in India are removed, the article will consists of merely two notable companies. I hope you agree with me that there is no need in an article that lists two items. --Rayukk (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I am suggesting going beyond the original intent. For example, if someone created an article to promote a minor celebrity, and we editors found that the celebrity was notable, we would keep the article and clean it up to lack a promotional tone. For this list, we could add other companies we find so it would be somewhat fuller list and perhaps inspire other editors to start similar VFX-related lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but like you said, if "we editors found that the celebrity was notable"... I (and I think BeenAroundAWhile too) definitely do not find it notable though. :) Rayukk (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a directory: the article is too specialized and it itself is an orphan. Otherwise Singapore can have its own article too. Secondly and more importantly, this list lacks reliable sources. Finally, categories are a perfect substitute and a more appropriate method in contrast to this list. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 21 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 '. Deleted G11 by Jimfbleak j⚛e decker^talk 15:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer wood[edit]

Spencer wood (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)

Promotional WP:AUTOBIO, much of bio is unsourced ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom. Educationtemple (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A highly promotional self-serving autobiography. I've tagged it for a speedy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 13 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. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seguku Women's Association[edit]

Seguku Women's Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A worthy organisation, but I couldn't establish how they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom. No mention of this group in google whatsoever. Not notable. Promo article of a for profit. Educationtemple (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May well be a worthy organization but there are no reliable sources that provide significant independent coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:02, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravest Crime[edit]

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

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

Article about an (unpublished?) essay. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-The Italian wiki is a bit longer and might be able to help on that (I just put the expand language tag) Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like the it.wiki article has the same issue with sourcing. The sources are the essay itself and another self-published document on the author's website.- MrX 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know italian but this article also not sourced. Can someone nominate it for afd there? Seems to be extreme case of misuse of wiki! Educationtemple (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom. Anyone can write an essay. WP is not a noticeboard for notification about essays. Educationtemple (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Sorry for not having written enough to conform at Wikipedia's standards. The essay is not just a byproduct of the the author's thinking, it has been reviewed and adviced by several economists-consultants such as L. Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, John F. Henry, Bill Mitchell, Alain Parguez etc., perhaps it would be better to add this information into the article.--Marco Sciortino (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - It was not appropriate any way to create this article while a full biography article about the subject was already on WP. I can not suggest even for a merger now since the bio also has been nominated in afd. Educationtemple (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment-Sorry, but I don't see the point. The aim of the article is to further deepen the knowledge about the essay, what does the author's biography matter? --Marco Sciortino (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Let some other editor explain this point and comment. Educationtemple (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The only references provided are to a copy of the ebook and to the author's website. While the article claims "The book is well-known", no references are provided to back up that claim and I can find none myself. The notability criteria requires "significant coverage" by sources "independent of the subject". Therefore, delete unless such coverage can be provided. maclean (talk) 19:53, 20 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. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TinyCog[edit]

TinyCog (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. Non-notable software. No independent references provided. --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN, Search came up empty for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom. WP:PROMO Educationtemple (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT, lack of coverage in reliable sources. If a target for merging or redirecting can be found, then merge or redirect instead. Esquivalience ^t 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: zero references. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's basically nothing out there on this. It seems too soon for an article as of yet. The few hits that do come up in a Google search are basically typos in novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 18 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. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firnas Airways[edit]

Firnas Airways (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)

Alleged prospective airline with no coverage. The references link to their own SNS profiles and a poll they set up. Speedy was declined. Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN recommend listing this information in a directory per WP:ALTERNATIVE. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom. Cheap Promo. Educationtemple (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google, Guardian) turn up nothing on this firm. I'm not sure why this didn't go by CSD A7: Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin and FreeOnlineSurveys fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH by a long distance. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess airlines meet the WP:A7 bar - wherever that bar might be actually set - no matter what; A7 is not applicable if the reliability of the sources is what's under question. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 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. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O2Jam[edit]

O2Jam (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:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get this resolved. Notifying Woodroar, Marasmusine. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN, I was unable to find any coverage any coverage beyond routine mentions of any game WP:ROUTINE, the only Scholarly article on the evolution of the Chinese gaming industry mentions in a list but nothing else. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend create an article for this content in Wikia.com Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no references since 2007. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only meaningful hit (apart from press releases and listings) in a video game reliable sources custom Google search was this review. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (especially non-English and offline) sources are found. czar ⨹ 21:10, 15 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. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetteh Plahar[edit]

Tetteh Plahar (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)

Having recently found this article misplaced, I moved it to article space and then looked again, and recognised the subject. While I acknowledge that User:Rberchie has improved the article significantly from its original incarnation (which was deleted in an earlier AFD), I am afraid I still can't find sufficient evidence for notability and I am bringing back for discussion. I would like to see that this man is notable because African fashion design is under-represented on Wikipedia, (and I did try to find sources for the AFD last year too) but sources/evidence simply don't appear to be out there. So I'm sorry, but without sources, this should either be moved back to user space, or deleted again as its' basically an unsourced BLP - the only sources are directory listings or don't have a direct link to the context apart from the BuzzGhana link (and I had to go to page 12 to find a single name-check there...). Sorry, but it has to be a delete vote again. Mabalu (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN the article misses notability and should be deleted. The article has a feel of WP:PROMOTION. If the editors involved wanted they could make a article in WikiBios.com but the topic isn't notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete-already deleted. Wgolf (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 14 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 The author has some notability retain history. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Quinn[edit]

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

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

Non-notable character from a YA series. No article currently exists for either the series (Father of Lies Chronicles) or the author, Alan Early. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-I did put up the prod that was removed. The only link this goes to is a real person with this name (or rather the only article that has this name listed). So yes I do agree with this nom. Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete misses encyclapedic notabile for WPL:GNG and WP:NBOOK, I would recommend writing about this material on a literature wiki in Wikia or another location. but wikipedia isn't the best home for this topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete-Per nom. Educationtemple (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alan Early. I did find just enough reviews to where this guy just barely scrapes by notability guidelines, but just by the skin of his teeth. Since he now has an article, this would be a valid enough redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Ali Mahdi[edit]

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

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

Notability missing. Sources cited are poor, facebook and google scholar pages. Did not find anything in google about his contributions, that could be added to improve the article. Recommended afd Educationtemple (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN, a search turns up some texts written that could serve as primary sources, but no significant coverage from secondary sources. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing a bio on this content in WikiBios.com Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 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 Deleted (G7) by RHaworth. NAC –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Joo-hyun[edit]

Bae Joo-hyun (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)

Rather questionable notability here for this singer. Her alternate name that is mentioned is a redirect already to the band (as see by Irene Bae.) Wgolf (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the page was blanked by the creator so it seems there's a strong consensus on its being deleted. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-well it could also just be a redirect to the band like her alternate name, but since it was deleted by the creator....Wgolf (talk) 19:23, 12 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) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiti Hasan[edit]

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

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

Not a notable figure. Could not find any significant contribution to Indian Science and Technology that could justify inclusion on WP. Educationtemple (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN, while Gaiti Hasan has written multiple papers, she hasn't had much in the way of papers written about her or her work. (that I could find from a search) per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing a biography about Ms Hasan in WikiBios but notability is missing for an encyclapedic entry. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. Thanks for informing me of your nomination for the deletion of the Gaiti Hasan article. I find it rather disturbing that as Wikipedia and Wikimedians do their best to recognise that quality includes greater diversity in information (both gender and geography), this and other such articles about women scientists from India are being considered for deletion. As a datapoint you're likely familiar with Educationtemple and Bryce Carmony, only 20-30% of WP articles currently come from the Global South (which comprises over 80% of the world's population) and our coverage of female-related content is poor (with only 1 in 10 of our contributors projected to be women).

In fact, this particular article was part of the Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon held in Bangalore last year, held in order to improve writing about women scientists from India. The list of women scientists that needed enWP articles was created by a group of Indian scientists from a highly reputed Indian science research institution, and I would suggest that their understanding of notability is to be relied upon.

Sadly, notability is an issue I face repeatedly as I work on women of note from the Global South in multiple spheres - notability cannot only be established by the publishing of scholarship _about_ people, when there is a systemic bias to publishing that exists both about notable people in the Global South and about women; and of course, doubly so for a woman from the Global South. :-( Notability, of course, is also contextual; for example, not everyone in the world recognises Oreos to be notable when many of us may never have seen or eaten one in our lives! As a Wikipedian, I do, of course, understand that the way we have defined notability has its own constraints; however, in a space of scholarship that is clearly educational - i.e. about women scientists - I would suggest we be bold, rather than be limited in our view of inclusion. I invite the convenor of this edit-a-thon, Shyamal and other contributors like Netha to comment on this nomination for deletion as well. I also invite you both, Educationtemple and Bryce Carmony, to be allies in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission: we cannot achieve the 'sum of human knowledge' if we do not recognise the institutional biases inherent in knowledge systems, and do our best not to make Wikipedia fallible to them. thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally respect your views about women. But one has to prove notability (irrespective of gender) if the bio of living person has to be on WP. Let other learned editors comments and/or add more reliable sources/citations to the article to show some national contributions at least, if not international to pass the WP:ACADEMIC criteria by the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can sympathize that society doles out notability in an arbitrary way. But it isn't the role of Wikipedia to correct these societal wrongs. certainly attractive actors have an easier time becoming notable then unattractive actors, but the myopic idea to lower standards for notability of different people based on geography, gender, etc. would create more problems than it would solve. Wikipedia has articles on notability it doesn't create notability by writing articles. I would recommend creating a Wiki on Wikia about "Women in science" or something along those lines. Where you can go indepth describing the contributions. Wikipedia is not Atlas carrying the world on its shoulders its simply an encyclopedia. Editing the content is not editing the world there's lots we can do to make the world a better place. But that doesn't change the lack of notability for this article I'm still in favor of deleting it from the encyclopedia.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the civil nature of this conversation (and thank you for your appreciation elsewhere, Bryce Carmony!), but I do think we need to think seriously about the rabbit hole that is notability for those who are already marginalised in terms of recognition, not actual notable work. And respectfully, I don't believe that Wikipedians can abdicate responsibility for not recognising systemic bias in publishing; that is at the core of our mission, not the periphery. :-) However, to be pragmatic and hopefully helpful to your dedicated work, Educationtemple, I have also added a section on awards received by Gaiti Hasan. I hope that will fit some of the notability criteria. Many thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete, there are more material about her here, [7], some bio (she is part of the "Women in Science Initiative" from India) Dianakc (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the pdf link file suggested above is autobiography. Editors carefully decide whether to take it as reliable source. But agree that she is fellow of Indian Academy of Science Educationtemple (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Dianakc! Anasuyas (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.She is definitely notable in the Indian context. It is unfair to compare notability as applicable in the context of the Western academic world to someone in India's fledgeling scientific world. An Indian woman scientist with PhD from Cambridge, member of the Indian Academy of Sciences and working in the most prestigious cell biology & biochemistry institution in India? Notable imho. AshLin (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Suggest all of you use either *'''Keep''' or *'''Delete''' as a standard format so that your vote is counted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Dianakc and AshLin. You cannot apply the same rules that apply for an American page here. Systemic bias is rampant, but we need to figure a way to work around it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Heads a lab, full professor at a major institution, lots of high impact papers, fellow of a national academy. Molecular biology today is not one for individual claims to glory but large scale teamwork and clearly she is a major node in the network. Also note that there is nothing specifically "Indian" to look for in molecular biology - so looking for "contribution to Indian Science and Technology" is a bit of a red herring. Shyamal (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per AshLin. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:PROF #3, as a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think there are enough keeps. The afd may please be closed by an admin as appropriate as "Keep" at appropriate time. Having said so, I am firm on my reasonings (please read my last comment on other afd here) which apply to this article too. I still do not see even a single Secondary source to support even a single claim within the article!! In my firm view, and knowledge of WP rules, reliable sources are must to substantiate the claims on notability of a subject in the article. Lets see - how other editors justify a keep in the absence of secondary sources to substantiate the claims and keep the article. I also request Anasuyas to please correct the citation No 5 (in the article), since it is flagging in red now after your recent editing. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment, typically these go for at least seven days before the decision is closed. I see no reason for us to tempt fate and bring on the Wikilawyering by closing this one early; nobody gets hurt if we do it by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The argument for "keep" is saying "yes she isn't notable but at a lower standard she is notable" When the voice for "keep" agrees that this is a non-notable topic what choice do we have but to delete? If someone wants to put forward the idea that Gaiti Hasan is notable and has received significant coverage from secondary sources I will entertain that, but any argument "no she's not notable but..." is hardly persuasive in my mind. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah people keep saying WP:PROF #3, and I just don't see that. What highly selective society is this person a part of?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. FIAS meets the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS #3. Given the size of India, it is a highly selective society. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:02, 18 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. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Can Pomade[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable product. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-the product is only a few months old also. Wgolf (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FAILN, a notability search fails to turn up anything notable besides some WP:ROUTINE coverage on etsy. I recommend per WP:ALTERNATIVE to put information on subject on a blog but not in an encyclapedia, per WP:ONEDAY this isn't a good fit for the topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom. Cheap Promo. Educationtemple (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 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. The later comments in this discussion all agree that the relevant inclusion guideline has been passed, so I take it as consensus reached. Deryck C. 20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somdatta Sinha[edit]

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

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

Not a notable figure. Could not find a notable contribution in google search that could justify WP biography. Source cited are poor or employer's website or blogspot page. Notability missing. Claims unsupported Educationtemple (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wgolf: Please see WP:PERNOM as a guide to making more cogent contributions to AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FAILN, there lots of primary sources on from the topic but not much in the way of secondary sources about the topic. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I'd recommend writing a bio in Wikibios. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fellow of INSA (the main national academy of its country) is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. We have that rule because the experts in the academy have a clearer picture of her accomplishments than we do, and by electing her have clearly stated her notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fellow of all three main Indian academies of sciences. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to hear this, Educationtemple! Appreciation to everyone who participated in this conversation and others like it, Anasuyas (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PROF C3 as above. Her h-index of 16 is lower than I might have expected for those fellowships, but close to the edge for PROF#C1 by itself, but C3 seems compelling, I'd like to see the C3 claims better verified by references eventually. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• commmentNotability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international.

In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the citation record. h factor needs to be analyzed more closely--by itself it same little, because h = 16 could mean 16 papers with 16 cites each , or 15 papers with 100 cites and one with 16--our conclusions would be very different. Further, the citations number by themselves also need to be supplemented by the importance of the journals. Checking Google Scholar at [8]: Most cited paper, published in the highest prestige physics journal in the world, Physical Review Letters, has 116 cites. The second is in Physica A, not so important, but with 84 citations. The third most cited, in Physical Review E, also a very important journal, has 83. The 4th ,with 71, is in a more specialized but important journal . Further counts: 55, 459. 47, 45, .... On the whole, I think this is sufficient, without having to analyze the societies. Note I would certainly not interpret a keep here as precedent--we consider each person individually, and in one of the articles nominated in this group, I have said delete because of the unimpressive record. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 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. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvass (business)[edit]

Canvass (business) (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)

Comes across as a dictionary term-usually I would just prod these but this case I'm wondering what others think also. The Arab article from what I can tell is just as bare bones. Wgolf (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom. This is not the place for this definition. Educationtemple (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FAILN when a topic can be merged to a target it should. I'm not sure the best place to merge this information to. per WP:ALTERNATIVE we already have an article in Wiktionary for this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 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. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kan Lal Agarwal[edit]

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

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

None of the source cited is a reliable source. All great claims made are not supported by any reliable source citation. Not sure how to support the claims and help to keep this article in WP, hence afd nom Educationtemple (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to fail WP:N, WP:PROF and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The KAIST award in his name [9] isn't really evidence of notability (it's just a bequest from his will) and the bio there does not give me any stronger evidence of passing WP:PROF. Also the article is horribly written so even if he were notable WP:TNT may be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 15 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Cook Soccer Club[edit]

Point Cook Soccer 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)

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a soccer club. I found two local newspaper articles that discuss the club's under 12 boys team, but nothing that establishes that the club is notable per WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 16:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Victorian State League Division 4. It is a run-of-the-mill local soccer club with routine local coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it Aymatth2 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, Aymatth2. It is well-established that we require significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Routine local sports page coverage in free local weekly giveaway newspapers and the like is not sufficient to establish notability. As for not liking it, that is also false. My sons played in a similar local soccer league, and my wife and I edited the league newsletter for several years. I like amateur sports but do not think that the vast majority of local amateur sports clubs are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly correct. The two articles that I found read like press releases.- MrX 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They read like typical local news reportage, not like press releases at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Discussed in depth by multiple reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aymatth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reads well, referenced too. Educationtemple (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, thanks for fixing your typo! It came up on the vandalism page as "a**es", so I was worried for a second! Lol, thanks for the fix. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes WP:ORG: [10][11][12]. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. If it gets to the National Premier Leagues, it will be notable, but its first team is not anywhere near to that. The Under-12s is just a passing mention in local news. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On that basis you could nominate all the articles in category:Victorian State League teams for deletion. But that is not the way notability is determined. It is based on coverage by independent sources. Teams do not flicker in and out of notability depending on their league rank. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you looked at those articles? The better articles are teams in the top 2 leagues in Victoria. Many of the others have no references or no independent references, so many of them should be proposed for deletion. Substantial coverage in independent sources is required. I agree that teams "do not flicker in and out of notability depending on their league rank" so we have articles about teams that were in a top league but have moved down. One that has always been in a low league is different. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of them should be improved by adding more content supported by reliable independent sources, always a better option and generally much less time-consuming. These teams typically get a fair amount of coverage in the local press. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis -

• Closely connected: 1

• The national youth soccer tournament organizer giving an extensive discussion of the club and junior teams.

• Trivial: 2
• One short paragraph that mentions the club: 3
• A download link for an app (not a source at all): 4
• Routine local coverage in with a PR tone: 5 6

• A newspaper reporting on the local team's successes

• Article about a member team that barely mentions the club in passing: 7

• A news article about the main team in the club, the men's team. I know of no example where a distinction is made between the club, the main team and the junior teams,.

- MrX 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added comments above, indented. The notability test has nothing to do with importance. Just that reliable independent sources cover the subject in some depth, which is clearly the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, coverage is not significant and is all from local, minor newspapers. If it is kept, the article should be moved to Point Cook SC per standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 21:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A few local paper mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Local papers are considered reliable independent sources, and these ones give significant coverage. The national tournament organizer also seems reliable. In what way does this fail Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? It is a textbook example of passing that guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is full of non-notable local soccer club articles that only survive because the sport has a lot of fans rather than because there is depth of secondary coverage. It has been shown above that the sources are inadequate to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 10:26, 19 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cranford Hollow[edit]

Cranford Hollow (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)

Unreferenced, unnotable band. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - There are some mentions in google. But not seems to be so notable yet. Educationtemple (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-per too soon and nominator. (If it can be too soon since it does appear to be 5 years old) Wgolf (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 14 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. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ngathrek Golop Lhakpa[edit]

Ngathrek Golop Lhakpa (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)

Apparently a hoax. I can't find any reliable sources, or indeed any, that aren't newer than the article. A number of the alleged sources (which Google can't translate) look dubious. The Issue link is for instance self-published. Others have social media icons on them. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per Nom. Educationtemple (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dzok Trun Trun and the rest of the author's edit history, the Wikipediocracy article, etc., it certainly looks like a hoax. I hope someone follows up and proposes an indef block on this account, for the passport audio file if nothing else. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the indef has now happened. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 14 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. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Rai[edit]

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

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

Not a notable figure in India. Article full of bogus claims such as "He is the first scientist who established ancient DNA research in India", all the media coverage cited are for the work of K. Thangaraj and NOT the subject. Educationtemple (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Almost feels like a hoax article. Wgolf (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first reference shows he is a bona fide researcher at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and works for K. Thangaraj, but the second indicates he does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC on his own. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many news reports do not even mention him. WP:ONEEVENT applies. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a hoax, but as Clarityfiend has noted, the subject does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. And as Redtigerxyz pointed out, most of the cited sources do not even mention the subject, or mention him in passing as a member of the research team. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 14 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. This is absolutely a hoax, at least in this version of the article as it was created by a sockpuppet (User:Aron&April654321 and User:AnthonyFernando5, who are basically the same person) that is notorious for creating these articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zombeavers 2=[edit]

Zombeavers 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a likely hoax. Besides the fact that there are no hits for this, the creator has apparently inserted himself into several articles as the director of unannounced sequels, which are also likely hoaxes. Google searches for confirmation turn up nothing but fanfic and wikia profiles. Could probably be speedy deleted as G3, but I'm not sure it's blatant enough to qualify. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a obvious hoax, Found nothing on Google to verify its existence. –Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced, poorly written, likely hoax. My Google search also failed to find any reliable source coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per being at the most polite WAY TOO SOON. I found a source telling us "...don’t forget to stay through the end credits. There’s a hint to a possible sequel waiting for you which can’t be called Zombeavers 2, but doesn’t really need too much of a title change" and there's also WP:RS British newspaper Metro saying "Expect to see Zombeavers 2: Dam You To Hell in the pipeline soon." So the topic is a possibility.... however, NONE of this article's purported cast or crew are searchable, when lends credence to this article being a hoax version of a topic that might exist in the future. If a real film actually becomes sourcable, then I'd have not prejudice against a properly cited recreation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to close this as a hoax. This is an article created by a sock of User:Aron&April654321 and this is pretty much in line with what they normally do: create hoax articles and list the same people in each one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darker Than Blood[edit]

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

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

WP:TOOSOON, no reason to believe that this song will become notable. Attemptsd to change to redirect rejected by page creator, so bringing to AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the AFD stuff above as was somehow missing. So apologies if I missed something off or messed something up. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per these sources of significant coverage [13] [14], per WP:GNG. The song is going to be released as a single in just two days from now. Considering how popular Linkin Park are, there will most likely be even more coverage of the song before this AfD even closes. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-I may not be a fan of Linkin Park, but I can't imagine them having a album being not notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is not an album: it is an individual song. And it is not by Linkin Park, it's by somebody else. See WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTCRYSTAL.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's in collaboration with Linkin Park. They co-wrote the song. --JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I personally find this AfD completely unnecessary. I mean, it was brought here two days before it's released? Really? Aside from that, the song is about to be released (tomorrow) and there are plentiful sources about the song, plus we'll probably see reception here soon (if it's not already available). They're debuting it on Twitch.tv today, which I'm sure they'll talk more about the song. --JDC808 ♫ 15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's completely unnecessary to bring this article to AFD. It's getting very close to April 14th for the song's official release. They might have already debuted it on Twitch.tv right now, so no matter what goes on, I'd rather agreed with JDC808 on this one. We'll definitely see more reception here soon enough, and I'm also sure they'll talk about the song even more. I'm a very huge fan of Linkin Park, and if this article becomes very long enough on this website with more resources and more reception, it could stay on there without having it deleted. Skylar3214 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - I guess now we should let the article exist. Because now it's going to have a live debut, a worldwide premier and it also has a official lyric video in support. I don't see any reason for the deletion. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 05:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please wait until this discussion is closed before it stays as an article, Golu. It's not even over yet. Skylar3214 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skylar I'm just giving a suggestion. Yeah I'm ready to wait. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 07:59, 17 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. With no prejudice to the creation of a redirect to Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which anyone can do. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (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 appears to be a POV Fork (not valid) as opposed to a Content Fork (valid) of Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or a potential copy and paste of some of that article.

This is a procedural nomination and I am making it a neutral nomination. Had I found the other article during WP:AFC I would have pushed this one back to the contributing author. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POV fork. Relevant content is covered more thoroughly and neutrally in Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article's content, and the idea of having an article with this title, has been discussed before many, many times before by myself, DrFleischman, Famspear, Jkaganoff, 108.11.225.129, and 173.67.162.239 (one or both of these two IPs are probably same contributor as 108.11.228.250, who created this new article) on Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and in edit summaries on the article page. (Especially relevant is this.) Despite the protestations of this IP contributor, previous consensus has been against including much of this content and also against creating a POV fork named "Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". This appears to be an attempt to circumvent consensus by avoiding the article talk page and instead using the WP:AFC process. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Needless duplication of a subject already covered in Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Hint: Virtually any "legal challenge" to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress would have to be a challenge based on its constitutionality -- so the two articles would, in effect, be two articles on the same topic. Famspear (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV fork as described above, relevant content discussions here, here. This contributor has been edit warring against consensus over this content since September 2014 and was blocked before they starting IP hopping. Based on their geolocation I also believe they have a COI concerning the Cutler case (which has been the primary focus of the edit warring, and which appears in this POV fork). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a plausible redirect to Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This page will not be eligible for deletion on grounds of the POV of its present content because that isn't a criteria for revision deletion, and the page will be NPOV if reduced to a redirect. We only delete a plausible redirect if it is positively harmful (WP:R), and I don't think the POV fork arguments above demonstrate that. James500 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that the article is POV, but that the article is a POV fork. WP:POVFORK: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Regardless, whether the removal of the content is accomplished by reducing it to a redirect or by actual deletion is just a technicality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, James500 for not linking to the term in the nomination. I'd like to thank DrFleischman for linking to it just now. I can see how the confusion arose, and have just linked the term in the nomination. I have also linked to the other term with Wikipedia:Content forking where there is a larger discussion of the matter. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The passage from POVFORK cited by Dr Fleischman above says nothing about forks that are also plausible redirects. In that case, the relevant guideline is WP:R. Since that guideline creates a very strong presumption against the deletion of plausible redirects, and their page histories, I do not see this as a technicality. James500 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:POVFORK or WP:R appears to take precedence over the other. Regardless, the two guidelines are not in conflict. WP:R says this about POV forks: "Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated." This is the approach we should take here; the article should be deleted as a POV fork, which will reduce edit warring over content that has been rejected by consensus on numerous occasions. If an editor feels it necessary, they can then recreate it as a redirect. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV and a copyright violation (i.e. copying without attribution) and then recreate as a Redirect - very plausible search term. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 18 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. Due to failing to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Indians[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film. Other than its IMDb entry (where the full title is given as Land of Indians: a Story Before Vishwavijay), no information appears to be available about this film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-You have to love the unsourced "positive feedback" which unless if I'm missing something is not on the IMDB link. (I'm going to remove that statement). Anyway unless if this somehow is nominated for best short film not notable it appears. Or I should say unless if it actually gets some press somehow. Wgolf (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION of a new filmmaker's release to YouTube only as a 3-minute promotional device for his hoped-for longer film Vishwavijay (2016) No coverage, no reviews. No reliable sources. Fails WP:NF in all aspects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This film has already released and thus deleting it may not be good at all. Further changes may be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.88.232 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete The film may not be notable but when it had released, there mustn't be a question of deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.88.232 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Struck IP's extra vote. Only one per customer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete As my film has already released, I don't think you should delete it. Rest depends on what you all want to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superprashast (talk • contribs) 06:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but simply having created and released a 3-minute film to YouTube is not a notability. Go study WP:NF to see what our inclusion criteria are. Get your film some coverage and analysis in reliable sources (not blogs, not forums) and then ask for it to be WP:REFUNDED. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then merge this page till it becomes notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.88.232 (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge to what? Is there a related article? Does the director have a Wikipedia article? Or any of the actors? I don't see a viable merge target. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 18 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. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne West[edit]

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

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

only local references for notability. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article has been expanded and provided with additional references since nomination. In particular, I'd point out the text "West was named as one of Georgia Trend magazine's "Top 40 Under 40" in 2004, and was awarded Woman of the Year by Women in Technology in 2014." which seems to meet WP:BIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Disavian (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. DGG hits the nail on the head. Most of the references are either press releases from her employer (GIT), trivial mentions, or from trade/web sources. With the exception of the Atlanta Business Chronicle article, there are no mainstream sources that discuss her. Likewise, her work has not been highly cited or noted outside of her institution. The argument for "keep" seems, so far, to be the two awards: Georgia Trend magazine's "Top 40 Under 40" and "Woman of the Year" by Women in Technology (WIT). The former helps somewhat, although it is neither a national-level award, nor a widely recognized award, but the latter is an award from a relatively obscure non-profit foundation, which does not lend any help to notability. I think West probably will satisfy WP criteria at some point in the future, but does not at present. Agricola44 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, largely in agreement with Agricola's fair summary. This article reads largely like a CV cited to 'stuff on the internet'. No doubt she's an extremely competent engineer and CEO, but falls short of WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Intelligently written promo article. Delete per nom. Educationtemple (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local business association awards, local trade magazine puff pieces, press releases, and promotional material on her employer's web site don't add up to true notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 14 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. per SK1 & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Mejor de... SELENA[edit]

Lo Mejor de... SELENA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album release that is based on speculation and fancruft and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article should be deleted until it actually makes it on the Billboard charts. jona^(talk) 19:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The album was barely released. I think you are just being unfair! Madonna's album Rebel Heart had an article a month before it was released! If she can have one Selena can! And Selena's album is already released. It's currently on iTunes charts. Just because your an official editor doesn't give you the right to act like the King of wikipedia! Lo Mejor de... SELENA should NOT be deleted! This user is being unfair to me! 19:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument, secondly Rebel Heart is a studio album that has multiple reliable sources that followed its anticipated release, this is a greatest hits album that may or may not impact the Billboard charts. Also, iTunes is a not an accepted music chart here on Wikipedia. I do believe the album may chart on Billboard, but we don't speculate that on Wikipedia. Best, jona^(talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And other greatest hits album such as For You that album's article was created without a deletion way before it was released. and this album has multiple sources such as, Universal Music Latin Entertainment (the record company that released the album) and amazon. Do you need anymore?? What your being is unfair to the fullest

Can you please sign your name after you post a message? Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument. UMLE is not a reliable source for its own album releases because it is biased and Amazon is not a reliable source at all, so yes can you please provide sources that tell readers why this article merits its own article here? I am not being unfair, if Wikipedia decided to allow any album by any artist to have its own article we would have tons and tons of non-notable articles with nonsense; not saying that this album and its content is nonsense. Wikipedia has guidelines on music (see WP:NALBUMS for further information). jona^(talk) 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much what AJona1992, plus it fails as a standalone article per WP:NALBUMS. Erick (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to keep per AJona's comment below. Erick (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AJona1992 and Gene93k plus WP:CRYSTAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to keep per AJona's comment below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw deletion: the album has peaked on the US Billboard 200, Top Latin Albums, Regional Mexican Albums, and the Latin Pop Albums chart. jona^(talk) 23:05, 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 all. Deryck C. 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario New Democratic Party leadership election, 1982[edit]

Ontario New Democratic Party leadership election, 1982 (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 news. A state or provincial internal part election is excessive detail for an individual encyclopedia. We have Ontario CCF/NDP leadership elections which is appropriate and sufficient detail, and there is thus no need to merge or redirect.

I'm also nominating the 2 other similar articles for the 1996 and 2009 elections:

• Ontario New Democratic Party leadership election, 2009
• Ontario New Democratic Party leadership election, 1996

DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Suttungr (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Firstly there is plentiful significant coverage to meet the main notability guideline, so that should not be in question. The articles also meet the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline due to firstly having a lasting and significant effect (the leaders leading the parties for many years and Bob Rae going on to be Premier of Ontario), secondly they received coverage at least nationally across Canada, so is not just local coverage, and thirdly is not just a short burst of coverage - for the 2009 election for instance the coverage lasted for over a year. As such these are definitely not the routine news reports that WP:NOTNEWS talks about (writing about the 1982 election 33 years after the event also stretches my definition of NOTNEWS to breaking point). Wikipedia has long had this type of articles as can be seen in Category:Leadership elections in Canada and I struggle to see how these New Democrat elections are any different to any of the others. Per WP:POLITICIAN we consider all members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly to be notable so a leadership election for a major party in that assembly, that gets significant coverage should be notable. The list of elections cannot explain and provide the reasons and details about the elections that the reader wants and needs, rather than just an unexplained list of results, which individual articles can do. The articles could certainly be improved, but the Good Article nominee article - Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014 - shows how this can be done. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Leadership elections for major Ontario political parties are all notable. If you nominate these articles you would also have to nominate the seven articles for Ontario Liberal Party leadership elections and the twelve articles for Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership elections. Suttungr (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted I will do just that. Looking at Leadership_election, except for Canada, all the others are national elections, not provincial. I'm not suggesting removing the information. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list you reference is far from comprehensive. If you want a non-Canadian example, there are several Scottish leadership articles which have a similar sub-nationality to them as do Canadian provinces. Suttungr (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And all of the ones that exist for British Columbia and Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Quebec and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland too. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although further sourcing improvements would certainly still be welcome, "provincial vs. national" is not what constitutes the difference between a leadership election that gets a standalone article and one that just gets a subsection in an overview list — the amount of work that people are prepared to put into writing and sourcing substantive detail about the election, beyond a mere table of the vote totals, is what tips the scale one way or the other. All three of these articles do provide enough context and substance to stand alone, and are already not unsourced; while it's true that the ones before 1982 haven't been spun off from the parent list, that's because the work hasn't been actively undertaken by anyone and not because the topics fail to be eligible for that treatment. By all means flag for further referencing improvement, but all three of these should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. A valuable addition to Ontario's political history. It takes good research efforts to put articles like these together and it would be a shame to lose them. Atrian (talk) 02:42, 22 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. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates For Change[edit]

Advocates For Change (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)

promotional article for local organization in one city dealing with a problem that is general, where there are many nationwide organizations . I do not se themas notable in any sense, and no notice besides the immediate area. WP is not Wikilocal. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a state wide organization, not a local one. It is mentioned at least in 3 independent RS directly. As it has its origins under Colorado CURE, there are some more indirect mentions of this group dating back as far as 2005 [15], [16] Not necessarily the most notable organization, but not non-notable either, IMO. ViperFace (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's state level. But we don;t include state branches of national societies. Even for much larger ones. Not the NAACP, Not the NRA. Not the ACLU. Not anybody. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Well, I kind of see your point but don't completely agree. Is there WP policy covering this? I might be splitting hairs here but I'm not sure if calling AFC as a state branch of anything is entirely correct. AFAIK, AFC has been around longer than RSOL (under which state level groups have started loosely coming together) which has national scope in it's advocacy. If I understand correctly, the state groups that are associated with RSOL have merely adopted some of the same goals, but remain otherwise completely independent. Some state groups even seem to be more notable than loose umbrella organization they are part of. This is not the case with this group, but I mean if there is a blanket WP policy covering this, it's not necessarily wise in all cases. This is bit clumsy comparison, but I would liken this to NHL and individual teams with goal of playing hockey, which they do independently, but come together under NHL. I'm not US citizen so I don't know much about the formation of ACLU or NAACP, whether they came to be from multiple state level groups or was it the other way around, or how much control the national level organizations hold over state groups. Obviously, I'm for keeping this article, but let's see what happens. ViperFace (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one ref in the article that is about the organization--everything else is about the sex offender problem. This therefore fails to meet WP:GNG, which is normally our minimum guideline (Professional Hockey teams have hundreds or thousands of articles written about them.) And , since the WP article talks almost entirely about the need for reform in this area and not about the group, it could in addition probably be speedy deleted via G11 for being promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This information is quite interesting and would provide a more neutral point of view if it were merged into the Sex offender article. When and if this organization goes 'national' and becomes more notable on its own, then that would be the time for its own article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're even a major voice in that, considered the breadth of the problem and the many national-level groups that are involved in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable group and references mention group only in passing. Article created as part of a massive POV push by a single-purpose account.--MONGO 21:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MONGO. WP is not the place to advocate for pedophiles. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per DGG's reply above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 19 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 Davina McCall. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Robertson (presenter)[edit]

Matthew Robertson (presenter) (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. Redirect to Davina McCall. Fuddle (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Davina McCall Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Davina McCall, based on the cited news articles being about (or by) McCall. If this was an article about a famous man's wife I'm sure we'd have dozens of Wikipedians stamping all over it! Sionk (talk) 13:41, 12 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 7 Shot Screamers. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Flame Alive[edit]

Keep the Flame Alive (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 fail Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums Missvain (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to 7 Shot Screamers - Insufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. Non notable music label, not even an assertion of notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the band. I couldn't find any coverage and we need more than one line of prose, a track listing, and an infobox to justify an article on an album.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 12 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 7 Shot Screamers. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Was a Teenage 7 Shot Screamer[edit]

I Was a Teenage 7 Shot Screamer (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 believe this album fails notability guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums. Perhaps others can prove me wrong! Missvain (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to 7 Shot Screamers. Insufficient sources to satisfy relevant notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the band. I couldn't find any coverage and we need more than one line of prose, a track listing, and an infobox to justify an article on an album.--Michig (talk) 12:28, 12 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 Genital modification and mutilation#Female genitals. Notability of the topic is not in question, but how to organize the content about it, and all comments after a certain point agree that this content is already covered in an existing article.  Sandstein  20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital cosmetic surgery[edit]

Female genital cosmetic surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable with little to no third party sources. Also a merge to Cosmetic surgery would be an idea. Tinton5 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is by no means my field of expertise, but a very quick search produced a plethora of relevant sources, many of which satisfy all the requirements of WP:N. Review papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals! I can't honestly see how the nominator can claim a lack of notability. (Their previous attempt at speedy deletion via CSD A1 was equally bewildering.) I also don't think there's any merit to a merger with cosmetic surgery, itself only a section of the wider plastic surgery. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Genital modification and mutilation, which links to the two articles this subject looks to claim: vaginoplasty and labiaplasty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep As Stemonitis says, there are numerous sources for this and so the notability of the topic is quite evident. Also, merger is not deletion and so the nomination is doubly mistaken. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very popular topic, and there are documentary films about it. I found the following on Google: this article from The Guardian, this article from CBC.ca, and this article from BBC Online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @NinjaRobotPirate, Andrew Davidson, and Stemonitis: Could you help me to understand this one? Here is the entirety of the article after the lead: FGCS can be divided into two types. Vaginoplasty, in which the vagina, which may have been loosened due to childbirth or aging, is tightened. Labiaplasty, in which the size and shape of the labia is changed; this can be performed on either the labia majora and labia minora. Reduction of the labia minora is the most common form of female genital surgery. -- It is a subject broken into two types, which we already have pretty good articles for: labiaplasty and vaginoplasty. We also have the article Genital modification and mutilation, which includes a section Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty. In other words, the subject is covered in two places already. What isn't a duplication? The only way I can make sense of it is if the intention here is to break surgery away from the domain of Genital modification and mutilation, maybe? But if we're talking about a category that includes two subjects which already have well developed articles, it seems this page would wind up being little more than a disambiguation. Maybe if it were renamed to include male genital plastic surgery (i.e. genital plastic surgery)? I'm not in a position to research how often that term is used, at the moment, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. I was not aware of those other articles when I made my first comment (although I should perhaps have realised there would be coverage of the subject somewhere). I would have no objection to a merger into any/all of those articles. My original comment was only really addressing the question of whether the subject is notable, which it plainly is. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion. Merger is not deletion and, in any case, it is not possible to merge to two different targets at the same time. In such cases, WP:CONCEPTDAB indicates that a summary-level page is appropriate. And Rhododendrites says that he is no position to research this. Just how hard is it to click on one of the search links above where you will immediately see a stack of scholarly papers such as:

1. Female genital cosmetic surgery
2. In search of (better) sexual pleasure: female genital 'cosmetic' surgery
3. Female genital cosmetic surgery
4. Female genital cosmetic surgery: Freakish or inevitable? Analysis from medical marketing, bioethics, and feminist theory
5. The Women Are Doing It For Themselves: The Rhetoric of Choice and Agency around Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery
6. Female genital cosmetic surgery: A critical review of current knowledge and contemporary debates
7. Female genital cosmetic surgery–the future
8. Female genital cosmetic and plastic surgery: a review
9. Female cosmetic genital surgery
10. Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?

Please do such research before proposing solutions to problems that may not exist. Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to work with you here, there's no need to be defensive or to harp on my "no position to research this" as if it invalidates my points -- the only thing that I needed to research was if "genital plastic surgery" was the proper term for the concept of combined male and female surgeries, and you didn't even allow the argument to get to that point.
• The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion. Of course it's relevant, if we already have articles on both of them as well as on a broader subject.
• Nobody has confused merger for deletion, so why make that rhetorical point when you know that merge is a viable outcome of AfD? Regardless, what content is there to merge?
• The point is that this very content is already duplicated in two places. My issue isn't about whether the term is used or whether the concept is notable, because it certainly is, ...and that's why we already cover it in a couple different places. In fact it's because it's notable that this should be redirected as providing no original content beyond where the topic is already covered -- because while the topic is notable, it's better covered elsewhere right now and we should be pointing readers interested in the subject there, not showing them a shoddy spin-off with no original content. Yes, if it were me I would have boldly redirected it rather than AfDed it, but this is where we are -- with an impoverished article about an important topic that we cover in much more depth elsewhere. Certainly not opposed to moving it to the draftspace, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, there's overlap, and this spinout does seem a bit early. I was thinking about those issues, but I've actually seen a documentary that focused entirely on this singular issue. I forget the name of it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the British one described in one of those links I posted. There's a specific debate over the ethics of cosmetic surgery on female genitalia, and there has been a lot written about why young women would want to get cosmetic surgery on something that can't normally be seen. I think that this current article could fairly easily be merged into Genital modification and mutilation, but if it were expanded, it would possibly dominate that article. There's a lot of information about the topic. I wouldn't be against broadening to topic, but that's a debate for the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Genital modification and mutilation as suggested by rhododendrites. BakerStMD 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Rhododendrites and perhaps refine to § Female genitals. Not § Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty because the other subsections appear also satisfying the title. The original article equating FGCS with only those two kinds looks slightly original research without sources making the definition out right. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) + 13:49, 12 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. Davewild (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frühstückstreff[edit]

Frühstückstreff (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)

Unremarkable social network. The notability has been questioned for 2 years, so seems article won't be improved. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. No notability, as evident by an internet search, which only pulls up the Wikipedia page, a Facebook page, and sources from the website itself. BenLinus1214^talk 00:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete. Not notable. One article in the FAZ. --Boson (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, not even in the German Wiki (I checked). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:17, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YoungGoldie[edit]

YoungGoldie (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)

Definitely a case of TOOSOON, sources are either irrelevant, (potentially) incorrect, or a single paragraph with no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The better ones of the sources provided in the article do not mention YougGoldie at all. Huon (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability, Should've been deleted the first time round imho. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 12 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. Davewild (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keya Seth[edit]

Keya Seth (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)

Wholly non-notable . Can find no mention of subject in either of the two refs given (one appears to be a dead-link). No encyclopaedic merit. Previous AfD was rejected because it was nominated by a sock and not for any perceived value in the article  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete- There are a few links mentioning her and she does have a brand of products-think Myrta Perales in the 1980's who was super-famous in Puerto Rico and in the Eastern seaboard of the USA because of her brand's commercials-but unfortunately, all links about her seem to be connected to her directly.Antonio The Gas Martin (que fue?) 13:15, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Reads like a promo. Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 14 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.