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. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Preacher's Site[edit]

Desperate Preacher's Site (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 on website fails WP:GNG, there is one reference from a Christian news site from 2000, other coverage in media consists of passing mentions that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The last AFD attracted some SPA/COI interest but did not generate a quorum from established users. Vrac (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Christianity Today is an exceptionally good source for things related to this topic. A brief Google Books search also turned up this, which suggests this website was actually a pioneer in its niche, 15-20 years ago. That's two independent reliable sources, and WP:GNG is met, even if we grant nom's assertion that the other four mainstream media references (which are admittedly brief) don't contribute a thing to notability. Per WP:NTEMP, notability, once established, is presumed indefinite, even though I've never heard of the site and presume it's been eclipsed by others. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close -- We had this discussion barely over a month ago and it closed as "no consensus". We should accept that outcome, unless there is fresh evidence againast the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It closed as no consensus because it got only one vote from a non-SPA, non-COI user. It's entirely appropriate to reopen the discussion, lack of a quorum doesn't resolve the question of whether an article should or should not be kept. Vrac (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me that this site is only one examples of something that could be an interesting WP topic, and which might fit into the Sermon article -- the source of sermons as well as re-using sermons. In the 19th century, "good" sermons were often printed and could be purchased or found in libraries. Surely many of those were repeated on different pulpits. So this phenomenon is not limited to this one site, much less the internet. I say weak keep but my preference is to integrate this into the article on sermons, or as a more general article linked to it. LaMona (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "world of clergy" is indeed a special "niche" unto itself, which is perhaps why the "authorities" at Wikipedia question "Desperate Preacher's Site." Simply, there are many publications, mostly small, such as at seminaries and elsewhere in the "church world," which are often read only by those involved with "church" from its "inner-circles" and not by the general public at large - including not being read by almost all lay churchgoers. Should such "niches" be viewed in their own contexts or must they always be viewed from the larger focus of "popular society and culture?" Surely there are more such niches out there, in law, medicine, etc., where some publications are popular only inside of their own "niche." Just my opinion, but DesperatePreacher.com is still quite popular inside its own niche, and yes it has been joined by a few other such websites - but it has not been "eclipsed" by them, as was alluded in other comments above. If anything DesperatePreacher.com is still recognized as being "edgy" in its own niche, even in comparison to other newer competitor websites, perhaps most just because of its name. That all said, I think that the page itself ought to be kept. I would be against "Desperate Preacher's Site" being thrown into the weeds under other Wikipedia articles on "Sermons," "Lectionary," or "Lectionaries," just because there would likely be "push-back" to have it removed from those articles as there are "many/legion" who want those Wikipedia articles to reflect "church" in only the most positive light. However, I think other articles/pages on Wikipedia ought to have prominent links to "Desperate Preacher's Site" at the bottoms of their presentations. Yes, that would be proper. And,...truth be told, I do make my own references to DesperatePreacher.com and to Wikipedia's "Desperate Preacher's Site" on my own website at www.ClergySecrets.com, a website which I'd like to see be "important" enough to have a Wiki page of its own sometime too! ;) lol --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this and other references provided appear to pass GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:49, 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.

Renneker Jenkins[edit]

The result was DeleteChrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renneker Jenkins (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)

Actor with only 2 roles it appears and not inherited issue also. (Though more of older brother of someone more famous so he couldn't quite inherit that okay you get my point though!) Wgolf (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches failed to find anything close to the required significant and in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 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.

Muhammad Awais[edit]

The result was Delete Clearly a delete per WP:NOTABILITY even with no discussion, WP:IAR Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Awais (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 subject does not pass the WP:General Notability Guideline. Winning a medal at the Asian Para Games is not sufficient for notability for an athlete with disability. SFB 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Derailroaded: Inside the Mind of Wild Man Fischer. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubin Twinz[edit]

The Ubin Twinz (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)

Twins with little notability to speak with from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Delete - Two brothers using one name and made only one film, News only found two links (not significant or in-depth) and Books only found the same. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Derailroaded: Inside the Mind of Wild Man Fischer. A bit too soon for an article. Anything we have to say about them can be said at the article on their sole film. If they attain significant coverage, we can recreate the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crilly[edit]

Adam Crilly (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 enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:MUSICBIO. All sources I could find were things like Google+ and Linked-in as well as some blogs for his band. Jbh (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-seems like other band members for this are up for either prod or speedies. Look: Nico Venere and Adam Falkor. Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band. If by some chance the band survives its PROD (seems unlikely and I've declined the speedy since there are more sources on the article than there were when it went to AfD in 2012), then this would be a reasonable enough redirect. If the band article's PROD runs out first, then just delete this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Ashestoangels article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashestoangels (2nd nomination) Jbh^Talk 10:10, 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.  Sandstein  13:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data Wisdom[edit]

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

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

No evidence that this is a generally used term DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A neologism from a blog posting dated less than two weeks ago. Obviously it has not had time to gain the attention and in-depth secondary sources needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing aside from the current links listed. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 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 merge to child labour. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Child Work[edit]

Child Work (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 approved this from AFC because I don't think it's undeniably deletion-worthy, but I think it should be deleted as an essay nonetheless. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article Child labour already exists. This one is indeed an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. The creator should be encouraged to contribute to the existing article if he/she has material that is not included there. LaMona (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Child labour. Unnecessary duplicate article. Pax
• Merge duplicate selectively to child labour. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 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 Boy Better Know. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBK Records[edit]

BBK Records (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 includes no valid citation of reliable sources nor any evidence of notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Boy Better Know, of which it is not independently notable. Everymorning talk 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Kishore[edit]

Nanda Kishore (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)

Director who seems to fall under too soon. Only 2 films so far. (love the note super hit) Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

super hit is true as per the industry we are in. Kannada industry

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm seeing a fair bit in the Indian press about Kishore, who is apparently an up-and-coming hotshot. I think this is a WP:FILMMAKER pass. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This debate has been relisted for further input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are lots of available sources online. Unlike producers (see WP:MILL), directors are auteurs. He seems to pass WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I am unable to find any major source focusing on him except for this, there are numerous mentions about his work, vision, direction by his peers, actors, and other people working with. He appears to have quite a buzz among in the Kannada film industry. Should pass WP:DIRECTOR. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:28, 3 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nichola Dixon[edit]

Nichola Dixon (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)

TV presenter who I can't tell if notable or not (looking up google I keep on getting "do you mean Nichole Dixon?" then again seems like they would try to get a spelling like that) Seems like a redirect to the show might be the best! Wgolf (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - TV presenter best known for one program, multiple searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000.  Sandstein  15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1698 Christophe[edit]

1698 Christophe (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. Could redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: per WP:DWMP. No suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I only found four papers that even mention this (usually there are a dozen or more) and in all cases it was only as a line in a table. Not in-depth enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000.  Sandstein  15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1903 Adzhimushkaj[edit]

1903 Adzhimushkaj (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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: per WP:DWMP. No suitable sources available to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I don't see the independent in-depth coverage of this body needed to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. As they say, size doesn't matter, at least not in terms of notability.  Sandstein  15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1512 Oulu[edit]

1512 Oulu (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/or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect per WP:DWMP. This object does receive some minor attention as a member of the Hilda family, but probably not enough for notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak redirect. I don't see the independent in-depth coverage of this body needed to satisfy WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is very well hung at 83km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 13:27, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corey P. Smith[edit]

Corey P. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Credit for his book). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no 3rd party resources, only sales and promotional sites, plus the person's own web site. LaMona (talk) 21:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uygar Aktan[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has one role in what is probably a notable production, Master of the Game [1], but that's only one. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's wp:TOOSOON. Renata (talk) 17:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nems (rapper)[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Albums not on important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Best is a single short review of RapReviews, not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects[edit]

Royal Ontario Museum Iconic 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)

This is just what's in a booklet put out by the museum. A passing mention in the Toronto Star is about all the independent notice it's gotten,[2] if we're being generous (as "iconic objects", not "Iconic Objects"). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is really just a list and, as such, does not need the same level of referencing that the linked articles require. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability applies to lists, and this is likely a copyvio, since the list is basically a copy of a ROM publication. Pburka (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal Ontario Museum which should have a list of its notable objects. After all that is what a museum is most notable for. BTW "Iconic" is just an opinion, and IMO somewhat misused here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename List of notable artifacts owned by the Royal Ontario Museum and keep - under that title, the list will have clearly defined and neutral inclusion criteria. A merge would not be a good idea, as the main ROM article is already very loong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Txcrossbow: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lists need to be notable, and this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Secondarywaltz. This a list that supports the information given at Royal Ontario Museum. It doesn't need the same level of referencing of an article.--Solvete (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Royal Ontario Museum. I agree with Kitfoxxe's position - this list should reside in the Museum's article, and the word "Iconic" should be replaced with "notable" or something like that. PKT(alk) 17:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it's a different list. This list is a list of items which a ROM publication has declared to be "iconic." I'd support keeping a list of notable artifacts, but republishing their own list is a copyright violation. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; this is essentially just a copyright violation of a work self-published by the institution, containing its own subjective assessments of which items in its own collection qualify as "iconic", without even the slightest attempt at reliably sourcing even one of the items or its iconicity. This is not the kind of thing we should be retaining, and contrary to some assertions above lists do still require some sourcing. People regularly try to add inappropriate entries to lists, such as adding a person to a list of people from a place that person isn't from, or adding a band to a list of bands in a genre that has nothing to do with that band's music (e.g. The Clash on List of hip hop groups), or adding a heterosexual person to our lists of LGBT people as a form of attack editing, or adding a nonexistent fantasy sports team to a list of sports teams, and on and so forth. So lists do require sourcing to demonstrate that the entries in the list actually belong there. No objection to listing some of the items in the ROM's main article, or a more general and not primary sourced "list of notable artifacts", if there are independent sources available to verify that the ROM's holding of that object is considered noteworthy by anybody not directly employed by the ROM itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 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. Policy allows a closing admin to accede to deletion requests for marginally notable people if they are only barely notable. That is how I read this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Biondo[edit]

Laura Biondo (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 subject of this article has requested via OTRS Ticket that this article be deleted. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject Flat Out let's discuss it 11:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: It's not clear to me that the subject is sufficiently non-notable for her request to carry any weight. I would also like to note that the G7 template on the article at the moment is inapplicable since the article has multiple authors. It should be removed. --NYKevin 16:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep-She does have a little notability it seems. Though on the other hand-too soon? Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If she's requested deletion, I don't see why it shouldn't be granted. Her notability is marginal at best with the main claim being that she has a Guinness record and I don't know of any notability criteria that says that grants automatic notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notability's there: [3][4][5][6][7][8] - I don't mean to sound like a dick but If you don't want attention you don't enter yourself in to the Guinness Book of Records, Also there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating this again, Personally I don't see the point in deleting this. –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE "Also there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating this again," Well, there's speedy G4. Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep She is a bit of a one-trick pony, but there are sufficient resources about her, IMO. I don't believe that subjects of articles can have those articles removed unless there is some compelling legal reason to do so. LaMona (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject is non-notable enough to defer to her wish not to have an article here. Kraxler (talk) 18:05, 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 delete.  Sandstein  13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somnio[edit]

Somnio (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 seems like a pretty ordinary advertising agency which has achieved only local recognition and non-notable honors ("one of the 50 fastest growing agencies in Austin"?). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The listed accomplishments do not appear notable in themselves: a combination of local, associated-supplier, and up-and-coming long-lists. We're left with 12th largest firm of its type in its city and I am not seing WP:RS coverage going beyond that. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero results in Adweek and PRWeek. Not sure how large it is in terms of employees or revenues. Current page is an advert. CorporateM (Talk) 01:20, 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 delete. As self promotion, which is not to say that a good faith user without a COI couldn't have a stab at creating this as long as it was possible to do so based on sources without overly dwelling on negative aspects such as the court cases. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gailen David[edit]

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

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

I'm not sure whether he is or is not notable, but I am sure that this is an advertisement for him. If an article is needed, it should be started over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely promotional article, created and maintained by SPA accounts. The only possibly "notable" incident, David's video campaign, would fall under WP:BLP1E, if it would be notable in itself. Talkshow appearances, brief "interviews" and other PR-activities do not establish notability, unless they are covered in-depth by independent reliable sources. I couldn't find such significant coverage via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. Who is this guy? He seems to have written his own entry.... shameless self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobLouis (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — JakobLouis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - the subject of the article has received significant RS coverage for his activities to the point where Discovery hired him to host a TV show. Much of the coverage is biographical in nature (including several sources already in the article), and the coverage spans multiple years, so notability is clear established. I disagree that the tone of the article is sufficient reason for deletion, although it certainly could be improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although there are numerous articles, most are around a single video that he created (but that appeared on Youtube and his own web site only). He was also sued for using airline logos on his site. None of this adds up to notability. Also, his page was partially edited by a now-blocked COI user, which fits in with what I see as a pattern of self-promotion. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that he isn't notable because he didn't do important things. That is indeed how the real world defines "notability", but Wikipedia defines notability based on depth and length of coverage, not the cause of the coverage. If all articles appeared in say the same week and none of them covered David as a person, then he would be not notable. However, here the coverage is over a long period of time (multiple years) and in some cases is biographical. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, I definitely read the notability guidelines differently. If someone has not done anything "important" but gets coverage, to me the coverage does not trump notability. Let's face it, there's a lot of garbage in our media -- from "eye-bait" headlines to filler. I think that a modicum of evaluation is better than a mere quantity of sources. The source requirement does not exist alone, but supports an argument of importance. That's my view. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is "importance" is subjective. To some people acting in a film isn't important. To other playing a sport professional isn't important. When we allow for subjective judgement of importance, AfDs will be decided randomly by who shows up. I learned early on in my Wikipedia career that "notability" means coverage, not importance, when this guy was up for AfD. It is hard to imagine a person doing less to be worthy of inclusion - his claim to fame is exclusively that he impregnated the daughter of a vice presidential candidate - yet the AfD, which I voted "strong delete" on, was (properly) closed as keep because editor judgement of importance can't override media judgement of importance. It doesn't matter whether we think someone should be notable, only whether reliable sources (including the news media) treats them as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (vote see above) Just as information, I nominated two of the non-free images for deletion as they both lack valid rationales. Aside from that point and regardless of this discussion's result: the article will need a complete overhaul and removal of promotional and poorly sourced content (if it would be kept in the first place). GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 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 redirect to Craig_Lancaster#Novels. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter[edit]

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter (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 coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Kindle First Selection is not a notable accomplishment. Jbh (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still under construction. Withdraw this nomination until it is actually written.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my reply to you on my talk page [9]. Acording to my WP:BEFORE the book is self published bu Amazon and the only coverage I could find was in blogs, Facebook and sales material. I will withdraw my nomination if you show some coverage that meets WP:NBOOK. Jbh (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request AGAIN you withdraw this nomination until I have actually written this article, you're just being obnoxious and rude by doing this. You obviously do not understand the use of templates, or more likely you missed it, since I had unwisely placed it at the bottom of the page, and you aren't prepared to admit that.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia discussing this with you, I have redirected this page to Craig Lancaster, and move the article to an incubator. I would have preferred to spend the time writing actually writing this article as the template suggested, but you've wasted enough of it on this already.

Suggest again you withdraw your badly timed nomination.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... As I noted on my talk page I must revert that. Just as you may not remove the AfD template (Which you did twice) you may not blank the page. I have told you now three times that if you can show the article passes WP:NBOOK, which you should have been able to do before you even started writing the article, I would withdraw the nomination. You have done everything but do this. Jbh (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK... stepping in here for a moment. The book does not pass notability guidelines and Jbh is correct in that MacRùsgail should have made sure that the book passes NBOOK before creating it as a live article. However MacRùsgail is also correct in that it's also considered impolite to nominate an article for deletion only minutes after it's been created. The best course of action here would have been to wait for MacRùsgail to finish. The thing about searching for coverage for books is that sometimes it's easy to miss coverage. I've saved more than a few books from deletion because I was able to dig up sources that others could not. Granted this book is not one of those examples, but it's still considered polite to wait for an editor to finish editing an article that they are still actively working on. Sometimes it's OK to do this if it's an article that's incredibly promotional and/or has absolutely zero assertion of notability, but in this case the article wasn't promotional and there were two things that would assert some sort of notability- the author's notability and that it was one of four books chosen for the Kindle First program. Neither of these are things that would make the book notable enough to pass notability guidelines, but it does give off the impression that there may be sources out there somewhere. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if it's a brand spanking new article that is actively being edited and has something about it that suggests that sources might possibly exist, don't nominate it immediately- wait at least a day to see if the article creator provides proof of notability. Now all that said, I don't think that the best course of action here was to nominate this for deletion. I think that it would have been better to just redirect this to the author's page since he looks to pass notability guidelines and leaving an article history behind will give us something to work with if the book passes notability guidelines in the future. It is possible that an author's work will gain enough coverage over time to pass notability guidelines- I've seen it happen multiple times. Now I'm going to propose that this article redirect with history to the author's article and if neither side has an issue with this, I'll close this AfD early. I don't see this ending any other way, really, and closing it early as a redirect would still mean that MacRùsgail would probably still have to go through deletion review if he wanted to re-create the article later on down the line if/when more sources become available. Jbh, technically you are right in that the book does not pass notability guidelines and to be honest, it doesn't look like it will pass anytime soon. I don't want to discourage you from trying to get rid of problem articles, but I would recommend that you try to work more with other editors in trying to find a solution before bringing something to AfD. It's entirely possible that MacRùsgail would have agreed to redirect the article if you'd approached him about this. Maybe he would have protested, but the thing here is that you didn't try to talk things out beforehand. You don't have to do this every time you want to nominate an article for deletion- if you see that nobody has edited it in the last 10+ hours then go for it- but if you see that someone edited the page only minutes before, it's just common courtesy to try to talk things out first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Thank you for stepping in here. I did not see the ((under construction)) template when I first nominated this (It was at the bottom of the page) No real excuse but when MacRusgail objected I asked him to just show how it passed NBOOKS, assuming he would have that information, and I would withdraw the nomination. Simple, clean and the issue would be closed in two edits. I made this offer three times and all I got was bluster and being called a Smart alec (Complete with blue link) [10] If I had noticed the link at first I likely would have waited a couple of days to see where the article went but once it was nominated all I could do is offer a speedy keep.

Once MacRusgail started removing the AfD tag on the article and calling me names I assumed he was just some PR editor not someone with 70,000+ edits and ten years of experience on Wikipedia so my desire to work with him took a bit of a nose dive after that. I guess I could have apologized for the AfD at the outset but it was a good faith nomination with a WP:BEFORE so I figured an offer to withdraw and an apology if my BEFORE was bad was a reasonable way to approach the situation. Oh yeah... no objection to the speedy close and thank you for taking the time to go over things here. I guess this article just tripped my spam trigger so I did not engage the author as I should have. I will endeavour to do better in the future. Jbh (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any evidence this book is notable. The provided reference (on wired.co.uk) which says the article was a "selection" for a Kindle marketing campaign is not notable. This selection is the only mention of the book made by the Wired article, and does not demonstrate notability. Unless reputable, non-trivial references can be found, this title doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluations of Internships at Ball State[edit]

Evaluations of Internships at Ball State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research. The article explicitly states this was a study undertaken by five students at Ball State University that is being published primarily here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Publish elsewhere first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, completely nonnotable and original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete, of course. Neutrality^talk 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is original research, and admits that it is. It is not notable in any way. It was developed by interested parties. Jacona (talk) 13:21, 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  13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accolade Competition[edit]

Accolade Competition (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 about an awards mill. The organization has been the subject of no significant media coverage I could find. Article still has no references after more than two years, nothing shows up in a Google Books search (Google web shows lots of people saying they got such an award, could find nothing on the award proper, e.g., who the judges are or what credentials they have, etc.). Failing the appearance of some reliable non-trivial sources about the competition, I propose this article be deleted as non-notable. KDS4444^Talk 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is two years since a sources needed tag was added but, in fact the sourcing problems go back to its creation just short of 9 years ago. I only found one mention of the award and that was a sales ad for a DVD for a film that had been in several small film festivals. WP:SECONDARY sources were not available. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's sad that the article has sat NEGLECTED for so long, but that is more a reason to ACTIVELY fix it in a encyclopedia that is self-admittedly IMPERFECT and a WORK IN PROGRESS, and not to delete it due to a possible laziness or animus (and no... I am not implying nor inferring anyone at this AFD is lazy or hateful). No secondary sources? Searches find it written of in Google scholar, multiple books and in multiple Google news. Does it being written of an mentioned in so many places outside of Wikipedia mean we can ignore it in all ways? That so may non-Wikipedia sources feel it notable enough, should be a clue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two pages of Google Book results, many are things such as, "...Today only one retains that accolade. Competition moved strongly into all four areas...". That's an accident, not a citation. The others unfortunately don't say anything about the award. The nine Google Scholar hits don't look like they will do the job either, though if there were one in particular, that would be a great start. Lack of notability isn't something that anyone can (or should necessarily try to) "fix", it either is the case or it is not. I am not suggesting the contest be ignored, I am suggesting that it is not notable and therefore that it does not warrant a stand-alone article. Being mentioned by multiple "non-Wikipedia sources" can't be used to make a claim of notability (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Neither can asserting that there WP:MUST be sources or that the fact that WP:ITEXISTS. KDS4444^Talk 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like some money-making scheme with a person named Charles Baker in charge. If this outfit were truly WP:Notable, we could find mention in WP:Reliable sources. There are not any. You can check it out yourself. Wikipedia is simply giving free publicity to this endeavor. There is a $60 entry fee for the first entry and $40 for the next. That would be OK if this were backed by and referenced by professional or trade mags, but it is not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no basis for notability under the guidelines, per nominator and BeenAroundAWhile. The list at Google Scholar above contains no article that discusses the Accolade Competition, all mentions are incidental (made in passing), mostly in lists. WP:CORP puts it best: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. --Bejnar (talk) 04:15, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IZArc[edit]

IZArc (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)

Kept in 2008, but many of the rationales would certainly not pass muster now. Of the sources cited, none actually establishes notability per WP:GNG - listings, blogs posts , a how-to, that kind of thing. The software itself is generic in nature and there is no evidence of widespread use (I am unsurprised by this, I have personally seen software lists from tens of thousands of computers all over the globe in the last ten years and have never once encountered it). Guy (Help!) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of many non-notable, free archivers. A few short reviews do not establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried a search myself and, among the 390,000 Google results, couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Just two. I also studied the first AfD and carefully study the irritated response by Jimmy Fleischer. He had introduced three sources as evidence, two of which were mere download listings. (Surprisingly, the number of Google results at that time was 414,000.) Also, the closure itself seems questionable since many of the participants had used very weak arguments, mostly appeals to usefulness. Looks like the last AfD closure was more of a vote count.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No good sources, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Computer magazines often compare IZArc with other file archiving utilities, e.g. WinZip. Editors can search Softpedia, PC Magazine, PC Computing, PC World and PC home Advanced to verify my comment.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they don't. Softpedia only lists it as a download, but there is no editorial review. PC World and PC Magazine don't even list it! PC/Computing never even had the opportunity to list it because it was folded in 2002. I didn't find a publication called "PC home advanced" at all, let alone search it! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review made by PC home Advanced can be found here: [11] (in Chinese). It argues that though IZArc supports plenty of archive formats in fact it is quite slow in compressing and decompressing ZIP archives. And since it has been frequently used by netizens I think that keeping this article will be quite useful for readers, since they may not know the fact that its compressing and decommpressing speed is slower than WinZip or WinRAR before downloading and installing it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another RS: [12].--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a mirror of Download.com and everything in it is author's own commentary. Seriously, your statements' factual accuracy is too poor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Download.com is a prestigious download site, and its editor's reviews can be used as RSes, thus [13] can be used as an RS. [14], [15], [16], [17] are also good RSes, since Should I Remove It? and TOPAttack are all informative commercial websites.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Download.com is a prestigious download site"! That's a weird way of saying it is pretty. But it is not "independent from the subject itself" which is required by WP:GNG; and it is definitely unreliable. 2008 Wikipedia consensus holds that reviews by Seth Rosenblatt are immature and unreliable; since then, Download.com no longer writes the reviewers' name.
• TOPAttack is one of the two valid coverages that I found. You are yet to find my other!
• Now, either you are writing all this to convince the closing admin or to convince me. If it is the former, no comments; but if it is the latter, I am afraid I have to say when you find yourself raiding the garbage dumps of the Internet, like some Chinese website and shouldiremoveit.com, I am more convinced that the subject is definitely not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no obvious significant coverage or any indication this is used by the wider world. For the majority of people, a zipfile is just a means to an end, something you double click on to get what you want - that's kind of it really. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient sourcing to meet GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:11, 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 redirect to Lodz University of Technology. Can be merged from the history as may be desired. Consensus is that it's not notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology[edit]

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology (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 pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. Delete or merge with Lodz University of Technology. Jbh (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Not worthy of a stand-alone article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other departments do not have their own articles, so adding the chemistry faculty to the main article would place undue weight on that field. My perspective on notability, as a chemist, is that Lodz has a medium to large staff. I don't recognize any faculty members myself, but the institution does have a notable presence in the field. Also, since the article is a list of faculty members, a reference to the appropriate website is all that's really needed, as that presumably provides verifiable information about history and statistics. At any rate, the lack of references does not merit deletion. Roches (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other departments do not have their own articles, so adding the chemistry faculty to the main article would place undue weight on that field is borderline WP:OTHERSTUFF and at any rate easy to solve (add them too; if chemistry is worth adding but not the others for some reason, then no undue weight problems; and if chemistry is not worth adding, delete instead of merging).

The lack of references is not a reason for deletion but the inexistence of sources is. Although the absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it's still some indication hence the WP:BURDEN guideline. Tigraan (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment References are needed to establish notability per WP:NRV. The individual faculty members do not contribute to notability per WP:NOTINHERITED WP:ORGSIG. If it is WP:UNDUE to merge then it should be deleted rather than merged. Jbh (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "undue weight" I mean that this article would represent more than half of Lodz University of Technology after a merge. If other faculties don't have articles, it's not because they're not notable. Many articles for American universities have separate articles for parts of the institution.

If it's not clear, "Faculty of Chemistry" does not mean the academics themselves. It is a subdivision equivalent to a department at a U.S. university, and the word "department" is used for a group of related researchers, which is not normally a formal group at American schools. In the U.S., "faculty" is the next higher level above a department, as in "Faculty of Arts and Science". Roches (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some relevant details to List of Universities in Poland, definitions of what are called "academies" (for arts) and "technical universities" (which are like universities that only teach physical sciences and engineering). It's nothing whatsoever like a technical school in the U.S.

If any editor here can read Polish or wants to machine-translate, the website almost certainly has a media or press page that will list recent mentions of the faculty in secondary sources. The English version seems to be missing one. Roches (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. No evidence of independent notability from its parent university, and no third-party coverage of a type that would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. So we should delete all these faculties that are not completely independent: University of Sydney#Organisation, University of Zagreb#Faculties, University of Montenegro#Organization, McGill University#Structure, University of Belgrade#Faculties, Faculties and institutions of University of Peradeniya, McMaster University#Administration and much more? In fact, they have high self-reliance, have their own history, have their own scientific research, dozens of full professors and thousands of students. Chrumps (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, unless they can show they have independent notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lodz University of Technology. As written, it fails to show any independent notability (only ref is to its own webpage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 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 delete. Nakon 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Mad Ki Aya Story[edit]

Mad Mad Ki Aya 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)

Little to no reliable secondary source coverage. Also per WP:CRYSTAL, as an upcoming film with no backing of reliable sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's way too soon. Cavarrone 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Filming has not even started, if one can belief the info in the article, and no sources in the article, and 0 hits on google (except our article here). Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. the arguing around the redirect hasn't overshadowed the fact that the arguments about the sourcing not cutting the mustard have not been refuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatomy[edit]

Traumatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Traumatomy (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)

Up-and-coming creative ensemble generating some momentum, but Wikipedia:Too soon to meet inclusion per WP:BAND. Sources found are mostly WP:UGC. The review by Eden 2014 is independent in an online magazine, but I'm not sure that is sufficient. They have a respectable Facebook following and may be appropriate for Wikipedia soon, but... WP:CRYSTAL. Gaff (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some well-meaning editor has now made the page a REDIRECT, pointing to the page Traumatomy (band). I don't know how to fix this page to reflect that change. --Gaff (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/rename. Sources appear on google 12 3 in relation to the search term, but the band should be renamed to help improve the article (see Wikipedia:Article titles) in order to avoid any confusion. ITfan1990 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I history-merged Traumatomy with Traumatomy (band), and then moved it back to Traumatomy because it was under AfD. Someone redirected Traumatomy to Traumatic brain injury, but Google search found no use of Traumatomy as a medical term, but only as the music band. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for your help, but the band should be placed in parentheses. I have restored the page content and redirected the namespace to the band correctly (see above), but kept the ((R from move)) template(s). ITfan1990 (talk)
• That was a cut-and-paste move, and I have just history-merged it and put the article back at Traumatomy, where it should remain until this discussion has been settled. Is this discussion about deleting or moving the music band article, or about deleting the redirection? AfD is not the place to discuss deleting a redirection. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the histmerge, but the article clearly doesn't belong there per AfD discussion at this time. As stated above, the band name should be listed in parentheses for now. This time I added a complex histmerge tag, also explaining the naming policy mentioned move. Please be aware of it. ITfan1990 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Google search emits facebook, twitter and other music indexing sites. At the moment this band does not qualify for a Wikipedia page, but they will definitely in coming months. Hitro talk 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "This time I added a complex histmerge tag": I have done the histmerge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- It is clearly mentioned in the notice that "article should not be blanked" but it is blanked for like 24 hours now, it is an AfD discussion, it is a 'keep' or 'delete' debate. We should emphasize on basic rules. Hitro talk 19:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there is no AfD notice on the page for the band, which is today at Traumatomy (band) (I found it while stub-sorting Category:Stubs), but there is an AfD notice at the redirect for Traumatomy. While this AfD stays open, there should be an AfD notice on the article itself. Could a passing admin (@Anthony Appleyard:?) perhaps sort this out? PamD 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : I have copied the content from Traumatomy (band) and pasted it on the article under consideration, and I have requested Traumatomy (band) to be deleted speedily as per G6.Hitro talk 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- My edits are being reverted without any proper reasons by ITfan1990 (talk · contribs), however I believe he or she is new to Wikipedia, so might not be aware of rules and guidelines here. Hitro talk 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See above. Stop trying to revert the histmerge that was agreed upon here. Please do not remove the tag again without a valid reason. Thank you. ITfan1990 (talk) 21:47, 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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Running Home (book)[edit]

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

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

Contested prod, so wasting everyone's time doing this the hard way even though nothing has been done to address the issues raised in the proposed deletion. (Nor could it be, since this is a patently non-notable self-published e-book.) The original rationale - "Non-notable e-book, written by a non-notable author and published by a non-notable publisher. Only one actual source (the second source doesn't mention this book, and in any case appears to be to a blog), and that "source" is the publisher's website." - has not changed.  – iridescent 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I note that Books of the Dead is a one-man publishing company. I looked for some evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, but I did not find any. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Fearnet review would be considered a reliable source (even though the site is now gone), however we need more than one source to show notability- by today's notability standards on Wikipedia you really need about 2-4 really good, in-depth sources to come close to proving notability for an author. I can't find anything else to really show notability and the closest I could find was this interview on a site that doesn't have any clear editorial guidelines to show that it'd be considered a RS. This is a delete from my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I agree with Tokyogirl that the current reference would be valid but clearly not enough. I could not find any aditional reliable sources other than routine listings to buy the book. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 05:24, 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) — Yash! ^(Y) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paessler[edit]

Paessler (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)

Zero evidence for notability. Prod was removed, but no information added. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notablity is established by sources e.g. [18] and [19]. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thanks for your note, DGG. I’ve added the most current developments regarding Paessler AG as reported by independent sources. See also the updated references section. Anton555a ( Talk ) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, apparently unknown on dewiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's an in-depth review in Network World here and a product release story here. The article gives me the impression of COI editing, but it is not hopelessly promotional to the extent of not being worth keeping. Add a COI tag to the article and give the original author a COI warning if they are an SPA. CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Siegel[edit]

Lawrence Siegel (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 notability besides a single composition. The composition itself doesn't seem notable after a cursory glance. At best, it should just be a page about the composition. References are very slim and from what I saw, the only one used is the only one out there. I prodded it a bit ago and the author simply removed it without improving the article. Jcmcc (Talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an oratorio on the holocaust recorded by a major orchestra and distributed by Naxos is obviously notable as press coverage indicates. So http://lawrencesiegel.com/works-of-lawrence-siegel/ haven't had more than local press coverage. It happens. Moving a composer page to a composition page is just asking for more work later. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the work is notable, then it should have a page about the work itself with a mention about the producer at the most. Jcmcc (Talk) 09:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It appears that he has released Kaddish through Naxos, according to Naxos' own website, but he needs two or more albums through a major record label. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability for him nor for his work, a couple of lines in an obscure magazine are not enough, fails GNG, ANYBIO or other suitable SNGs. Cavarrone 06:54, 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. Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNT's Next 10 Greatest NBA Players[edit]

TNT's Next 10 Greatest NBA Players (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)

Nominating after WP:PROD was contested 12 days later. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The list is a product of a made-for-TV special. I can't find any sources after the event to indicate enduring notability. The most significant coverage is archived here from SI.com. However it is not independent. From the source: "I've been asked to offer my opinion on who should join the NBA's original 50 greatest players for SI.com (TNT's corporate partner)." Seems to have been written for cross-promotional purposes. —Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If it were a formal NBA-endorsed addition to the original 50 then it would be notable content to merge into the article on the original 50; but this does not appear to be the case, so a deletion would seem the logical conclusion. Aspirex (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that WP:PRESERVE was not an option here in lieu of AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale: completely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG and WP:RS. Clearly promotional for TNT, the primary source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable TV special failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Specials have little more inherent notability than episodes, and this seems like it was a special only aired once, likely with only archive footage and commentary, no original programming. ― Padenton|✉   02:54, 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 Speedy Deleted G4 by Tokyogirl79 NAC –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flameboy Pyro (rapper)[edit]

Flameboy Pyro (rapper) (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's subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. The only sources I could find for Fameboy Pyro were either owned by the subject or consisted of suspicious looking websites that brought up security warnings when I tried to open them. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was apparently deleted a number of times under Flameboy Pyro, so I nominated the article for speedy deletion per G4. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Hogan[edit]

Kristin Hogan (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)

Even though this was previously deleted in an AfD, a prod was declined. The prod rationale was: "made up, unsourced, not noteworthy." I don't think she meets the WP:GNG and it currently reads like advertisement. Tavix  Talk  04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Tavix  Talk  05:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tavix  Talk  05:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources whatsoever. The peru.com source provided on the article only mentions her in passing. Possibly WP:A7. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notabilty fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G4 - This is nothing more than the recreation of the previous article, and except for a mention of a liposuction and other beauty surgery there doesn't seem to be anything new. Google also doesn't turn up anything to foster her claim to notability. Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:G4 as a recreation and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 11:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ó Ruanaidh[edit]

Joseph Ó Ruanaidh (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)

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The deletion rationale is "resumé" Reyk _YO! 11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- now, having examined the article, I agree with the IP nominator's assessment that this is just a CV of a non-notable person. Reyk _YO! 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If he is highly cited, as the article claims, would he not pass WP:PROF criterion 1? "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is very badly sourced and should be trimmed to only material that can be supported by sources (primary sources may be ok for simple factual claims; no sources not ok). But judging by his Google scholar profile he does indeed pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He does indeed pass WP:PROF#C1, according to his Google Scholar page. Much rewrite needed though. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I'm usually a little squeamish about the filter-fed GS stats because even very obscure pieces routinely have a few dozen citations, but his '98 paper in Signal Processing has >200 citations according to WoS and he has some other cited papers there too, which I think should be passable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Agricola44:: WoS is a bad choice for computer science because it has poor coverage of conferences, which are more important than journals in many subdisciplines of CS. See e.g. the final bullet point in WP:PROF. For this reason I prefer GS, at least for this subject, despite its somewhat-inflated citation counts. (This may be more computer engineering than computer science but I think it's close enough for the same issues to apply.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Eppstein: Thanks David. I am well-aware of this dynamic, i.e. that the CS culture assigns great importance to refereed conferences, so WoS will be at a "false-negative" disadvantage here. My main point was the converse: that GS is equally, if not more disadvantaged on the "false-positive" side of the balance sheet, for example it will include citations from unpublished documents, e.g. white-papers, which are certainly not of the same rank as citations from refereed publications. Be that as it may, I think we largely agree on this particular case. Thanks for the ping. Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Fully meets WP:PROF on the basis of citation the very high level of 1387 for his paper in Signal Processing, or which he was senior author. Followed by 541 in IEEE Proceedings-Vision & Signal Processing, which is in the field as impt as any journal, a book with 431, then 486 , etc. This sort of record should never be questioned here. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 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 delete. The keep arguments are almost a poster child of how not to refute a well argued case for deletion based on a lack of sourcing. They therefore did not prevail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Heraldic Registry[edit]

United States Heraldic Registry (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)

Unresolved notability tag for 2 years. Entire article fails GNG. Article is about an online single proprietorship company with no RS provided in article and none easily discoverable following a cursory search (note, that there are a smattering of references discoverable, but these are primarily from blogs and message boards and the websites of heraldry clubs, not RS). BlueSalix (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 1 - The claim is incorrect. The USHR is not a single proprietorship company. It offers a free service to all armigers in the world. Armigers can opt for a printed certificate to be mailed to their home. This is admittedly charged, but only so much as to off set the cost of printing and posting internationally.

2 - Heraldry is a very niche market specialist topic. There are no more than a dozen printed heraldry journals in the world, most have gone over to digital publications. There will not be dozens of sources for any heraldry topic. Even the quality newspapers consistently get it wrong.

3 - No article on Wikipedia has ever been improved by deleting it. If it does not meet standards it should be improved, not removed. The USHR is notable, if only to the 500+ armigers worldwide who have registered with them. --Kiltpin (talk) 20:38, 10 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons cited above, as well as the fact that the registry is cited by respected heraldic societies (the American Heraldry society is sourced in the article, but many others cite their registrations, eg http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/membersarms/kimonandreou.htm). The registry is cited by scholars such as Nick Birch, 2014, "Branding Harvard", Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH. The registry is important within the narrow field of American heraldry, as much as a reference tool as for the services it offers. I should think Wikipedia over time will have more and more complete information on the assumption of arms, and all the legal ramificaitons and implications contained in the subject; when that happens the USHR will certainly come up as well and be talked about further. Then the need for this article will be all the more apparent. --Marlow4 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This has now been re-listed twice and the consensus is to Keep. How many more times will it be re-listed? --Kiltpin (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article provides no indication of notability as described at WP:GNG, which would require substantial third-party coverage. The people advocating "keep" above have few contributions, and the comments by Kingpin may indicate a conflict of interest.  Sandstein  15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weasel Words! We are supposed to be discussing the article not the quality of the editors with different opinions. Check out Commons before deciding I have "few contributions". As for "the comments by Kingpin may indicate a conflict of interest", the comments might also indicate that Kiltpin is a neutral observer who has a specialist knowledge of heraldry and coats of arms. --Kiltpin (talk) 12:17, 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 redirect to Reputation management. Since there is currently no target for the consensus redirect, I have redirected it to the closest I can find. This can of course be tweaked when/if the suggested list is created. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website reputation ratings[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY but it is not my area of expertise. Prod removed by Mr. Guye. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now find some resolution. Tagged by Bfigura. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I looked at GBooks and GScholar, but the few hits seem generic, and not sufficient to establish notability as a widespread technical or academic term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The term as such may be a bit of a neologism, but this article could be moved to List of website reputation websites or something. Or made into a category. —Ruud 11:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. The article doesn't have enough verifiable references, which makes it seem non-notable. This is largely because it is currently acting as a category/list while summing up the function of this type software in the lead section. However, one can find sources to use in this article but it seems like a better idea to convert it into a category or a list. — Jordan Mussi (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted until there have been a reasonable number of responses? Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added the article to WP:WikiProject Business...it's arguable, all entries in the list will be businesses of some kind, so I suppose it's a list of businesses and therefore w/in scope. I also added WikiProject Software and Computer Security, all of which are within scope. Software might be a stretch. I won't be hurt if software's removed. I also posted on WP:WikiProject Internet's talk page, wasn't sure whether or not it was in their scope as well. ― Padenton|✉   21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 1) None of the entries are businesses—they're software services. 2) If they were businesses, the appropriate WikiProject would be ((WikiProject Companies)). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to list proposed by Ruud. Topic meets WP:LISTN. There's a clear inclusion criteria, and there's already written prose for the list's overview. ― Padenton|✉   21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after collecting the listed sites in a category as suggested by Ruud. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ruud's proposed list, per Padenton's reasoning. APerson (talk!) 01:02, 4 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. Michig (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Simon Itelima Afiesimama[edit]

Reverend Simon Itelima Afiesimama (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 subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Three of the four sources in the article are unreliable. The leadership source doesn't mention the subject. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- another NN pastor. Even if he is relkated to notable people, notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources found. The news source provided on the article doesn't even mention him. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -there's not even an assertion of notability for this run of the mill self-appointed 'minister'. Wikipedia is not a web host for every minister whose father was a chief and his cousin is so-and-so. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 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. G5 already refused. This smacks of asking the other parent Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian F. Martin[edit]

Brian F. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested Prod Fails WP:GNG and Declined AFC submission and a paid article created in violation of block and ban and thus eligible under WP:G5.Please refer to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though the article was originally created by a now banned user, a simple google search reveals several news articles on the subject from reliable sources. Including Los angeles Times, The New York Times, World Neighbors and many others Cada mori (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:G5 this page has no substantial edits by others almost entirely created by user socking as per this last edit done by that user and the other edits are basically tagging the page.This is about the New York Times about a sale of a house.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Brian F. Martin and his work to bring awareness of children brought up in homes of domestic violence even caused Congress to take action. Jon Conyers, Jr, a congressional member of the house even thanked posted information on his personal blog about this. The Hill, a government policy website also posted information on this topic and the charity. It seems this guy has nothing to gain from this article and is making a notable impact on society. John Conyers & Makers of MemoriesThe Hill & Congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.15.216.179 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC) — 4.15.216.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is established by sources listed above and others. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable lacks significant coverage and written by banned users.2001:E68:4414:1C38:6C5E:EA17:1ED8:AAB6 (talk) 15:02, 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 keep. Consensus is that the articles meets WP:NBAND and is no longer completely unsourced Davewild (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Oh My[edit]

The Real Oh My (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 I couldn't quite make out of. It was up for a AFD in 2008 with 1 merge, 1 delete and 1 keep. It has apparently been inactive and nothing has ever happened with it either. Wgolf (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Sandstein, Darth Panda, Nouse4aname, Esradekan, MBisanz, MacGyverMagic, who participated in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NBAND #6:Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely unsourced, per WP:V, and apparently nobody cares enough to find sources. We can't even verify whether this alleged ensemble exists.  Sandstein  12:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was unsourced, but isn't now - it was just neglected. I'm not sure the references I've now added would take it over WP:GNG, but they verify that it meets WP:NBAND #6. Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this was a band with one notable member we'd probably merge it to that article. Having two notable members makes it no more suitable for deletion and there's no single target to merge to. --Michig (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heavy Equipment Specs for Transportation[edit]

List of Heavy Equipment Specs for Transportation (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)

Unencyclopedic linkfarm. Prod contested by article creator. --Finngall ^talk 01:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This is like an index to an equipment leasing site, but that site already has an index for the equipment it handles. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Both the nominator and Margin1522 are correct. This is a catalog for an equipment leasing site. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 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  15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Poland, Canberra[edit]

Embassy of Poland, Canberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. purely a directory listing showing name of ambassador and address. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't find any sources discussing this building/organization in depth, neither in English or Polish. Would prefer to see it merged; perhaps as the beginning of the List of diplomatic missions in Canberra? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's already List of diplomatic missions in Australia, and Poland is already on the list. I've just added the picture of the Polish Embassy to the article as well. Orthogonal1 (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Gregoroff (singer)[edit]

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

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

Two references included, neither of which has more than a fleeting mention of the subject. Dweller (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XML-Enabled Networking[edit]

XML-Enabled Networking (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 concept of "XML-Enabled Networking" is a marketing/technical buzzword that does not really reflect anything in reality. There are no sources discussing the concept except as a marketing phrase by a company called Reactivity (who themselves don't have an article) that for a brief while sold hardware and services that claimed to provide "XML-Enabled Networking" (see this as a representative example).

I have found no other use for the phrase that is not within the marketing copy of Reactivity who were bought by Cisco in 2007. It seems likely that the concept was dreamed up at the height of XML fever in enterprise software simply as a marketing phrase to sell hardware firewalls with some protection against XML parser vulnerabilities (like the billion laughs attack etc.) to big corporate IT departments. It doesn't really make much sense as a phrase because it violates the layering principle, as you can see in the article: it isn't a protocol, it's a very vaguely defined "abstration layer".

Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG (and WP:B2B is applicable too). If someone wanted to write an article on Reactivity Inc. then it might be worth a brief mention in that article (and a redirect), but it isn't notable in and of itself. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I'd also note that Reactivity Inc was once a page, created by the same user who started XML-Enabled Networking. It was speedy deleted under A7 (db-corp) because it did not assert significance, but based on the existence of sources about Reactivity Inc being bought by Cisco Systems (the GigaOm piece linked above, for instance) it may pass notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]