The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, as it appears as though there is enough material out there to keep it, but it likely exists in other languages. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1582 Cagayan battles[edit]

1582 Cagayan battles (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 received a ticket today on OTRS (#2015041610032721) where the person requested that it be deleted. I decided to do some background research on Google, and other than a few mirror sites and one YouTube video that seems to have been done after this page popped up. Furthermore, there is a lack of any real mentions online, other than brief blips when using Google, so I also have my doubts about whether this even existed or not, especially since the only citations on the article are for the top part, with the "battle" information being completely uncited. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - There are multiple references of this conflict in reliable sources:

Dennis Owen Flynn; Arturo Giráldez; James Sobredo (January 2001). European Entry Into the Pacific: Spain and the Acapulco-Manila Galleons. Ashgate. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-7546-0152-4.

Gregorio F. Zaide (1957). The Philippines since pre-Spanish times.-v. 2. The Philippines since the British invasion. Philippine Education Company. p. 288.

Contemporary Japan: A Review of Japanese Affairs. Foreign affairs association of Japan. 1942. p. 425.

Therefore this is not a hoax. There are surely more sources off line that give significant coverage to the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I can't see any reason to think this is unsupported by sources, but they are likely to be in Spanish or Japanese, and probably not online. "Not finding anything on Google" is not a reason for deletion! Imaginatorium (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep unless there is an appropriate merge target. It is a pity that RightCowLeftCoast dod not add his discoveries to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those are only snippet views, and don't have access to the books, to see how much coverage are in those books on the subject of this AfD. If I had preview views, I might add them, but at this point I do not unfortunately.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The battle details are made-up and do not match e.g. Robert J. Antony (2010). Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas. Hong Kong University Press. p. 82-83.. According to the book Carrion intimidated the pirate leader and the pirates left without a fight.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A10). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coursera as a Technological Artefact for Learning[edit]

Coursera as a Technological Artefact for Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article appears to be evaluating the efficacy of Coursera as a teaching tool, drawing conclusions based on provided sources, which constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree with the above, it appears to be original research. Also, WP:NOTESSAY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gytgyt1234 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• Delete: Original concept, can't find any reliable source that covers this topic. See Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Esquivalience ^t 02:19, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technological Artefacts for Learning[edit]

Technological Artefacts for Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article appears to be positing the possible use of various technologies as a teaching tool. While it is clear that technology can be (and is) used in teaching all the time, the author appears to be drawing original conclusions from the given source, constituting original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree with the above, it appears to be original research. Also, WP:NOTESSAY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Gytgyt1234 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. This article and the others related to it are flagged for speedy deletion. They are opinion-based essays and all contain original research. The CSD criterion I used, however, is that the pages are duplicates of existing pages. The only factual information in any of the articles can be found elsewhere, for example in Raspberry Pi. Roches (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:IAR: Original concept and WP:NOTESSAY (personal essay masquerading as an article in an encyclopedia), I can't find any reliable source that directly cover this topic. See Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Esquivalience ^t 02:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay, inappropriate for Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 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 speedy deletion (A10). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook as a Technological Artefact for Learning[edit]

Facebook as a Technological Artefact for Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article appears to be positing the possible use of Facebook as a teaching tool. The fact that this use is not currently employed, but that the author has done research indicating that it could be used for this purpose consitutes original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree with the above, it appears to be original research. Also, WP:NOTESSAY. Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi WikiDan61 & Joseph2302, many thanks for your advice. I do understand that not every sentence in my articles are coming from a reference source. However, all conclusions I have ever made are based on research, data and theories. Would you please provide some examples that you consider as original research? I have no intention to mess around, and have been trying hard to maintain a neutral tone. Yet neutral does not equal to not critical. Thank you. Keep Gytgyt1234 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment @Gytgyt1234: Conclusions based on research are, in themselves, a form of original research. (At Wikipedia, we use the term "synthesis", and it is discussed at WP:SYNTHESIS.) What is needed would be conclusions that are already published in reliable sources, that we as Wikipedia editors can then turn to in our writing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Original concept, I can't find any source that refers to or covers the topic. Also, Wikipedia is not a science journal. Esquivalience ^t 02:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Shah Mouhmed Lahori[edit]

Nawab Shah Mouhmed Lahori (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 sure about notability about this guy-or when he was around either. Says he is a landlord (yeah not that notable) and a politician-but is he notable though? Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note I have tried to find anything about him but basically just wiki mirrors or people with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Unsourced article that makes no assertion of notability. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable and lacks sources and could not find anything to say he was ever elected hence fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - even if true, none of the allegations make him notable. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to a BLP prod-but since I wasn't sure if the guy was alive or not also it was made before 2010. Wgolf (talk) 20:03, 29 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Kane-Berman[edit]

John Kane-Berman (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 that Kane-Berman is notable. The article doesn't cite any independent sources, and I couldn't find any. He's an active commenter on South African politics and society, but I see no indication anybody has written about Kane-Berman in some detail. Huon (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just about every result I'm getting are for people named John Kane or John Berman! Wgolf (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: I'm seeing the same thing as the nom: a lot of pieces by Kane-Berman, but jack about him. Even if he's in the South African Who's Who, WW has become such a bucketshop in recent decades that it cuts no notability ice with me. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I found a speech and some essays by him, but only a single blog that mentions him and his work. I'm surprised, since he's in a Who's Who, how little there is available. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 29 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 Gülbahar Hatun. Any merger from the history is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  10:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Hatun I[edit]

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

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

The article title seems to be a wikipedia invention: none of the sources give her a numeral. Also, the woman in this article is the fourth wife of Bayezid II and the daughter of Alaüddevle Bozkurt Bey, the eleventh ruler of the Dulkadirids. However, Gülbahar Hatun, also known as Ayşe Hatun, is also (according to that article) the fourth wife of Bayezid II and possibly the daughter of Alaüddevle Bozkurt Bey, the eleventh ruler of the Dulkadirids. In addition, the death years and death places are the same, and so claiming that this Ayşe Hatun is not Gül-Bahar seems uncertain at best. Since the article title is completely unfamiliar, unrecognizable, imprecise and inconsistent, there is no need to retain a redirect and the article can be deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, these two articles are exactly about one individual. Keivan.f^Talk 12:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Gülbahar Hatun.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 25 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foil (band)[edit]

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

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

Utterly NN band without a label. I can't imagine why it was kept in its previous AFD. The Dissident Aggressor 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It was kept in the previous AfD because AfD/XfD ten years ago was just a disgrace -- "It's important" and "seems notable" were common, and closing admins seemed to rule on nose count rather than policy. (Honestly, there's room for a team of Wikignomes to go back through every Keep result up through around 2006 and recheck things.) As the nom says, this is a band that did nothing, charted nothing, toured nowhere and met not a single notability criterion. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wish other volunteers had bothered to make a few more pages for the band members, so it could meet "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Foil obviously didn't tour/release much, but their roster clearly marks them as a mini supergroup of Seattle underground grunge and sludge. If we could find at least one point from WP:MUSICBIO, pages like this can be extraordinarily useful to readers trying to make sense of scene's very confusing member swapping timelines. Earflaps (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 30 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph Objects[edit]

Aleph Objects (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)

They don't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Everybody and their dog are making 3D fused filament printers these days. Novelty is in no way implicit, nor does it imply WP:Notability. If they're notable, it might be for the licensing stance, but even that doesn't seem significantly distinctive from other printer makers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current article does not have any sources that remotely suggest notability. CorporateM (Talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• no vote I am owner of this company, so I'm not voting, but I thought I'd chime in. The present article looks like it was pulled from our website, and not many secondary sources. That doesn't mean there aren't any. As for being notable, our company produced the first hardware *ever* certified by the Free Software Foundation (who incidentally had a large role in the existence of wikipedia). Our printer is Editor's Choice of both PC Mag and Tom's Hardware, both major tech publications. We have also had many many reviews and articles over the last few years. We have been the *front page article* of the major newspaper the Denver Post, twice, plus other articles and blog posts there. We have a list of over 100 media references on our website here: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-media Jebba (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I don't understand just what it is that the FSF have certified here. Was it in respect of the printer's ability to produce parts? Or an open sourced ability for others to produce printers of this design? I'm also puzzled (other than US-centricity) as to why the FSF have singled this machine out over the RepRap, which has been pushing an open source agenda for ten years. I just don't see the FSF certification as being significant re notability – any issue of primacy is a very tenuous one about when it was recognised by the FSF, rather than a substantial one about Aleph being first to adopt such an approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know about FSF certifcation, I suggest reading about it on their site. (Meh, ok, a search of lulzbot on site:fsf.org turns up over 1,500 hits....) Anyway, here's the original article about the first certification they did. There are a lot more on their site of more recent products: http://www.fsf.org/news/hardware-certification-aleph-objects-lulzbot-3d-printer Jebba (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the very next tab I went to after this (I regularly search google for news about us), was ComputerWorld, a major tech publication of long standing. Their 3D printer reviewer writes: "the Lulzbot Mini remains my current benchmark for judging rival printers until a better one comes along". Just sayin'... http://www.computerworld.com/article/2910250/review-the-da-vinci-junior-is-the-easy-bake-oven-of-3d-printers.html Also, does market share count? I know you say everyone in their dog is making printers, but are all of them covered in market research reports such as the #1 in the industry Wohlers Report? Plus we get coverage in all the other ones covering the industry. Your dog printers aren't in there, I assure you (unfortunately, these reports aren't gratis). Jebba (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make my own Lulzbot? Because I can make my own RepRap or Rostock. I rather expected that to be part of the FSF certification when I first read it, but it seems not. (I've never seen this as a useful thing to do, but it's a popular principle here, just down the road from Bath) Could {some long list of 3D printers} be similarly certified, if the FSF chose to? (ie do they meet the same criteria) Why did the FSF choose this one first? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be OT... Yes, you can make your own LulzBot. We believe it is the most free/libre/open consumer product ever released. All development is done in the open. Our internal directories sync to the public every 30 minutes. We have over 100 gigs of data publicly accessible of released and development projects, visible at these sites: http://download.lulzbot.com/ http://devel.lulzbot.com/ We also have other various code up on github: http://github.com/alephobjects/ We released what was the first "full stack" release of a RepRap based on Prusa's famous design (back in 2011). Josef Prusa himself said it was the best one out there at the time. We publish everything, including production schedules, plans, daily production spreadsheets, the layout of our assembly lines, how we build wire harnesses, everything. I don't know of any company that comes close, tbh (but they may exist, I'm just realizing now how awesome the Spanish company BQ is). You can see our assembly line procedures for the LulzBot Mini here, for example: https://ohai-kit.alephobjects.com/group/mini/ As for the certification, perhaps read up on it. They can't just certify "RepRap". There is an audit performed, and we are required to build conforming with that. They can spot check, and even can get audited themselves. This is a formal certification (think "UL" or similar). We got it first because we did the work to get it all worked through. It was the FSF's first, and they move.real.slow. I assure you they take this very seriously. They know me from previous projects, so that likely helped assure them I would go through the whole process. Other RepRap systems could be FSF certified, but not necessarily all of them. In general, systems that are RAMBo based most likely conform with RYF, but they aren't certified unless the FSF reviews their gear to be what they say it is, and the manufacturer signs a document saying they will agree to RYF requirements. Jebba (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just piling on this wall of text. We also run one of largest 3D printer clusters in the world. This isn't a one off event. We are running 135 printers in a cluster (plus we have 10-20 in other various spots in the building). This cluster runs 24/5 and produces 75kg of finished parts per *day*. Here's an older (over a year ago) article about it: http://www.gizmag.com/tour-aleph-objects-lulzbot-factory-hq/31024/ There's other articles too. Tis notable? Jebba (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The current article fails to demonstrate notability. If the article is to stay, then it needs to be a better article. Jebba - fancy reworking any of it as a draft (maybe under your own userspace)? I'm happy to "adopt" this (and copyedit) in any way that can help avoid COI concerns. In particular, it needs someone who is familiar with the subject to write an article with editorial narrative such that it explains why the Lulzbot is significant in what is now a crowded marketplace.

WP:Notability isn't that important - it's a simplistic measure that WP uses because it has to define some vaguely objective measure, but it's a matter of wikilawyering to make any article pass it, if you throw enough sources at it. Personally I'm not that fussed about it; a "notable" article can still be a bad article. Clearly in this case there are enough printed sources citeable to pass that hurdle. The real question is (and one I can't answer) is why does this printer matter? I certainly wouldn't support a view that, "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". So what does Aleph / Lulzbot have over and above these? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article published today: http://readwrite.com/2015/04/16/lulzbot-mini-reliable-3d-printer I guess one notable feature pointed out there is it actually works.  ;) Anyway, if you want to delete it, we'll be back. Jebba (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we're going to be an episode on How_It's_Made on April 30th. So viewers there may want to look us up on wikipedia.... Jebba (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: notability, you state that you wouldn't support "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". Isn't that a straw man? I didn't realize anyone was arguing for that. How about companies that have *hundreds* of article citations and many many reviews spanning a few years from industry publications to major media? Would that work? If so, why not take down the "notability" notice you put on the page? Jebba (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Color me unimpressed. If there are indeed "hundreds of article citations" about Aleph Objects, why hasn't Jebba posted some solid, reliable ones? There are numerous business publications that qualify, and the ones he's chosen to contribute to this AfD discussion are a combination of press releases and tech blogs. The one solid source I've seen is the Computerworld article, and that -- like a bunch of others -- are about products, not about the subject of the article. (An article on this LulzBot printer may well be sustainable, by contrast.)Weak Keep: I'm slightly more impressed with the links Jebba came up with from the Denver Post and NPR. They clear the bar for the company ... barely. (I'd still look more favorably on an article for LulzBot, for which there are far more sources.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have my login here at work, but this is jebba. I get your point on the relevance of the LulzBot printer versus the company itself. I was just listing about the printer before. I didn't link to any press releases above, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The LulzBot articles included Tom's Guide, PC Magazine, Make Magazine, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox Business Network, Independent UK, etc. and many others on the URL linked above: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-media Note, that isn't an exhaustive list either. But I realize you want some more about the company itself, not the products the company makes. Here's some on the company: http://iq.intel.com/how-to-bring-3d-printing-to-the-masses/ http://companyweek.com/company-profile/aleph-objects We have been in both the print and electronic versions of the Denver Post multiple times. The Denver Post is the 9th largest newspaper in the USA, per wikipedia (List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation). These two articles were on the FRONT PAGE of the print edition: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22513164/3d-printing-goes-big-help-lovelands-aleph-and http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27785837/3-d-printing-tech-gives-tortoise-new-life Here's some more about the company and how we operate: http://opensource.com/life/14/3/interview-Jeff-Moe-Aleph-Objects Here is a visit from US Congressman Jared Polis covered by the media, who has made multiple trips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h78mccaCWqM . (US Senator Michael Bennet has also visited, fwiw.) Perhaps primary source, but here's a note on the White House's website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-over-240-million-new-stem-commitmen Here's radio and web coverage on the local National Public Radio's affiliate: http://www.kunc.org/post/open-source-hardware-companies-blend-altruism-bottom-line Do you need more? 50.205.5.74 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one today from Forbes "LulzBot 3D Printers: A Glimpse Into The Future of American Manufacturing". http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2015/04/30/lulzbot-3d-printers-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-american-manufacturing/ 50.205.5.74 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Jebba (talk · contribs) and 50.205.5.74 (talk · contribs). The two articles from The Denver Post provide detailed coverage of the subject. The KUNC article also discusses Aleph Objects directly and in detail.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aleph Objects to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It seems to be at least somewhat notable, but the Lulzbot seems more notable. Perhaps the article should be about the Lulzbot with a section on the company, and not vice-versa.Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 20:09, 2 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Marie Williams[edit]

Carla Marie Williams (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)

seems to fail WP:GNG. Article is in fact a large coat rack and is hardly about the artist. No credits of her own. The Banner talk 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner. I've re-read the post with your points in mind, I have made edits to make it explicit that she is primarily a songwriter. RE: 'not talking about the artist', how do you suggest I make this more explicit, as I feel the whole article is written about her and she makes up the majority of the content? David r adams1 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner. Could you please remove the flag unless you still have questions or deem the article innapropriate, please respond. Thanks David r adams1 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just made one small cosmetic change without fixing the issues stated in the nomination. It is a long list of nice names with inappropriate external links in plain text, inappropriate sources (YouTube) and no info about ms. Williams and the tiny bit that is there is unsourced. Her singing career is with bands, not on her own account. Her writing edits are for co-writing, nothing on her own account and completely unsourced.

And you should not removed the AfD-template until after closure of this procedure, although usually this is done by the closer (not me). The Banner talk 12:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What might otherwise appear to constitute notability, namely composing top ten songs, is really an illusion. She works for Xenomania which is the production company that produced those songs. No real basis for a claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are a lot of claims in that article, but I couldn't source most of them. Assuming they were culled, what would be left is a situation where neither WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG are met. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. She appears to be more of a producer, and if so, we usually delete such articles per WP:MILL. Songwriters are "it depends". Is there any way to source this article better? Also, can we userfy it? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been a one shot deal by single-purpose account David r adams1, who has not answered about better sourcing at Talk:Carla Marie Williams, nor seem to have edited since 22 April. She is not a producer, she works for one. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless the claims are actually sourced, they should be removed, as per WP:VERIFY. Once they are, they clearly fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Clement (baseball)[edit]

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

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

Fails both WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:NOLYMPICS. Baseball was only a demonstration sport in 1956, and Clement does not have a Sports-Reference Olympics page. I found a similar discussion, which resulted in a merger to that particular demonstration sport's page from that year, so maybe a merge could be possible. Penale52 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not finding anything for this guy on baseball-reference.com, either. Looks like a fail of NBASEBALL, definitely. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely nothing to merge and no real reason to redirect. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I wouldn't disqualify him on the basis of Olympics being only a demonstration sport, but as there are no real RSes for him, not even in Baseball Reference, (just a game summary and an obituary which reads to me like it was written by a family member), I don't see a basis for keeping. That said, if someone could provide some significant RS, I'd be willing to rely on his Olympic appearance to presume that there is more and enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as it was only demonstration sport in 1956 and only 2 teams took part and lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 26 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 02:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birol Güven[edit]

Birol Güven (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)

effectively unsourced BLP The Banner talk 14:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references and no links for projects to show nobility. --Steverci (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important figure at modern Turkish film industry. He's a producer, writer and actor. An art creator. He's the only notable producer. See it here: http://www.eba.gov.tr/dergi/goster/767 & http://haber.yasar.edu.tr/dizilere-hayat-verenler-yasarda/ & http://kurumsal.okan.edu.tr/basin/80ler-ekibi-okan-universitesi-ogrencileriyle-bir-araya-geldi --Kafkasmurat (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should certainly be more sourced. But this is no reason to delete it.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, according to WP:BLP the lack of sources is a reason for deletion. The Banner talk 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added new sources. More will be added soon. --ABmint (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep per nedimHhplactube (talk) 14:47, 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. Nakon 02:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nigeria epidemic[edit]

2015 Nigeria epidemic (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)

Delete because Wikipedia is not news. WP:NOTNEWS. The methanol poisoning of 18 youths is news, but it is only of passing interest, and is better dealt with, if at all, in the article on Ode-Irele, or mentioned as an example at Methanol#Toxicity. See Winsor, Morgan (21 April 2015). "Nigeria's Mysterious Epidemic Linked To Contaminated Alcohol And Methanol Poisoning, Not Ebola". International Business Times. and "Disease Outbreak In Ondo State Is Punishment From The 'gods'". Nigeria News. 21 April 2015. Bejnar (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't realize it was just a case of methanol poisoning when i created the article and i agree that it should be deleted. Drunk in Paris (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bejnar and Drunk in Paris. It's good to know the creator has now realised that the article now has a wrong information. It helps to keep updated about events before determining whether to create articles about them. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:22, 25 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies[edit]

Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is referenced entirely by sources connected to the subject (Princeton website and a press release). No evidence the Institute has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a merger of the famous Center of International Studies with another major research center, and will be at least as notable as the original. There might be a point in a merge of the material under the new name. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if it will be notable in the future, there is no evidence it is notable now. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm voting Merge with something else (Princeton University or Center of International Studies), unless or until it gets referenced with adequate coverage in independent, notable WP:RS per WP:GNG. By the way, the nominator should notify User:Wasted Time R, who created the article. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What can I say. Once upon a time WP was a place where stubs could be created and then over time they would get filled in. No more I guess. And note there's no place to merge it to: Center of International Studies already has sufficient mention of it and it doesn't belong in the Princeton University article unless a new section is created there to discuss all the institutes and labs operated by the university (such as Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton Environmental Institute, Office of Population Research, Mid-InfraRed Technologies for Health and the Environment ... oops, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned these, they'll all be deleted now too). Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When I wrote Center of International Studies, I deliberately named it that instead of making ti part of Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, because it had a place and legacy in the scholarly world that is different and distinct from the current institution and because I didn't want its past to overweight the contents of a current article. I will gladly sacrifice this stub to preserve the other article, which I may take to GA at some point. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no independent citations, and it is not even listed on Template:Princeton. Merging content from Center of International Studies (in whole or in part) into it would at least give it notable independent WP:RS citations. If Center of International Studies no longer exists, is there any pressing reason for it to remain as a separate article? Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weist[edit]

Michael Weist (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 subject which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. SPA account repeatedly removed speedy tags. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows proper citation and shows notability. Shouldn't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie123456790 (talk • contribs) Preceding copied from article talk page

This page is properly cited and uses 3rd party sources to establish credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie123456790 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, it has general links to 3 websites, a link to their Twitter account (which is not a reliable source, and one actual reference. Also, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, so Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 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 delete. Nakon 02:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shit (band)[edit]

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

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

Subject fails on WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Hitro talk 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Shitcan this article: No evidence that they pass either the GNG or WP:BAND, and I expect finding reliable sources would be bearish in any event. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – After source searches, does not appear to meet WP:GNG / WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Like User talk:Northamerica1000, I couldn't find any significant coverage. Earflaps (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's actually a band named "Shit"? Seriously? Anyways, no evidence they pass any of the WP:NBAND criteria, having a bit of trouble checking for WP:GNG(if someone knows more google fu than I do, please post a decent query we might use). Then there's Ryan Tong (the band's leader) "Ryan+Tong" which is somewhat better, but still unable to tell if any refer to the same Ryan Tong. Maybe the article's creator can provide us with some help here? I tried Jonah Falco (mentioned as being some sort of collaborator in article) "Jonah+Falco"&oq="Jonah+Falco" which gives a decent number of results, though, as to whether any of those are reliable sources, or whether any provide significant and independent coverage of Shit, I don't know. ― Padenton|✉   20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Other than faeces related stuff I can't find anything at all - Might I suggest the band go back to the drawing board and pick something more original than just "Shit"?. –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 28 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 whatever the appropriate list article may be. Nobody here has mentioned it.  Sandstein  08:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1538 Detre[edit]

1538 Detre (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 it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This one has a bit of an unusual observational history: it was discovered in 1940, but then lost and not rediscovered until 1980 [1] [2]. That's all I found in the way of specific studies of this object, but it may be enough to save this article from being just a name and some orbital elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: per Praemonitus. That the thing was lost and subsequently rediscovered isn't "unusual" at all -- that happens sometimes in astronomy. It's certainly not any measure of notability. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to moan Praemonitus & NukeThePukes but it would help if you state where you want it redirected, As someone who is clueless to all of this I have no idea where "the list page" is...... –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 29 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 Delete by Chrislk02 under WP:G4 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PhilJets Group[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under Cat G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phijets group (note the typo in the previous article name, but IIRC this article has the same content as Phijets group). YSSYguy (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and is Promotional and under WP:G4 if the content if the same as the deletion discussion here .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 26 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) Kraxler (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan International Bank[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - was about to prod it actually, for being non-notable, poorly sourced, and spammy/promotional. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 05:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Actually, the article does not have a promotional tone. Rather, it provides a straightforward overview of the company and its operations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples:

• Afghanistan International Bank Looks to UAE-Afghan Ties. CPI Financial. (subscription required)
• Citi and Afghanistan International Bank Enter into Banking Agreement. Economics Week. (subscription required)
• Afghan Bankers' Delegation Visits Meezan House. The Nation. (subscription required)

Also of note is that The Wall Street Journal describes the company as "one of the country's biggest lenders" (in Afghanistan), (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and restart Keep, blank and rewrite. The initial version contains extensive copy-paste from the 2003 launch press release. Only retrievable content I can see are the sources that just added (by @Northamerica1000:), one sentence and the infobox:

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – After some edits, the present page version does not contain copyright violations of the press release listed above (See Earwigs Copyvio Detector report). Of note is that substantial content remains in the article after the cleanup, contrary to the delete !vote above. Page versions with copyvio problems can be Revision deleted, instead of the entire article having to be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your thoroughness. Sadly, there are no archives of AIB's website at archive.org to compare. Since half of the initial version is a known copyvio, normal procedure is to doubt the rest, and rewrite it. On re-rereading WP:CV, I don't see any reason to delete or revdelete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with thanks to Northamerica1000's efforts the article now meets WP:CORP and is in much better shape. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:CORP .--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to be notable and meet guidelines now. Seems deletion is an demonstration of WP:WORLDVIEW AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 1 May 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 merge to University of the Philippines Los Baños. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences[edit]

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences (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 specific notability. This is not a first-order division of the university, but only a single department within the CUniversity'sCollege of Arts and Sciences. No notable faculty or alumni are listed. essentially no third-party references. It's already mentioned in the article on the college, and I see no need for a redirect any more than any other within-college program, especially since the heading starts with the same name--nobody looking for it could miss it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's "under the direct supervision of its director and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences," meaning not independent of the academic hierarchy. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything that isn't in the article yet - No independent notability outside of the college. Still, redirects are cheap. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I do not see the need to merge, what should be kept?) A redirect from UPLB IBS to the university page could be considered, but not from the whole title. Tigraan (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to University of the Philippines Los Baños, which presently only has a passing mention of the institute. This is a functional WP:ATD that would enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:BRANCH as a part of the notable per WP:NSCHOOL University of the Philippines Los Baños, subject falls within the scope of that article. Subject does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG, therefore merger into its parent article appears to be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, which is reasonable and a frequent outcome. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 29 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 merge to List of minor planets/1701–1800. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1702 Kalahari[edit]

1702 Kalahari (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)

Hoping for greater participation this time so we can get a consensus; will inform Wikiproject.This does have mentions in articles and databases, but they do not add up to WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As this has been sitting tagged for notability for over 3 years, it could really do with a consensus being reached. Pinging Tom.Reding, Avicennasis. Praemonitus and exoplanetaryscience also participated in last (very recent) AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per past astronomy consensus I believe they chose to keep asteroid/minor planets up to number 4000 (or possibly only 2000). This makes it either way. Plus the last discussion on many many such bodies less than two weeks ago was withdrawn. Many had chosen to keep but several had said that dealing with just one or just a few was ridiculous when there are hundreds of thousands of these minor planets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The consensus was not to keep those up to 2000, but to individually assess those up to 2000. Dealing with one or two is not an issue (all of them will eventually be looked at) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AfD. The recent discussion you mention (one of many recent discussions, which include those redirected) was withdrawn, it is really difficult to assess that number of asteroids in one AfD, so it was understandabley withdrawn. None of your comments, Fyunck(click) are about how this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to suitable list- this article contains literally no information that could not be included in a table of similar asteroids. This information would be better presented as a multi-column table containing orbital parameters of asteroids. Diluting information over a multitude of microstubs like this is the worst way to present it. Reyk _YO! 09:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment List of minor planets/1701–1800 is the most appropriate merge/redirect title, although I think only a redirect is really needed. Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That table does not contain orbital elements, which I would like to see preserved. Though looking at the list now, including all those extra columns would cause it to run off the right edge of the screen. I wonder if it would be possible to include the asteroid infobox, which is now in the article, in the list in collapsible bits for each asteroid? That might be the best way. Reyk _YO! 09:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO. I was unable to find any research that provides non-trivial detail about this object. At first I thought there was an entire publication about it [3] but on closer examination it looks like just an entry in a database that someone once saw a need to cite individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: While it was the subject of a light curve study,[4] and is mentioned in a few scholarly journal articles, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Martín Sámano[edit]

José Martín Sámano (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 verify that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved. Last AfD closed as no consensus because it attracted zero comments; let's hope we can have a full discussion this time. Notifying Fabrictramp who tagged the article for notability and Fisheriesmgmt who opened 1st AfD, as well as creator. Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-odd that it appears he has no Spanish wiki page. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind he does it was just never linked to the English one! Not sure what I stand on him right now though. Wgolf (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a Spanish rticle, but it is poorly sourced, e.g. using Twitter as a reference. It didn't further confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has already had an AfD closed because of poor participation, and because it has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is repeatedly re-listed rather than just closed as no consensus due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IF they wernt noteable 7 years ago and there still no signs of them being noteable now it seems quite reasonable that they arent. Amortias (T)(C) 11:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm seeing articles in the Spanish-language press from the subject, but none about the subject. I'd say this was a GNG fail. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:24, 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. Nakon 02:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michiaki Furuya[edit]

Michiaki Furuya (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)

Voice over actor who does not seem to pass wiki guidelines for bios Wgolf (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ENT, she has only two non-significant roles in anime that I can see. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought perhaps the actress had more roles but I could not find anything to aid notability here. —Kirt^Message 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim made to notability, also appears to be no basis for it. Fails WP:ENT as well as WP:GNG and BLP notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saha Gun (film)[edit]

Saha Gun (film) (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, fails WP:NFILM. ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-per nom. BTW there is no page for Saha Gun, I would move the page there if I could but that would ruin the AFD is the thing. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete for failing WP:NFF and being TOO SOON. Marathi title "सहा गुण" tranlates as "preserved endurance" (unhelpful) and "Saha Gun" gives no reliable sources, but does lead us to production's Facebook page. IF this is ever completed, released, AND gains requisite coverage (even if Non-English, an undeletion can be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual Colony[edit]

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

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

Prod whose deletion tag was removed by a IP's only edit. Anyway I can't seem to find any notability for this novel at all. Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a google search brings up nothing of note, just lots of sites based on this article (or is it the other way around:))Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 24 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  15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AUX (AUdio syntaX)[edit]

AUX (AUdio syntaX) (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)

Minor special-purpose programming language. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Described in a peer-reviewed paper, but the number of citations of that paper is low (4 on GS, of which 2 self-citations).

PROD declined by page author Bjkwon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this--I don't even know what PROD means. But after browsing policies and other articles, I agree with the concerns about the notability of this article, raised by Qwertyus. After all, it was not a good idea to write an wiki article of something I originally did. Please go ahead and delete the article. I'm sure, in the future, whenever it reaches its critical mass, this article will be written by someone with better sources for notability. Thanks! Bjkwon (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjkwon: thanks for your understanding (and sorry for the jargon)! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "minor" and "special purpose" are not valid reasons for deletion. Also does WP:RS now ignore peer review in reputable journals in favour of citation counting. News to me. Explains our extensive Justin Bieber coverage though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andy Dingley: there is precedence for using citation scores as a proxy for the available of secondary sources and for regarding authors' papers about their own inventions as primary. See, e.g., Identifier Network and in particular Mark viking's comment on mwetoolkit. I think David Eppstein at some point remarked that he wants published evidence that at least two groups have spent significant effort on a method/invention/software, and I tend to agree with that, although this is not a formal guideline. In this case, two citations are self-citations; one is a bachelor's thesis; the final one is a peer-reviewed paper that only acknowledges use of the software without providing in-depth coverage. ("Minor" is just my shorthand way of expressing this; "special-purpose" is descriptive, not a reason for deletion.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only source we have on this is primary and has been cited only four times in Google scholar. Two of those four are papers authored or co-authored by Kwon, the creator of this language; one is a bachelor's thesis supervised by Kwon, and the remaining one is by a co-author of Kwon. Additionally, at least two of the four (including the one not directly involving Kwon) don't mention AUX itself, but rather mention (very briefly) the Psycon software package coming from the same reference. Re my suggestion mentioned above about publications by multiple independent groups: this is my interpretation of WP:GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected" as it applies in this case. Additionally, formal languages such as this one can be notable by other means than through academic publications and citations, but we have no evidence of this in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to the sources David Eppstein mentions, there is also an announcement of the software in a book, but this is again primary and little more than a press announcement. I concur with David, there are no in depth secondary reliable sources discussing this software and barely any secondary citations (those, mostly in the context of Psycon). The software thus both fails WP:GNG and the software specific essay WP:NSOFT. Perhaps the language will catch on at some point and secondary reliable sources will develop. But until then, there are no independent sources with which to write an article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any sources independent of the author. Academic papers need decent citation counts to be significant. Any random person can write an academic paper, they don't grant notability by themselves. WP:ACADEMIC even states that google scholar (and many other paper search sites) lists a large number of papers that aren't in peer reviewed journals. ― Padenton|✉   07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Apart from the issues and concerns about notability commented above that I generally find acceptable, I would like to raise a point you all seem to overlook. Citation counts are not a proper measure of notability, because academic papers describing originally developed research tools are not cited as much as regular papers: papers that later utilize the tool for their own research and often opt not to cite the original paper because that was merely a tool, unless there is significant interest or need to describe the research methods in detail. While the legitimacy of this practice could be in question in a puristic sense, this practice is rarely a problem nor a violation of academic codes of conduct, so long as there is a consensus that neglecting to mention some names of tools used for a study in a paper does not compromise scientific rigor and integrity. This is similar to not citing MATLAB or Visual Studio in many engineering/technical papers (if the exact methods of computation carry far less weight than the study conclusion), even though those tools were clearly in use to accomplish the study goals. Sometimes some creators of research tools explicitly request citing the original paper to anyone using the tools (example in the similar nature: Praat) and nowadays citing software tools is considered a commendable and safe practice, so journal editors even welcome it, but, nevertheless, many tools (not only AUX but also many other tools) used by researchers are left uncited. Instead, very often, the tool creators are thanked in the acknowledgment section of the paper, which is, however, not searchable nor indexed and such acknowledgment is not repeated in the future (as opposed to the perpetual obligation, whenever relevant, of formal citation). By no means I try to promote the notablilty of AUX, which I recognize should be a lot more effective if done by someone else, but at least I wanted to raise this point---the limitation of google scholar search or google search in general. Also, for the record, the journal Behavioral Research Methods in which the AUX paper appeared is a reputable peer-reviewed journal published by a reputable scholarly society, Psychonomic_Society. It is not true that "any random person can write a paper" in such a quality academic journal---even though admittedly these days we are bombarded by so many junk journals where "any random person can write a paper" for a fee, I would do my homework first before making such a depreciatory comment toward a fine journal. Bjkwon (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jirschele[edit]

Justin Jirschele (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)

Unless I'm reading the guidelines wrongly, or there's something missing from this article (which I can't find), I don't think this person is notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Player went undrafted before signing, minor league stats are unimpressive. Not even worth a merge. Spanneraol (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASE/N. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. I suspect this was only created because his father is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above reasoning. Non-notable baseball player. Maybe he could have a mention in his father's page. Tinton5 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Chicago White Sox minor league players. Alex (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASE/N....William 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Pierce[edit]

Chuck Pierce (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 not demonstrated by independent sources. Notability tag was removed a year ago by user:Waitak after adding some primary sources and links to search results (these are deprecated, see WP:LINKSTOAVOID). – Fayenatic London 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that there are few biographical links to Chuck Pierce, there are (many) hundreds of interviews, conference appearances, books and the like. It's not quite accurate to call the sources that were added primary sources (although some certainly are). I would think that the references showing Pierce's appearances on Syd Roth's show, Patricia King's show and the many, many articles on Elijah list would be sufficient to show that he's sufficiently notable to merit an article. Waitak (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lacking independent/significant sourcing. Fails GNG, ANYBIO or other suitable SNGs. Cavarrone 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This reads as if the subject had a one-man ministry, who manages to get on to TV shows occasionally. Basically it reads like the bio of yet another NN minister of relgion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Rush[edit]

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

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

Obscure self-published musician, without a notable record label. www.residentadvisor.net is pretty much the only non-performance announcement/advertisement source found. This guy doesn't even have a website on a non-free site. The Dissident Aggressor 18:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete It's not a requirement that an artiste's label be notable. However we do need independent coverage, and I can't see it. There's about as much coverage on Soundcloud etc. as we'd expect from a musician who's been busy making stuff, but we want more than this - reviews. Can't see those (Which isn't to say they aren't out there for those who know better where to look than I do). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was the one that removed the Speedy tag (with reluctance) as notability is "asserted" but not demonstrated or sourced. Glen 05:53, 27 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Kumar Shukla[edit]

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

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

Article is not in English. Lucky102 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 (and so tagged): Non-notable person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: @Lucky102: "not in English" is not a valid reason to delete an article. If the article were in any way valid, we would translate it, not delete it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: @WikiDan61: Sorry, a bit tired. I wasn't thinking. Thank you for reminding me. Lucky102 (talk) 18:30, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Alain[edit]

1969 Alain (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; should be deleted and redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO: no suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This one was tricky to search for because the phrase "1969 Alain" gets lots of hits that are not about astronomy. But, filtering for likely keywords like "asteroid", I found no non-trivial coverage of this object in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. The mere existence of an astronomical object, and the fact that it has been named, do not by themselves establish notability for astronomical objects. See WP:NASTRO. --Bejnar (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MyFreeCams.com[edit]

MyFreeCams.com (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:ADMASQy; largely industry promotional sources and primary sources; the few independent non-industry refs do not mention the subject by name. Fails WP:CORP. Pax 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete and delete this spam from my mailbox, wait was thinking of something else lol. (This does look like something that would pop up in ones email though) Wgolf (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd ask that folks do a bit more research into the subject first. There are news sources, which do discuss this business, and it's a big business. Pandeist (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pandeist is the article's creator, and with a page at the site, may have WP:COI.

But only by happenstance. Pandeist (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. How would that possibly be a COI? It's a social media page, like my Facebook page and my Twitter page. Am I not allowed to edit Facebook and Twitter for having pages on the site? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way.... Pandeist (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rarely have I seen a longer list of unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article. There is not one substantial reliable independent source to support the significance of this me-too website, just a lot of press releases recycled in tabloids. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the New York Times is a "tabloid"? [5] GuzzyG (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is one of the biggest cam sites on the planet. It's won industry awards, its Alexa tracked and fairly high ranked, and is sourced by the mainstream press. I'm not saying this article doesn't need clean up, but the attention the site has received regarding Alexa/Alexandria Morra and "Library Girl" Kendra Sunderland seems enough to source it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Library Girl" was WP:1E, and specific mentions of the site she used (do any industry independent sources even name it?) would be passing mentions anyway. (Otherwise, being #574 on Alexa doesn't make one an automatic shoo-in.) Pax 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Раціональне анархіст, you're right about Library Girl being a 1E, but coverage on her included mention of MFC, at least in sources I read. And just for your edification, being #574 puts the site in the top 6/1000's of percent of sites on the web, in other words "really high" relative to total number of sites, roughly a Billion. OK, so not as impressive as Ebay or YouTube, but not too shabby either. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebay is #5. YouTube is #3. Meanwhile, myfreecams is now #581 and dropping like a stone. Why, a fellow could be forgiven for thinking they desperately need the free advertizing on Wikipedia to keep the good times running another quarter on fumes. (They've lost half their global Alexa ranking in just the last year.) Pax 07:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with any of what you have just stated, but it doesn't change the fact that there are roughly 999,999,000 other websites that wish they ranked as high as MFC. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by the way -- per Scalhotrod, PLUS because here on LukeFord.com, My Free Cams was the comeback venue for Jenna Jameson, one of the most famous porn stars ever. Pandeist (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source, and it's a trivial mention. Pax 02:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So find a better source. And by the way Miami New Times is a reliable source on the page. Pandeist (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a one-sentence trivial mention in the fourteenth paragraph. Please visit the links in my previous reply. Pax 03:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the New York Time article under the external links? Whole thing is about the MFC experience. Pandeist (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:WEB because of coverage like these. [6][7][8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 16:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT per the sources provided above by Morbidthoughts. Additionally, here's another source: CBC News Windsor. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep per sources provided by Morbidthoughts, especially the New York Times, and the fact that they as an adult cam website won the top award in their field (live cam websites) , 3 times in a row for XBIZ once for AVN. GuzzyG (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above - Passes WEBCRIT + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be notable. Let's not let the article be a venue for promotion though. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some of the sources offered here are a bit sensationalist, and the coverage in each source is generally pretty light. However, taken together, there's arguably significant coverage in reliable sources, even if the individual articles are a bit lacking. If the article becomes too promotional, it can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Surprisingly for a cam site, it seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY, and has no shortage of secondary sources. Although I don't see it progressing past start class, I say keep. Googol30 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth Century Zoo[edit]

Twentieth Century Zoo (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)

2nd incarnation of non notable band's AFD. Article is a recreation and still does not justify notability of article. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band was an early influence in garage punk which I did refer to. Tell all the articles depending on early influence as their notability like The Chocolate Watchband, The Human Expression, H.P. Lovecraft (rock group), The Third Bardo, Mystic Tide... (shall I continue, the list goes on) that being the earliest influence is not notable than they should be deleted too. Also, the Allmusic article about them was written by Richie Unterberger, one of the most respected and prominent music critics, so he too was aware enough of their notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015

More - First psychedelic rock band of Phoenix (addresses issue of WP: BAND), signed to major label, reoccurring sources verifying notability, re-released material (addresses WP:GNG) This goes along with my statements above. Like I said, if this band isn't notable neither is the countless list of bands I only chipped the iceberg off of. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even More! : Also, the user's statement that this is a "recreation" is also false. The issue with the last page was it did not offer references and directly copied from the ones it did use. It would have stayed if someone rewrote it, as mentioned in the past discussions. So, as a result, I have reliable references and the writing is not copied from any text. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015

The actual article nominated for deletion was apparently a whole different article than the current one (but on the same band). This one is only a few months old, whereas that one was nominated for deletion in 2008. The old article may not have been as well-sourced. So, it wouldn't be best to keep the current article and build it up into being the best article possible? Garage rock aficionados, by their very nature (and by the very nature of the genre they follow), have a keen interest in bands from a long time ago that are usually practically unknown to most people. They want to have resources and biographies to learn about such bands, and an encyclopedia can chronicle the original purveyors of what is essentially an ethnographic folk music. We shouldn't apply the same standard of notability of a unique smaller band from fifty years ago who has a specialist/interest collector/fan base to more a more recent Holiday Inn act playing mainstream Karaoke fare that is unlikely to ever have any collectable interest with music lovers. There is a difference.

It is amazing that people are still discussing this band fifty years later. And, keep in mind that this band came from a pre-internet, pre-cable TV, pre-MTV, pre-digital era, when it was not as easy to self-promote--long after the moths ate many of the pictures and newspaper articles that may now be forever lost--and, by the way, there was a lot more competition from other bands back then. Wiki needs to establish a set of guidelines for dealing with certain kinds of historical acts of specialist interest. While I shouldn't pretend to speak for anyone else, I think I remember User: Ghmyrtle, a Master III editor, on his talk page coming to the defense of User: TheGracefulSlick on this very same issue, and I would be glad to enlist his and several other top editors' opinions on this matter as well. Let me emphasize that there is no consensus to delete this article: I am firmly against doing so (and I am confident that other editors will feel the same way). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the rationale stated above by CrazyAces489 I agree with him. The article subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Garagepunk66. When you consider all the bands that have formed over the years, any of them that are still in the public eye decades later should be considered notable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This level of material available just on AllMusic for a band that existed for so short a time so long ago merits inclusion in the encyclopedia as part of music history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - example of how GNG can be abused. Pre-internet band is still generating discussion, indicative that the band is notable and likely received sufficient media coverage at the time. In a quick search, I found the following reference [10], which added to the AllMusic entry should make the subject pass GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, great find on the reference. If someone could translate, I would love to include it when the article stays. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2015
• Keep. The additional source that has come to light means that these guys just about scrape the bar at WP:BAND and pass the WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 04:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition to Allmusic, I, like 78.26, found the above source. In addition, searching "'Twentieth century zoo' band" in Google Books turns up some other mentions in reliable source, some foreign language. This indicates that there probably are more print source out there that discuss the band. Archives of these sources might be available in library databases.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No doubt about it the article does need alot of improving/expanding but notability is there... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Soda[edit]

Basil Soda (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)

Delete: does not reach threshold of notability, largely promotional in nature. Speedy deleted once before. Quis separabit? 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is notable as a Lebanese designer who achieved international recognition. The New York Times article in the references is a very strong source. When he died, a Google News search ran quite a number of obituaries in the international press. I also see an article on Highbeam which lists him among the significant Lebanese fashion designers of the time. There is also an article on him in L'Officiel from 2007 that is viewable as a snippet here. There's clear evidence that sources exist. This article needs improvement, not deletion. Mabalu (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep stock the mini bar with it - This article is not promotional in nature. the author has no more need to promote Basil Soda. than, he does to promote Cilantro Fizz.. The subject was a noted designer who showed his designs on catwalks allover the world which were in turn worn by many notable women..... This is being promoted for deletion for the point of gaining points for an exclusion. Boy I feel like Dr. Mehmet Oz OY! Masterknighted (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Stronger keep. There are reliable sources provided to establish notability. Could use some expansion if possible, but this is definitely a notable designer. Tinton5 (talk) 19:50, 27 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 Northwood, London. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Martin's School, Northwood[edit]

St Martin's School, Northwood (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)

Why the page should be deleted Factuous (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why This Page Should Be Deleted

Hi there!

Excuse me if I have made any mistakes, this is my first time submitting a page for deletion. The page is without adequate sources (relying entirely on primary sources, as other users have pointed out). I looked into this, and found that it was virtually impossible to find any that establish the school's notability, making it naturally unworthy of a Wikipedia page. The skill with which the article was written seems indicative of someone aged 3-13, and perhaps this is why the tone of the document seems closer to an advertisement, far removed from the impartial tone expected of Wikipedia. 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is common practice to redirect non-notable schools to their localities, in this case Northwood, London#Schools. However List of schools in Hillingdon#Independent schools, where the school is already listed, may be a better target. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per longstanding tradition as expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to Northwood, London. Jacona (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Northwood, London per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 27 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story[edit]

NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story (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 appears to fail notability— see WP:FILMNOT. Most references turn out to be either dead links or have failed to verify. Remaining ones are not independent of the subject or are vanity refs. Bronze Telly awards are probably not reliable evidence of notability. Previous deletion discussion was inconclusive, but given current haziness of notability, deletion now seems appropriate. KDS4444^Talk 16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry KDS4444, but a little WP:AFTER showed the "issues" of "dead links" and "verification" easy to correct, even though they changed in four years. WP:NTEMP. Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per interesting discussion at earlier AFD that resulted in no consensus. Notability is weak due to the film's target audience, but I will note though that for its genre it has more awards than just "some", and for a specialized documentary about youth wrestling that fact is surprising. Even weak notability is none-the-less, still a notability. As small-budget independent documentaries never have the distribution and press of the big budget studio blockbusters, we look instead to what the film is, and what organization felt it was worth awarding, and why. Awards are simply one of the criteria I am looking at. And while the Tellys do not have quite the same industry coverage as the Academy Awards certainly, they do have some decent and sourcable history and coverage of their own.[11] I am okay with the Acolade Competition [12] for its own coverage,[13] and the Aegis Video & Film Production Awards [14] for its history.[15] The last nominator wrote "it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition", and he could just as easily been describing the Oscars or Golden Globes, for no matter which one you look at... Oscars, Golden Globes, Aegis, Accolades, Tellys, etc... the competition now-a-days is pretty stiff. All film awards, from such as the Oscars (voted on by members of the not independent Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences themselves) to Golden Globes (voted on by the independent Hollywood Foreign Press Association), can all in some sense be seen as vanity and back-slapping mutual admiration (chuckle), we judge their notability through the coverage each has, as there has never been any other standard established to define what is a major award or how it might be itself notable.[16] We may find DVD reviews or evidence that it screened 5 years after initial release, but abetted by the awards, the reviews from Dove Foundation,[17] School Library Journal,[18] and the Julian Radbourne areview on X-Headlines (link found though wayback machine) push it just over the edge for me for this independent documentary film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have copied and pasted most of that text from the last deletion discussion. I do not want to copy and paste the responses it got because we are trying to have a new discussion, not replay the old one. Can you give a brief new summary of your Keep vote reasoning? Thanks. With regard to the awards, however: the Aegis award itself does not appear to be a notable award, and the page you found listing winners (thanks for finding it) looks like has nearly 200 recipients in 2006 alone (also, from the Aegis web site: "To win an Aegis Award is an outstanding achievement -- worthy of getting the attention of clients and employers."— to me, this translates to, "Pay us some money and we will make you look like you won something"... That is not winning an award, that is just purchasing attention); the New York festival awards have been heavily criticized for their own lax entry requirements and $300 entry fee (i.e., it is a profit-generator for its producers, not a genuinely competitive award); The Accolade award article has no sources in it other than a link to the official website and looks like it may also have no genuine notability of its own. The non-competitive nature of the Tellys was discussed in the last AfD discussion. I would be happy to see one source/ award from a verifiably notable organization at the national or international level that was clearly competitive in nature. Instead, what I am seeing are awards from non-notable organizations, or awards that are not competitive, which makes a notability claim appear rather thin to me, and there does not appear to be coverage of the film elsewhere other than routine reviews (again, these are discussed in the last AfD). KDS4444^Talk 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about awards can just as easily be applied to the money machines of Oscars and Cannes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... rather than have another back-and-forth bandying like that last AFD, I copied and modified my still-valid arguments. However, back and forth bantering seems fated. I was interested that rather than correct through regular editing, you chose to report the addressable dead links and lack of verifiability as part of his deletion rationale... though certainly not to negatively color this discussion with invalid reationals, so is allowable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow-up: the Aegis awards apparently were taking in around $90,000 a year in application fees, and the winners of these awards, selected by a never-named panel of industry specialists, receives... a certificate. And if they want to pay more money, a trophy. And the recognition, of course. (Aegis has since closed down.) I could find nothing about the video industry's emphasis on the value of these awards, which further increases my suspicion that they are not considered important. The Accolade awards run along the same lines: pay us a fee and we will give you an award. The Accolades aren't even competitive awards: they are assigned based on the merits of each submission. Winning one isn't exactly evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 16:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning is only an indicator that coverage may exist. Who assigns an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" is not a deletion criteria... it a attribute to encourage source searching. Diligence shows it has coverage, so WP:NF is met. Is the notability as overwhelming and extreme as a big-budget major-studio blockbuster? Nope. Is it notable enough for inclusion herein? Yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable in any way with nothing really reliable third part coverage.  MPJ -US  21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect MPJ-DK, it has coverage by Dove Foundation,[19] School Library Journal,[20] and the Julian Radbourne review on X-Headlines, and ABC Newspapers. Coverage in The New York Times? No. But reliable enough for a small budget independent documentary film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no major awards, while there are some reliable sources proving the films existence, the coverage in reliable sources is not significant. See Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability for good rules of thumb here. --Bejnar (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect Bejnar, "major" or not, the awards led to it having just enough coverage in reliable enough source3s.[21][22][23][24]. New York Times? Variety? No. But reliable enough for a independent small-budget film. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a popularity only contest. I'll grant this is not Red Army (film), but small indy documentary films aren't the same as those with big money. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Joanna (2013 film) or The Reaper (2013 film) either; the issue isn't small and low budget indy documentaries, its coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it had but only one source anywhere, I would even suggest it needed more myself... but it has multiple and, even for a crappy documentary, THAT has it meet WP:NF . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doesn't. Read WP:NF#Other evidence of notability again. --Bejnar (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, because of past instances where editors misinterpreted it I've studied WP:NF#Other evidence of notability in great detail:

1. WP:NF tells us us "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow,
2. and then WP:NF#General principles expands "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list".
3. WP:OEN clarifies that "Other evidence of notability" are not mandates, but are "are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".
4. So, and no matter who gave them, verifiably winning an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" was an indicator that sources "might" exist.

And in then searching and finding sources that dealt with the topic directly and in detail, I determined we have a meeting of WP:NF through WP:GNG... even for a rather crappy film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources provides show coverage from secondary sources subject appears to pass GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nesar (poet)[edit]

Ahmad Nesar (poet) (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)