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  08:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Unbreakable Bond[edit]

An Unbreakable Bond (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)

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

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

An Unbreakable Bond is an article about a book. The original author of the article is clearly self-identified as the author of the book, so there is a big conflict of interests. The article does not address the notability of the book at all. It simply provides a plot synopsis. The referencing mainly covers for the factual events that the book is based on. It does seem to have a little local news coverage but this does not seem sufficient. Prod was removed by an user who I suspect to be an alternative account of the original author and who has also written an (auto)biography of him at Pat Farabaugh.

Pat Farabaugh is a biography of the author. I my took BLPPROD off that myself as references were added. However, even with the references, I don't see notability here and, unless I am mistaken, the same COI issues apply. DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty obvious case of WP:ADMASQ self-promotion by a new, inexperienced editor (and his equally obvious sockpuppet). Pax 22:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tormar Associates[edit]

Tormar Associates (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 meet WP:CORP. There's a bit of coverage about a recent lawsuit but that's it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; see also John Tormondsen. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been updated to meet WP:CORP. Added reference to New York Times study indicating that each Tormar partner owned a significant portion of Goldman Sachs (over $107M each) at time of IPO, as well as reference to New York Times article about partner's departure from Goldman Sachs, as well as feature story in Institutional Investor's Alpha about his next project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradYard (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOTINHERIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Not suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, insufficient sources. - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 11 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) 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Tormondsen[edit]

John Tormondsen (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 meet WP:BIO - No substantial coverage in secondary sources. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The fullest coverage he's received is as the defendant in a recent suit filed by Citibank, and that's WP:NOTNEWS. Also note that the article's creator is adding this subject to multiple article lists [1]. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree. The sources offered, and all I could find in my own searches, are just simple news coverage of WP:ONEEVENT. None of it is really about the subject, it's just reporting that he had a particular job, he left and now he's being sued. I don't think that's just not enough to satisfy WP:GNG as substantial coverage. Msnicki (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Except for this short piece, the coverage has been too thin to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Java Institute for Advance Technology[edit]

Java Institute for Advance 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)

This article was tagged by the author for speedy deletion, which I declined. The rationale given was "There is a request from the organisation to remove this from the Wiki", which is not a valid reason, and it is not eligible for G7 because the author is not the sole editor. But I have worked on the article for a while and I'm not sure what to make of it. If it is a diploma-granting institution it would be presumed notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. But if I am reading it correctly, they grant a certificate in Java technology rather than a diploma. If that is the case it needs to meet WP:GNG, which it clearly doesn't. I could find no outside references at all, just the institution's webpage. Unless someone can find more sources, or evidence that they qualify under SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I recommend deletion. If kept, the title should be moved to Java Institute for Advanced Technology. MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software training organization article of unclear notability, lacking significant, independent RS coverage. No evidence this organization is accredited - the certifications mentioned are not equivalent to accreditation. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:36, 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. - 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

New Ananda English School[edit]

New Ananda English School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. ubiquity (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not entirely sure if this is a hoax? - The only results on google are this article and some blokes CV, It is on GMaps but anyone can register any business on Maps so still not entirely sure... Anyway obviously no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's probably not a hoax but if it can't conclusively be proven to exist as a maistream school of some kind then it can't be redirected either. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Masson (medical student)[edit]

Maxime Masson (medical student) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A vanity bio of a medical student, with no independent references. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What is most appalling in this act of unsatiable vanity is this edit, which moved an existing article about a notable priest to make space for their own (or their boyfriend, whatever) glory. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Deletion rationale is without merit and violates WP:AGF as well. The subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG. We don't automatically delete articles on notable subjects because we suspect a COI. If the article contains promotional language then it should be cleaned up. AfD is not cleanup. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please explain how did you figure out it satisfies WP:GNG. Namely, which rules of it are satisfied. How is that nomination for deletion of a vanity page violates WP:AGF? How much GF you A if I move the page Stanislaw Lem to Stanislaw Lem (writer) and put my bio in the place? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm also quite concerned that the person who submitted this is also deleting referenced material from the article in question with misleading edit summaries [2]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So not notable, I'm surprised someone didn't CSD it. Risker (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to the correct title, which is Maxime Masson (medical student). I'll get around to the disambiguation page shortly. Risker (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article seems to respect WP's notability guidelines, although more secondary sources would be welcome... I guess those will come eventually. For the moment, article satisfies WP:ALIVE as per WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR. Initial authors were in accordance with WP:BOLD and WP:RELY; on my part as per WP:IPHUMAN. Perhaps WP:COI with initial author User:BScMScMD, yet further investigation required. --74.58.19.13 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — 74.58.19.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How does this article meet WP:GNG? The overwhelming number of references are to the article subject's own work. Getting a letter published in a journal isn't notable. Certainly getting published in a school paper isn't notable. There's nothing about him that differentiates him from hundreds of thousands of medical school students around the world. Risker (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So far it has been shown that the subject of this article has written letters that have been published in a few places, including a couple in a newspaper and a handful in medical journals. As well as these comment and opinion pieces, the subject of this article has also written some essays that were accepted by online magazines articles that specifically invite contributions from students. For a healthcare professional this pattern of correspondence and creative output is not currently enough to meet WP:GNG in my estimation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Drchriswilliams. I can't locate any independent, significant coverage of this subject. The subject's own writing doesn't come close to meeting even the relatively easy standard of WP:AUTHOR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The main claim of importance is rather dubious IMHO: "writing to (notable?) journals and got posted" seems rather unremarkable, like a slight step-up to letters to newspapers. WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR ask for the subject's work to receive critical attention, like being highly cited or received thorough peer review in the field. There is none provided in the article or here in AfD so far. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a vanity bio, or autobio, without any significant references other than those created by the subject of the article. Getting letters published, even in very respectable journals, does not generate notability. No obvious difference here from many other medical students worldwide. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear vanity article of a non-notable medical student. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline speedyable; how does writing a letter make one notable? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Is being a medical student, who got published for english writing in the college blog with less than 100 hits per month notable? We're going to be really busy with every english student in the country being added to the wiki! Also, first 3 links belong on the French version...if this isn't deleted - we're going to have to remove them. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails wp:prof for academics in the medical field. The subject is a far cry from an expert in the field, and even further from being a full professor. BakerStMD 00:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not the place for a tirade about priests of the same name being notable, but THIS is not notable per criteria. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Page layout#Design elements and choices. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floating block[edit]

Floating block (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)

Was thinking of just putting a prod for this but was not sure. This comes across as a dictionary term more then a article for here. Has been unreferenced for over 8 years now as well! Wgolf (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Page layout – Design elements and choices, which presently does not mention the floating block. The topic is verifiable, but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article as per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge as above. As a definition of a 'thing' rather than a word it isn't a dictionary definition. GBooks has several sources discussing it (you looked there, right?), mainly regarding web design, but if it can be covered in another article that may be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I agree with Northamerica that Page layout is probably the most appropriate place for it. Kharkiv07^Talk 21:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon S. Jackson[edit]

Jon S. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:1E at best; no evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG, mentioned in coverage, but not significant. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my standards for lawyers. He seems to be appointed counsel, that's it. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for MH-17[edit]

Requiem for MH-17 (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 suggest deleting this article per WP:N and WP:INHERIT, since the notability of the tragedy does not automatically make the poem notable. The article is mostly retelling the content of the poem (in violation of WP:PLOT), and the second- and third-party coverage is marginal at best. It was already proposed for deletion for exactly the same reasons about a year ago (the result was "no consensus"), and nothing seems to have changed since then (there was no new media coverage). Buzz105 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Barely worth a mention in the reactions section of the main article, let alone having its own page. Fails WP:N and WP:INHERIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree, not notable. Might bear a very brief mention in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17‎. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. Closing user's note: had I participated in the article earlier, I would have !voted "keep" due to the existence of coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Luna (band)[edit]

General Luna (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)

I put a prod on this but apparently it was already afd the band seems to be unotable with only 2 albums (only 1 page exists while the other is up for a prod) Wgolf (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two albums on Warners, sufficient coverage, passes WP:NBAND: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-okay they have 2 albums by a major label but from what I can tell it is there only albums. Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How many albums do you think they need? --Michig (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that notable bands needed to have more then 2 at least, I guess the layout of this article just made me think they may not be notable. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the website is no longer there. I'm going to keep this afd up though to see other opinions. Wgolf (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Michig. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND criteria #1. Source examples include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw-oaky yeah notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shukurbek Beyshenaliev[edit]

Shukurbek Beyshenaliev (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 meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he does not appear in Russian WikipediaCoolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of he WorldCat entries. He's in the national encycopedia. the books were translated to English in the 1950s. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to DGG's points above Google books yields 81 results. ^[1] @Rob talk 20:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Queries which encyclopaedia? - was it this one?[17] being in encyclopaedia does not necessarily mean wikinotability, world cat brings up a total of 6 occurences [18], books translated into english do not mean the author is notable, the google book search of 81 or 23? results brings up trivial (only listing his name) or irrelevant entries - [19], [20], [21]. having carried out a general google search (again:))[22] and searched the first 140 entries[23] it brings up nothing relevant (except the Open KG - Tourism Information portal (encyclopaedia?)info cited above), only bookseller/publisher sites, library listings, sites that just list his name and or his books, sites with info from wikipedia. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Hyser[edit]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 15:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She was the star of a well-known 80s comedy, Just One of the Guys. Much of her other work is admittedly minor, but the one starring role should certainly be enough to confirm her notability. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to Just One of the Guys, a major role, there's also supporting roles in stuff like Spinal Tap and L.A. Law. And she's still active in acting, and there are enough interviews and stuff out there to convince me it passes WP:ENT. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - based on the many supporting roles in cinema and TV. Also, her role in This is Spinal Tap was small yet memorable. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Self IAR close following withdrawn nomination with confirmation by the only other person supporting deletion, no need to keep this open any longer than necessary. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bird[edit]

Brown Bird (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 almost deletable as ((db-band)) per a lack of importance asserted, however given the amount of sources thought AfD was a better venue. Having said that, as all the sources are local to New England, this doesn't seem like enough to make the band meet the general notability guidelines, and it doesn't look like they meet WP:NMUSIC. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; the sources are not strong enough on their own to prove notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ITSLOCAL and the fact that most of the sources in the article seem to be reliable. Besides those sources, there is more RS coverage of this band and their albums: [24] [25] [26] This seems to be enough to meet WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 15:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:BAND @Rob talk 17:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the sources already in the article and those identified above, there is also: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what is effectively a notice of death by NPR does it for me, happy to withdraw and early close provided Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi feels the same way. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kelapstick- you go ahead. Can't fight progress, eh! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:29, 3 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 03:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Theatre (Berkeley, California)[edit]

Impact Theatre (Berkeley, California) (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)

Seemingly NN theater in the basement of a Pizza shop. Findsources turns up not much. This is the only serious coverage which probably isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also This — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellahellion (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful Delete. I'd really like to save this article, and I looked to see if I could find a second source comparable to the Chronicle writeup - which is significant coverage from a regionally significant paper. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything else even close, and we require multiple (as in, at least two) such sources. Maybe it will become more notable later. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources, probably fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 11 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 03:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comodo Korugan[edit]

Comodo Korugan (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 for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - software 'hardware' article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are a forum and a company site, not WP:RS, and a search turned up no significant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain; - Its a hardware resource and it is new product from trusted brand, I am surprised to see that the article is under consideration for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamahendric (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so the brand does not in itself establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: - Hope you might consider dailysabah Turkish magazine Ekonomist has a trusted source. I recommend to remove AFD request on this article. (Williamahendric (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Williamahendric, you may make multiple comments on afd discussions, but are only allowed one vote. You have voted twice on this afd. Please change one of the votes to a comment.Dialectric (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have already deleted a half-dozen spammy articles about individual Comodo products. CorporateM (Talk) 05:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Author shared the article in stub and it has base references & details, why should we delete instead of edit? It is not necessary to know what it is brand or anything. Wiki help people in providing details through trusted citation, Improve it instead of delete Mathewherz (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)— Mathewherz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis (online journal)[edit]

Noesis (online journal) (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 an article which has never had a single independent source, on a project of no evident importance. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It does look like a dead issue. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article about an important tool for a specific academic field. It is listed by universities as a recommended search engine. St Johns Colin Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpatterns (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 March 2015‎

• Keep Don't know how relevant it is now, and the article as it exists currently could certainly be better, but it's an Internet open access scholarship pioneer. It's recommended in the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy (brief mention, indeed), here's a paper about it -- a primary source published in secondary publication, site reviewed in Reference Reviews, article about it in Campus Technology. Here are some sources of unknown quality (I don't have access at the moment): Serials Review, Philosophy of religion: a critical survey of Internet resources, another from Reference Reviews, and the several primary and secondary sources collected on the Noesis information page. It's not a slam dunk, but it passes GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From the look of it, this is a bibliographic database, not an academic journal. Correct? --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A database, search engine, curated directory of sorts, etc. A reference site rather than a journal, yes, but one with an editorial board. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Most databases have a oard under one name or another, which determines what to include in the database and what not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I'm just pointing it out because, to me anyway, when looking at the aesthetics of the site through a 2015 lens, it could be taken for one of the many thoughtless directories or custom Google searches that spring up to make a few AdSense bucks (rather than a scholarly endeavor). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources cited above by Rhododendrites are fully sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though I am hearing for the first time, above sources are conclusive. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Evryware. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dude[edit]

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

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

Non-notable, no good sourcing found. Previously kept in 2006 due to notability of developer but I'm not finding anything useful. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when your parent article ( in this case the game developer ) is a stub, it's unlikely that the child article (the game) is going to be notable. put the content into the developer article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to developer (Evryware) as valid search term, though that isn't to say that the company's own article would pass an AfD. The game's article on its own lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me if more (non-English, especially Japanese, and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 05:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Czar. Not adequately notable, but a somewhat likely search term that could lead to a notable article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1-Phenylethylpiperidylidene-2-(4-chlorophenyl)sulfonamide[edit]

1-Phenylethylpiperidylidene-2-(4-chlorophenyl)sulfonamide (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)

WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Pharmacology require chemical compounds to meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Beyond the one reference in the article (which is a patent, not a peer reviewed publication, and therefore may contain unsupported claims), there are no reliable medical sources mentioning this chemical compound - nothing on PubMed, etc. Most of the article content is original research and pure speculation. The article should be deleted due to concerns about WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. ChemNerd (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, chemical with no independent notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Has then been searched for in Chemical Abstracts,which is the only proper way of seeing if there are other publication? DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: According to Chemical Abstracts, this chemical compound is mentioned in (but is not the sole subject of) only a single >25-year old scientific publication (Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry, 1987, 1413-1416). That article is just a duplicate description of the research reported in the patent from the same author that is already cited in the Wikipedia article. ChemNerd (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most chemcial compounds are indeed reported only once, and are not notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 3 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 Sophia Abrahão discography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

É Você[edit]

É Você (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:NSONG. A protected redirect to Sophia Abrahão, post-deletion, is acceptable; simple redirection, as evidenced by the page history, will be insufficient. —Cryptic 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep; I'd say it barely passes WP:NSONGS, but wouldn't complain about a merge with Sophia Abrahão discography. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sophia Abrahão discography. Doesn't seem overly notable on its own, but definitely enough to be a part of that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sophia Abrahão discography. Eeekster (talk) 18:32, 2 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  08:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Njiva[edit]

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

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

A magazine that published a single issue. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, importance not asserted. No sources. External link is an article that mentions magazine just in one sentence. GregorB (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear notable. 23 editor (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitechek[edit]

Whitechek (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 coverage from reliable secondary sources. Borderline WP:CSD per criterion A7. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 14:11, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 and G11 - I had already tagged the page before. --TL22 (talk) 14:51, 3 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. Discounting the SPAs and personal attacks, there is consensus to delete rather than userfy. Nakon 03:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Women, Ageing and Media[edit]

Centre for Women, Ageing and Media (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, non-affiliated sources. All sources are affiliated except for the Zwoll, Karpf, Jones and Whiting refs. However, the Zwoll and Whiting refs are blogs (not an WP:RS), while the Karpf ref doesn't even mention the centre. This leaves the Jones ref, which is quite literally from a tabloid, and doesn't really establish notability due to not being an RS. Therefore, due to the lacking of notability establishing sources, we should delete this article. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While I definitely want to give the recreator some credit for writing an original version this time, instead of the "straight repost of its own website" that constituted the first iteration of this article, the nominator is correct that what this version has still failed to do is to be referenced any better. Very nearly every source here is still either primary or blogspotty, with only one reference (#4) which escapes both of those disqualifiers — and while as a non-British editor I can't adequately address whether that reference is to a tabloid or not, it's not about the organization per se, but just briefly namechecks its existence in the process of being fundamentally about something else. Which means that regardless of where we land on the "tabloid" question, the coverage still isn't substantial enough to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG if it's the only independent and non-bloggy source we've got. I think probably the best approach here would be to sandbox it in user or draft space, to give her the opportunity to seek out better sourcing — but in its current state it still doesn't qualify for inclusion in articlespace. Delete or userfy. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to draw attention to Chess's profile and the problems he seems to have had with a misogynistic impersonation of his account. Coupled with the fact that I found other articles about research centres that are not better referenced than WAM, it's hard to believe in a coincidence. The difference seems to be that these centres are not about women. I still put the article in my sandbox so I can continue to work on it, although I am not sure I will be able to find the kind of references you mentioned. Mainstream media do not talk a lot about research, especially research on women and ageing that is not essentialist or health-related. Also, it wasn't me who wrote the first article about this centre, so I don't need your "credit" for writing an "original" version ;) MaudeG3 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaudeG3: Now what exactly are you implying? I don't see how that is relevant at all. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaudeG3, I'd ask you to please remember to assume good faith whenever possible. It shouldn't be necessary to call Chess's background or character into question here. Let's focus on what we can do to improve or save the article, if possible. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaudeG3:, something else to note: it's not necessary for the sources to be in mainstream media. Academic journals or newsletters are also fine sources. What's important is to find sources that are independent of the Centre or its members, are substantially about the Centre itself (rather than mentioning it in passing), and are reliable due to some level of editorial oversight -- i.e. blogs or personal web pages are not generally considered reliable, but newsletters and journals generally are. Are there any more reliable independent sources that discuss the Centre in any detail? That would be a huge help here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim Pierce: Can you find them? Look around, because you're trying to find the proverbial oasis in a desert. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been looking. It certainly is difficult to find good sources. Maybe, as you say, there just aren't enough to sustain this article at this time. But I think that we can get there without escalating to emotional rhetoric like "oasis in a desert." —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there's been 15 days to improve this article, and the improvement has not been done. We've pretty much established that this subject fails WP:GNG, and the complete lack of sources to establish notability firmly convince me that this article should be deleted. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been following this discussion with interest. This entry should not be deleted. It should be expanded! What the original post misses, which addresses the issue of notability but also provides further public references that are in accordance with wiki-policy on citation and referencing, is WAM's contribution to public life and public policy through their Manifesto. This Manifesto, written 2012, instigated the inclusion of two WAM representatives to the public policy document published in 2015 by the Members of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, Chaired by Lord Best. That's pretty notable. Other public policy contributions that include WAM are The Commission on Older Women, 2013 (see page 54).These are independent non-blogspotty references and evidence of the notability of this organization and its members to the lives of older women. I have also looked at other Centres included in Wikipedia, such as the Newman Centres. I note here that with the exception of one source, the evidence of notability and references are affiliated with the Catholic Church. KimberlySawchuk (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a fact that a quick search for "centers" returns a plethora of pages with even fewer references than this one (for example, Centre_for_Studies_in_Social_Sciences, Centre_for_Food_Safety, Center_for_Puppetry_Arts), and I am not quite sure why Chess is so vehement at targeting this particular one. More references are good, obviously, and I hope that if something comes out of this, it is a stronger article. But that doesn't mean that the page should be marked for deletion - there are other notices that could have been put on the page, or other ways to request a better job at referencing. I would also like to note that while the center itself is not necessarily discussed extensively in the press or elsewhere, the article could point at the individual members' work, which is very extensive and regularly cited and commented. I am not even in that particular field, and I know of the work of Ros Jennings, and I assume that other members are also very active in terms of publication and academic work. Why not mention them as a way of establishing the Centre's credibility? Niccoben (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing to understand is that Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards are a lot tougher now than they were five or ten years ago — an article being created today has to conform to a much stricter set of rules than an article that was created in 2004 did. So the fact that you can find a bad, poorly referenced article that's ten years old has no bearing on the standard that you have to meet to get a new article kept today. And I'd also encourage you to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — especially the part about "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it." Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Niccoben: let's quote that you said, "I am not quite sure why Chess is so vehement at targeting this particular one". How is that in any way relevant to this discussion? Please explain how that influences this article's notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. Chess is right to point out that the article suffers from a lack of reliable third-party sources. But the article is well thought out and researched otherwise, and it may only be a matter of looking for more. It would be unfortunate to delete it prematurely, and I'm disappointed in Chess for moving straight to deletion without asking for improvements first. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for more sources. They're not there. It's a fundamentally non notable subject. Userfying won't change that. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope (Australia band)[edit]

Penelope (Australia 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)

Tagged for WP:NOTABILITY by Duffbeerforme seven years ago; time for a resolution. I couldn't establish that they meetb WP:MUSICBIO, and I think it's close but not quite there for WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BAND most of the sources are not third party. Has won no major awards nor produced notable albums. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, did support gigs for a few notable acts but don't meet WP:MUSIC themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, just - non-vanity album on Phantom - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient independent references to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the references are primarily music industry so not really third party. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails BAND and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe it meets WP:GNG.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how, the sources in the article are not really third party. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. They warrant an article - an AFD is not a reference check - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a check on the quality of sources available. The sources are almost all music industry related, so not really third party. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, multiple NLA coverage: Governmental sources appears to be sufficiently reliable as an indicator of notability. - Mailer Diablo 23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blancride[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; spammy, short on notability. I was shocked - shocked! - to discover that the anonymous editor adding lots of links to this article geolocates to Durham College, where Blancride was developed. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain; It's a new product, and non-profit. I was surprised that the article is under consideration for deletion - I wonder how much is due to attack from commercial for-profit services that see this as a competitor. My vote is to not delete.

dmcamp — Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a new product, with only minor local media coverage and "more than 1,000 users" as of February 5, 2015.[39] Every new app wants publicity, but you can't hitch a ride here. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to have attained fair notability and is comparable to Uber. Keep for now. Suttungr (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listed sources do not provide significant coverage for subject matter (rather, it is Uber and general issues surrounding it). Lack of reliable sources covering the app, fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 23:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBSlink[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but I may be partly prejudiced because it seems like promotion. Was prodded by Ad Orientem, rem by creator. Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. Subject fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Sources fail WP:RS. Google yielded nothing even remotely suggesting encyclopedic notability. I had planned to send this to AfD myself but was holding off for 24 hours on the off chance that the creator could find some RS coverage. That does not appear to have happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any reliable sources that cover this Internet-based software, and one would expect that the vast majority of coverage would be on the Internet. This is more applicable to a BBS-related wiki at Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (designer)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST with no reliable secondary sources, just a tweet and a Flickr photo. Can't find any press coverage of the artist's Digital Paisley work, and we haven't got much to work with otherwise, for an artist with a common one-word pseudonym and no stated real name. The possible-COI creator User:Hawk Visions has declined to add any reliable sources since opposing a prod a couple of days ago. McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Citation Source must be from different trusted domains like newspaper, magazines, etc., It seems that there is no proper citations in this article. I recommend to delete this article(Williamahendric (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Carn (2003 film)[edit]

Pop Carn (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Coverage is lacking. There are sources, but I do not believe them to be reliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not an expert on Indian movies, but it appears that this film was created by notable actors and filmmakers. Perhaps someone with more expertise in the subject can improve the referencing? And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Pop Carn" "Popcarn"

• Keep Expanded searches find this topic spoken of in multiple reliable sources. WP:NF is met. IE: Sify, The Hindu, Sify and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator? Your opinion on the improved article? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:The sourcing is still mediocre but I am satisfied with the WP:NFILMS argument and the WP:INDAFD argument. I'd withdraw, but it is very close to 7 days, so this AfD might as well go in the books as a "keep". --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mr. Guye, sadly, Google does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly, thus causing issues when using it to search for sources on Indian films. I've found the tools at WP:INDAFD are quite helpful in any WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to close as keep, not to relist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister France World[edit]

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

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

Not a notable pageant as far as I can see, no reliable sources in English or French that seem to cover it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as article is already sourced to The Huffington Post and France 3 Rhône-Alpes. Sourcing could be improved by a motivated editor and that would push this !vote to a solid keep. - Dravecky (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note that the Huffington article is not about the subject, it's about Mister World, and the Rhône-Alpes one is about Mister National (many of these are kind of spammy and unclear as to who organizes them). And even if they were, they could hardly be considered coverage of the pageant itself. Most of the individual pageants that feed Mister World do not have a standalone article, nor should they. There is zero to none coverage of this pageant in reliable sources, either in English or French. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per the reasons and sources mentioned by Dravecky. WordSeventeen (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is one where a full "Keep" per the same reasoning I gave for a "Weak keep" should be unlikely. I'd still need to see a couple of better sources before I changed my !vote to "Keep". - Dravecky (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (WP:A7) needs lack of assertion of notability, not lack of evidence. A couple of articles, even if shaky, destroy that CSD. (No comment on the content of the issue.) Tigraan (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened there but I wasn't supposed to have put "Speedy". –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As pointed out by FreeRangeFrog, the Huffington and the Rhône-Alpes articles don't appear to discuss the subject of this article; instead, they talk about Mister World and Mister National, and are therefore noncontributory to this pageant's notability. From what I can gather, I am very skeptical that even a highly motivated editor could find adequate sourcing to support a high quality article about this subject. There is very sparse coverage online; I can't find any reliable sources either, let alone coverage that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. The pageant doesn't even have its own website that I can find—the "official website" link in the article points to the Mister National website, which indicates to me that "Mister France World" may not be significant outside the context of Mister National or Mister World. Mz7 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mz7. Sources have to have significant coverage on the article in question to meet WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 23:55, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape of Baucau Timor-Lorosa'e[edit]

Landscape of Baucau Timor-Lorosa'e (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)

Because Baucau already exists. -- haminoon (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I hesitated between merge to Baucau, but I see no content with any assertion of notability, and speedy delete under WP:A10, but there is, after all, new content. The need for a redirect is unlikely (long titles usually do not need to be redirected to shorter ones). Tigraan (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merge anything useful that can be (but currently isn't) sourced to Baucau. What an odd, misleading title. Since when does "landscape" include the economy, infrastructure, etc.?

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Harvie Barnard[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I've added a link to Wikisource. I hope I'm proved wrong. Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, even given that she was living in earlier times. Who's Who is not a good source. If she had some newspaper clippings, yes, but unfortunately she did not make a splash. Original author of this article stated: "I am a public history student at Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI). For Women's History Month, I am adding information on historic Indiana women to already existing pages or creating stubs. The research was completed by a former public history student. Only one student intern is currently working on the project." Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have reworked the article and found numerous secondary sources. There does not appear to be a separate article on Indiana suffrage, but she was involved as an officer of the Indiana Auxiliary of the National Suffrage Association almost from her arrival in Indianapolis. Her involvement continued for almost a decade as far as I can tell. Indiana granted women the vote in 1917 and she was still treasurer in 1914. An archive of her family papers indicates correspondence with Carrie Chapman Catt. SusunW (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously more than notable enough for Wikipedia. Just look more carefully into the sources.--Ipigott (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable suffragist with major influence on public policy of the time. These articles are slow to develop and ricky to source. More work is needed, but notability is clear from what's there...that said, need to add more in order to connect the dots for the non-historian. For that era, a Who's Who can be a perfectly reliable source; newspapers often did not cover the work of women, even when they were highly public in their times. This is one of the challenges of dong women's history - finding the forgotten people who did some amazing things. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 11 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) 07:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Biodynamics[edit]

Oxford Biodynamics (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 per WP:GNG or WP:CORP as there are no independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant depth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no actual evidence of notability. Just press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent media attention of the type needed to pass WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete All. Nakon 03:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor[edit]

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Not a notable award, can't find any reliable sourcing past fan sites. There isn't even a main page for the awards, all of the pages are the individual award or by year. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the rest of these articles for the same reason.

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Animated Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Documentary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Ensemble Cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Screenplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Supporting Actor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Supporting Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Award for Best Youth Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Awards 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Awards 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Awards 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nevada Film Critics Society Awards 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Delete per lack of independent sourcing and how "Nevada Film Critics Society" doesn't even have its own page Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Nevada Film Critics Society is already deleted via a separate AfD nomination. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total wipeout gameplay[edit]

Total wipeout gameplay (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 lede for the article has numerous problems and is completely unreferenced. The substance of the article is completely duplidated in Total Wipeout. The article is an orphan. I don't believe it serves any purpose and should be deleted.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom forgot to substitute AfD template header. Reinstated by 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As nom says, this seems to duplicate the parent article. There doesn't seem to be much point in a redirect, but that's also a possibility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wipeout, I mean delete, as a duplication of a better known article. Throw in lack of WP:RS for good measure. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Browncoat. Mergers from history subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  08:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Browncoat ball[edit]

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

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

No indication of WP:Notability. References do not link to WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SPA creator removed Animalparty's notability tag and it seems promotional. I could find no reliable sources to suggestion this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Statement from creator of the page. (Unsigned message copied from Talk:Browncoat_ball).

I carefully read the articles and this group is definitely in grey area. Perhaps the following information will help in decisions?

There is no company, service or product. Nothing is for sale. There are no membership fees. There is no seeking of money in any way.

Wikipedia is not being used for advertising (if that's a concern) because no one would know to search it unless they already knew about it, in which case further advertising isn't required.

There is no physical holdings at all (no meeting hall, no clubhouse, no anything). It exists completely as an intellectual exercise predominantly in cyberspace, hence the desire to substantiate a verifiable internet presence.

While I appreciate concerns that it's perhaps too small an organization to merit inclusion, given it's roving status and lack of product/business model, if the internet were to censor it for not being a mega-corp of some sort, then it would be impossible to grow. The Facebook page was started about 1.5 months ago and nearly has 1000 Likes. Compared to the billions on the planet, this is nothing, but for a month and a half with no product, advertising or business behind it, that number displays the potential reach. These "Likes" span both states and countries and are only growing, so it's more significant than "my brothers band" but less than McDonalds. I don't know how big is big enough. However Wikipedia is looked to as a source of "is this real" and lack of inclusion harms its credibility, especially, again, given it's lack of a physical existence.

The purpose of the page is to affirm that it is a real thing, and to dispel any rumors, misconceptions, explain the roots etc. (And perhaps hopefully re-encourage an age where people meet - at a Ball, local pub, town square, what have you - an actually discuss the news of the day and learn something new. It's focus is as an intellectual society - meeting, learning, talking, like society once did.)

Wikipedia already has entires on several intellectual groups (and fan-groups like comic-con), the difference is that they all have a physical location and mostly look to achieve funding/profit whereas the Ball exists solely in cyberspace and has no dues or financial holdings of any kind. This creates a greater need for verification, not a lesser one. It's can be seen as the latest shift in the information age - clubhouses, dues and physicality are no longer required. But credibility is all the more important. If it's not big enough, then what is the target number for recognition?

Copied and pasted by BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Condense to Browncoat. Wikipedia is not a social network, meetup coordination site, or advocacy platform. An encyclopedia should not encourage readers to do or join anything (see WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NPOV. "It exists" is not a criterion for establishing a devoted article, Notability is. Surely if fans "need to know", there are other outlets for knowledge. Lastly, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Browncoat or delete. Pretty much or the same reasons as Animalparty above. We're an encyclopedia, no an event calender. Wikia can be used for the above purposes, but Wikipedia has inclusion criteria. Comic Con has articles written about it in national newspapers, and that's why it has an article. I don't think there's really anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Lindsey Sporrer[edit]

Lindsey Sporrer (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 seems to be a non-notable actress and fails WP:NACTOR. The article contains promotional sources but no WP:RS. It has misinformation - her birthday cannot be what is in the article based on a search that shows her competing in Miss Teen USA in 2005 and graduating college in 2009. Prior speedy delete and PRODs were edited out of the article - maybe by WP:COI. Others have pointed out problems with the article. See the article's edit history for more details. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for want of reliable, significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutrality^talk 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even assuming everything is true, she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore LaMattina[edit]

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

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

Subject of article is an elected local official only and fails to meet the terms of WP:POLITICIAN. Article also contains no third-party independent sources. KDS4444^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While Boston is certainly large and prominent enough a city that its city councillors would satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if they were substantive and properly sourced, city council is not a level of office that confers an entitlement to keep an article that's this badly sourced and contains no real substance beyond an acknowledgement of his existence — it's a level of government where the substance and quality of sourcing constitutes the difference between a keep and a delete. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We jeep member fthe city council in NYC and Chicago, and Boston is as significant. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [40], [41], [42], [43]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalyn Waseka Nandwa[edit]

Rosalyn Waseka Nandwa (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. No news articles about this person. "Chief of staff" is not very prestigious. No indication in the article of Notability. References are not Reliable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. My searches did not reveal any sources indicating notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is a Deputy Chief of Staff good enough? A chief of staff does appear to meet WP:NPOL, but this is really poorly written in its current state. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tracy Griffin[edit]

Scott Tracy Griffin (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:BASIC; unable to find "multiple independent sources...to demonstrate notability". A thorough search yielded only this interview and this review of his book. Fails WP:ANYBIO; this author was one of five finalists for a Locus Award. Fails WP:AUTHOR; this author is not widely cited or well known. Aside from creating the Tarzan art book, I located this blog article in the Huffington Post. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says the book was a winner of an award http://www.locusmag.com/News/2013/06/locus-awards-winners/ a winner of a notable award Locus Award -Govindaharihari (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The award winners are in red; the finalists are listed below it. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the book is more notable than the person? I am not voting anyway, I tried to improve the article and there is no problem with the content as I left it, he is a real person that wrote a book Govindaharihari (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I put a call out for more third-party print sources and have added a couple. I'm sure if the article remains (even if flagged), others will find more sources over time. Thanks,Carolann Wright (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have seriously tried to located how Scott Tracy Griffin has covered "the film industry for magazines including Cinefantastique, FilmFax, and Alter Ego." The source cited for this claim is an issue of the Starkville Daily News from November 21, 2012, which is unavailable online. So I tried finding these articles in Cinefantastique, FilmFax, and Alter Ego. No luck. This article seems a house of cards. I've been unable to find any reliable sources which state anything more than that this person occasionally contributes articles about Tarzan to blogs, non-notable publications, and to self-published publications. Also, he published a picture book about Tarzan, which won no awards. I stand firmly behind my original nomination for deletion. This is an encyclopedia, not fansite. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. He may not be a notable writer and actor, but he is definitely Notable for having put together the Tarzan book. It is perfectly OK for a person to be Notable for only one thing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article improvements and additional sources to support notability urge me to support the article now, thanks to User:BeenAroundAWhile. - . Govindaharihari (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all,for the help. Magnolia, did you do a basic Google search for "Scott Tracy Griffin" + "Cinefantastique"? I got 5,020 hits, with numerous cites. After sorting through those (& "+ Filmfax" & "+ alter ego" etc.--all respected genre publications), perhaps you could haunt used bookstores that specialize in back issues of movie magazines? Not sure why you have such a bias against this Wiki.

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goal based Social Network[edit]

Goal based Social Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable concept. A web search turns up linkagoal.com but no broader notion of goal-based SNs. GScholar and GBooks only find a single patent for the query "goal-based social network" (in quotes). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possible content for article Social network, but no way standalone material. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable on its own. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Airtel Super Singer Junior#Season 4. Nakon 01:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoorthi[edit]

Spoorthi (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)