Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 14 (Tue) May 13 (Mon) May 12 (Sun) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 3 April	5 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 00:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pokereno[edit]

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

The game apparently exists,[1] but details are practically nonexistent, and even Seidel, the company that makes it, doesn't have an article. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 10:45, 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 result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quayle[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of multiple independent third party news sources— references are mostly primary or are not independent (i.e., the subject's own web site is the first reference; an Amazon list of books is not evidence of notability; etc.). Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. KDS4444^Talk 11:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. The subject is a published author and is widely cited by his peers WP:AUTHOR and a quick bit of research demonstrates that the subject has a noteworthy following WP:GNG. If your complaint is to lack of references, or mis-placed refs, this can be cleaned up. Additionally, further content can be added, such as the subject implication in a precious metals fraud scheme. Adding content will take some time. Please allow for this. Delhiwallah (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sources. Concerned references have been removed and further new stories related to his business have been added. Delhiwallah (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources range from mere passing references to subject,[2][3][4] to self-published sources lacking any apparent editorial oversight,[5][6][7] to those w/ clear promotional ties to the subject.[8][9] Levdr1lp / talk 11:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Especially when considering WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:BLPCRIME, there just aren't sufficient good sources to establish significant coverage in reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 21:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet notability requirements due to lack of reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete _ I only see one reliable source; fails GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Napier88[edit]

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

Hopeless NN stub. (Thanks to the bot+Padenton, one of my twenty open "AFD step III" tabs finally indicated success in the form of an edit conflict, so far for mobile broadband at modem speed.) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:24, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep We don't delete articles for being "hopeless", we fix them instead. We certainly don't delete them for being stubs.

As to non-notability (such an easy nomination), then that appears to be on the basis that "Anything pre-dating the Web didn't happen". Looking at academic sources from 2000 and earlier, Napier88 garnered plenty of serious discussion, well above WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to convert one of the "plenty of serious discussion" into a reference, all I see is an unsourced dead language with one author. I stumbled over it in a contested PROD without ((old prod full)) in the last step of a new PROD, and the whole "easy nomination" took me about an hour. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then your google-fu is weak. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Then, young grasshopper, show us how it's done and expand the article or post the sources that you found so someone else can. Your keep vote without providing any policy rationale or even providing any evidence to suggest the subject's notability, is just as useless as what you're criticizing. ― Padenton|✉ 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in passing in this 1995 thesis paper (Chapter 11). I would personally tend towards keep. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in a vast range of academic work from Scotland. As for a number of other languages strongly associated with particular institutions (from Scheme at MIT right back to BCPL at Cambridge), this was the lingua franca of teaching and research, so any abstract concept being worked on at St Andrews would tend to be explained in terms of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google scholar finds around 500 publications that mention Napier88 and about 240 that cite the Napier reference manual. I think that's pretty significant for a 25-year-old experimental programming language. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article states "The language, however, was only intended to provide a proof of concept for an experiment in persistent programming" - I'd prefer to see more than a passing mention in a thesis as an indication of notability. Do the numerous publications that 'mention' this language do anything more than list it as one of a load of experiments, or show that it was of significance on the development of later languages? I always worry slightly when people say "Oh yes, there's loads of stuff out there that proves the Moon is not Cheddar but is Wensleydale with veins of Lancashire - and don't produce any of these sources... Peridon (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge (Disclaimer: I was the initial PROD'er.): I took a look at the google scholar search. [10] is the user manual for it (written by the creator) and it's cited by 250. I don't know enough about Google Scholar, but it seems a lot of the search results are marked [Citation], are they just papers that aren't available freely on the web? The highest cited paper not written by the creator is 18 citations and it goes downhill quickly from there, with almost all of the papers having no citations or single digit citations. It's certainly not just random crap someone made up one day, but perhaps it would be more appropriate as a section in Ron Morrison. It seems to be a dead language (mostly exclusive use to St Andrews it seems), so there's little likelihood of it reaching notability if it doesn't have it now. ― Padenton|✉ 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that a hit marked 'citation' is just that - the paper is about something else but cites Napier88. I could be wrong. I would think a section or whatever in Ron Morrison's article would be the best procedure, leaving this title as a redirect. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the looks of that manual, maintenance/updating of the language seems to have resumed sometime around the mid-1990s, for a time at least. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems to be a dead language (mostly exclusive use to St Andrews it seems), so there's little likelihood of it reaching notability"

Why? You seem to think that notability is dependent upon both global scope, and upon currency. Neither is true. Neither is St Andrews (especially for CompSci) the equivalent of East Podunk State College. Would you delete Smalltalk because "Not used much outside PARC"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Nice hatchet job there, cutting off the rest of my sentence. Try reading it one more time:

It seems to be a dead language (mostly exclusive use to St Andrews it seems), so there's little likelihood of it reaching notability if it doesn't have it now.

― Padenton|✉ 00:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read it alright, just didn't reckon much to your argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Clearly not, as your response to it makes no sense whatsoever. ― Padenton|✉ 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typing this in Google Scholar reveals several publications which are all well-cited (many citations by papers of many different authors, several of which are themselves well-cited). Skimming some of these reveals that this language has been influential in the area of persistent systems (a hot research in the late '80s/early '90s, not so much today). Doesn't even look like a borderline case to me. —Ruud 21:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient reliable sources to go around with Google Scholar. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angie McCartney[edit]

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

No indication of notability, classic example of "Family Tree" from WP:INHERIT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED - Just 'cos your someones Mum doesn't mean you get an article. –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly even speedily. Per nom and above. Nothing much more to say. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INHERIT. --Jersey92 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted as G12 (copy vio). --Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Ramón Enríquez Herrera[edit]

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

Borderline between a resume/CV and notability, insufficient WP:RS. Both author and IP have removed improvement tags (author removed Prod earlier). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I just tagged it for deletion as a copyvio of http://amcci.com.mx/curriculum.php. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kenneth Ferrier[edit]

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

No secondary sources, no articles about him, article reads like a resume. Page was setup right around when he went into private practice and has links to his business. mikeman67 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No position that he's ever held constitutes any sort of notability freebie on Wikipedia, if reliable source coverage isn't there to support it. For the record, this was created as part of a larger project of creating almost-entirely primary sourced articles about all past treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, out of the misguided notion that it was a notability freebie even in the absence of any actual sourcing — so the timing vis-à-vis his private practice is purely coincidental, rather than the crux of why it happened. Delete unless RS coverage can be located. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada ended in no consensus, there being no consensus that the office (as the highest office within the gift of the practitioners of a country, state or province or the highest office in the governing body of the practitioners of a country, state or province, or something to that effect) was not inherently notable. James500 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judge of the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice, and of the Superior Court of Justice: [11]. Treasurer of the aforementioned Law Society. Adequate coverage is likely to exist, even if we cannot find it (NRVE). Some coverage in GNews. James500 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From NRVE: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. IOW, it's not enough to claim that sourcing is likely to exist; even if you don't add it all to the article in one shot, the onus is still on you to prove — not just assert, but "show your work here and now" prove — that a GNG-satisfying level of RS coverage does exist. As well, a WP:BLP is required to have at least one reliable source in it right off the top — but this has none, which means it was technically eligible (and still is) for an immediate WP:BLPPROD. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I disagree. NRVE also says that if coverage is likely to exist, deletion is per se not appropriate, whether that sourcing is produced or not. NRVE also says that if sourcing exists, it need not be directly cited at AfD. What that means is that I don't have to produce a webliography of sources that come up immediately in GNews, because asking me to do so would clearly be a time wasting tactic. Because if you want to see that sourcing, you need only search for "Lee Ferrier" in GNews, and it takes you straight to it. I haven't claimed that unspecified sources exist. I have claimed that specified sourcing exists in GNews, and I have told you exactly where to find it, and other sources are likely to exist because of the nature of the office (what I had in mind was biographies, law reports and other discussion of his judgements). What that passage you cited from NRVE is talking about is sources that are claimed to exist in cases where the nature of the topic (ie very trivial, obscure, etc, which this one isn't) makes it unlikely that any sources would exist. This, as a government source, is clearly a reliable source. As is this from the Law Society. So BLPPROD isn't available. James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the links you posted are pretty clearly trivial coverage. Nor are they independent of the subject (both of those are bodies that he was apart of). I don't believe that every Ontario judge is automatically notable. I haven't found any coverage of him, beyond a passing mention of him in some news articles. mikeman67 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think ordinary judges of the court (there are well over 200 of them) qualify as notable. They're just your ordinary court judges, and we don't usually have articles on those for Canada or any other country. The senior judges are notable, but not those at his level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200 is not a number that is obviously too large. I would need some point of reference in order to assess that number anyway. The Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Superior Court of Justice would appear, at first sight, to satisfy POLITICIAN as province-wide courts. I'm not sure what "ordinary court judges" means. Are they capable of setting binding or persuasive precedent? Do they have appellate functions? Can they try the most serious offences, and especially treason and murder? (Not all judges can). James500 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to understand why those questions have any bearing on notability. If notability is meant to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of reliable sources to create an article, then whether or not the court itself can try serious offences seems to be irrelevant. But to answer your questions: yes Superior Court justices are capable of setting precedent (to other members of the court and to the Ontario Court of Justice, to Small Claims court, family court; persuasive authority to other provinces's inferior courts). The Superior Court has a few, restricted appellate functions (such as hearing appeals from the Ontario Court of Justice). However, the central appellate court in Ontario is the Ontario Court of Appeal. Yes, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear criminal trials, including murder or treason. mikeman67 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that it has always been our practice (established many times at AfD) to keep judges at the higher level (e.g. US state supreme/superior court, English High Court), but not the lower level (e.g. US county and municipal court, English crown court). All these judges can try all cases and set precedent. It just so happens that (unlike the USA) all Canadian judges are provincial officials and members of the provincial superior court - that doesn't give them a free pass (all British judges are national officials - that doesn't give them a free pass either). If it did give them a free pass that would show clear bias in favour of Canadian judges against judges of other countries, and I have no idea why this should be sensible. Unfortunately, WP:POLITICIAN when referring to judges is clearly only really referring to US judges (where state judges are a level above ordinary trial judges) and not Canada (where most provincial judges are ordinary trial judges) - it should be rewritten. The senior judges of the provincial superior court should be seen as falling within the category defined by WP:POLITICIAN and therefore as notable, but the others should not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to briefly add some info, all judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice are appointed federally, not provincially. Their authority derives from inherent jurisdiction, which is enshrined in the Canadian constitution. It's not correct to say they are "provincial judges," per se. That would be true of the Ontario Court of Justice, which is something else. Administrative aspects are carried out at the provincial level, however. mikeman67 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to set a binding precedent is suggested as a test for notability by WP:JUDGE. The other tests I suggested appear to me to be common sense indicators of both (thinking of the introduction to BIO) significance and (thinking of NRVE) the likelihood of coverage (precedents tend to be covered by law reports and trials for the most serious offences tend to receive coverage anyway). I'm not aware of reliable statistics for practice at AfD. I agree that the concept of "national/sub-national office" poses problems, but I don't think the test proposed by Necrothesp is any better. I'm not sure how the two levels he refers to are being defined. I also notice a number of apparently erroneous assumptions. There are other "levels" in the English system (eg magistrates and Court of Appeal). Not all British judges are national officials. IIRC, whether the Crown Court can set a binding precedent is disputed. High Court judges sit in the Crown Court and the 1998 practice direction on allocation of business ([1995] 1 WLR 1083, amended by [1998] 1 WLR 1244) gave them most class 1 offences exclusively, though cases of murder and incitement, attempt or conspiracy to murder could be released to a circuit judge approved for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor (now changed). And then, to blur distinctions and make things really confusing, circuit judges and recorders can sit as High Court judges as a part of their office as a circuit judge or recorder (Courts Act 1971, s 23). And I am told that the circuit judges and recorders usually get good coverage. James500 (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be evidence of his judgements being cited ("Ferrier J" is an abbreviation for "Mr Justice Ferrier": Searching for citations of case law of a particular judge poses serious problems because citations don't normally include the name of the judge, on the relatively rare occasions when his name is used it will often be cryptically abbreviated to something like "per Ferrier J" (and, no, that particular search won't return even the majority of citations because that expression isn't normally included, though it does return some), and GScholar doesn't seem to include all reported cases (I know this because I tested it with Crown Court decisions reported in the Criminal Law Review and cited in the table of cases of the 1989 edition of Clerk and Lindsell on Torts and couldn't find all them). However the citing documents do indicate that the cited cases of Low v. Low, Smith v. Robinson and Fryda and Johnson were indeed decided by "Ferrier J". I am sure there will be many more that I can't find because of the cryptic way in which cases are cited.) James500 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nothing erroneous on my part. All British judges are indeed national officials - no judges are appointed at a county level (maybe you are confused by the term "county court judge"?). And I was referring to the judiciary, not the magistracy (who are obviously the lowest level). I also said higher and lower level and not highest and lowest level, an important distinction. Obviously the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are higher. We have indeed always held that British circuit judges and American judges of a similar level are not generally notable by virtue of their position. So you do seem to be arguing special status for Canadian judges, which will allow far more of them to be considered notable than other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see the basis for saying that the American, British and Canadian judges are analogous. It is not clear what characteristics they have in common, and what sources support that proposition. Higher and lower level is not a meaningful distinction. Judges at a lower level in one country might have much greater powers than judges at a lower level in another. In that case they would not be analogous. In order to be analogous, they must, to begin with, have the same powers. That has not been demonstrated (and it would require the production of sources). I'm not convinced that judges were not appointed at the county court level before those courts were "nationalised" by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Although circuit judges and recorders could, by virtue of their office, sit as judges in any county court, my reading of section 9 of the County Courts Act 1984 and sections 50 and 51 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is that a person could be appointed as a district judge if, roughly speaking, he had been a barrister or solicitor for five years. If there was a provision requiring that he also be a judge of the Crown Court, or providing that he becomes one as part of his office as a district judge, I haven't seen it. So I am not convinced that district judges were "national", particulary as they could be assigned to a single district (s 6(2)(a)), whereas the circuit judges and recorders could sit anywhere (s 5). That is another apparently erroneous assumption that causes me to further doubt this line of argument. And I can't remember a single instance of an English circuit judge being deleted at AfD, despite watching DSLAW for many years, so I doubt that there is such a practice. James500 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you probably don't realise that English "district judges" until very recently used to be called stipendiary magistrates (formerly police magistrates) and were members of the magistracy and not the judiciary (which are distinct in the English system). They are therefore not on the level we are considering here. So once again, no error on my part. And circuit judges have most definitely been deleted at AfD, as have many American judges. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am, and was, well aware that some "district judges" (who are technically known as "district judge (magistrates' court)") were formerly called stipendiary magistrates: [12]. But others (strictly called "district judges") were formerly called county court registrars and district registrars: [13]. If someone's title is "district judge", I'm afraid I have to infer that he is indeed a judge, at least for the purposes of any guideline of ours, in the absence of a actual definition in that guideline. This book, from Oxford University Press, says that even DJMCs are part of the judiciary. Law Notes, a periodical for students, has the aforementioned county court registrars as "clearly and firmly" part of the judiciary in 1988, before the advent of "district judges". If English circuit judges have been deleted at AfD, kindly identify the AfDs in question. Even if they exist, I may still conclude they are outliers or too old to be relevant. James500 (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You might like to read WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which is one of the "arguments to avoid". James500 (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took the trouble to run this through LexisNexis, only 1 mention in Supreme Court of Canada decisions and 22 mentions for Ontario Court of Appeal and Superior Court of Justice decisions. Lack of secondary reliable sources establishing notability is also a major issue. If there is any landmark cases brought to my attention, I am more than happy to consider. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you mean regular LexisNexis or their Quicklaw legal service, but I searched his name as a judge on Westlaw Canada and came up with 495 results. Some of those are probably appeals of his decisions. I believe his most famous decision is this one, which is publicly viewable here: http://canlii.ca/t/205dq. It's been considered over 50 times by other courts, but I'm not sure if it would be considered a "landmark" decision. However, I believe the central issue is a lack of reliable sources to make a page. mikeman67 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Rap opera. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hopera[edit]

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

Neologism. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability. All citations in article are to Wikipedia. (Maybe the author wanted to wikilink the pages) Jbh (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rap opera, where it is already defined as a synonym. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rap opera. Seems like the obvious solution since we already have a better article on this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance Warranty Services, LLC[edit]

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

non notable company, sources are press releases DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources - one is a listing of 'companies that provide this...', another is a listing of 'companies and their responses', the first on the list won't work for me. As to the fourth, the Stevie Award, well, you have to pay a fee to be considered for an award (and another for the dinner), and apparently "30-40% of entrants receive an award". Getting a Gold is obviously better than getting a kick in the arse, but I don't think it confers notability. Peridon (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. withdrawn following NA's improvements. I will make some more. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Così (restaurant)[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable. Press releases are not RSs, and WP is not a place to list restaurant menus. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This restaurant chain with 102 locations passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I have copy edited the article to address concerns about promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NA1000 and these additional sources: [19] [20] Everymorning talk 20:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source for this article is available in different trusted sources. Article must be improved Williamahendric (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to delete. If you're really bothered about its advertising nature, edit it yourself or request a change instead of just deleting it. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synapse RZ[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability. This seems to be an unremarkable product. The only source is a link to the product's web page. Right on the edge of qualifying for db-advert in my opinion. Jbh (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Boaab[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this person actually existed. None of the books listed seem to actually mention him, and Google shows no results for either name variant. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to be a hoax. Everymorning talk 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Who designs anchors so well that "clients, from pirates to kings, cam [sic] from all of Europe to have a custom Boabb anchor"? None of the claims check out; there was no ship called the Santa Annunziata, no famous author named Clement D'Ucille, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete - not even sure why this is being discussed! Clearly a hoax/joke amongst some bunch of kids who call themselves Team Boobs. Do we really need to keep talking about this one?? WalkingOnTheB (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such a obvious speedy keep I mean this guy is a legend! Okay seriously-Speedy delete. Wgolf (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shava Shava[edit]

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

Band with no refs and no links to here either. Also the creator of the page has a coi here (which I'm surprised is not a tag on this page!) Wgolf (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: thoroughly non-notable band. Quis separabit? 01:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtnie Bull[edit]

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

Former child actress who seems to be non notable who had only 3 roles total. Not notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I don't see anything promising on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well on another note if she does get deleted (which is likely to happen) hopefully she does not have the classic tragic child star story and actually has a good life somewhere. (Yeah I was just thinking that) Wgolf (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails NACTOR. –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Procedural close, wrong venue. Not an article, so not suitable for AfD. I have also removed the speedy deletion tag, as it did not apply. If the nominator wishes they can take this nomination to WP:RfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLion[edit]

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

CSD protestested and I suspect the PROD would as well. Taking to AfD. Recently created and not a probable landing page. Product fails WP:GNG and probably won't ever meet it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Procedural close WP:RfD seems the appropriate venue, rather than having both concurrent (invalid) CSD and (invalid) AfD. Widefox; talk 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 01:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie (dog)[edit]

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

Lovable pooch with, AFAICT, several sources repeating the same ten sentences over and over, in various orders. This kind of superficial human(?)-interest stuff isn't GNG. EEng (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a humorous nomination? If not, note that GNG does not require different content on every source. Seems like a frivolous nomination. Esquivalience ^t 18:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not frivolous, and GNG does deprecate multiple "sources" which are in fact relating the same few facts over and over:

It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.

Four of the sources in the article are social media accounts run by the dog's owner, and of the other four, one (for example) is literally three sentences:

Prepare to make room in your heart for another Insta-famous dog. Marnie, a 12-year-old Shih Tzu, was adopted in 2012 by her now-owner, Shirley, from a Connecticut shelter, where she suffered a number of health problems ranging from an eye infection, decaying teeth, vestibular syndrome (which causes her head tilt) — and she just plain stank from years of living on the streets. But now, the healthy and happy lady is living it up in the Big Apple, where she’s managed to wiggle her way into the hearts of the world’s biggest celebs, from Tina Fey and James Franco to Jonah Hill and Questlove.

This is extremely superficial coverage, and the other three sources aren't much better. EEng (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources are not just the same thing with "minor alterations". How about this? The source covers other things than a brief history of Marnie. The example of "superficial coverage" above covers encounters with many celebrities that the other sources do not. A Google News search uncovers a plethora of reliable sources that cover different aspects of Marnie. Have you tried to find other sources other than the ones in the article; see WP:BEFORE § D (it seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't done). Esquivalience ^t 20:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional source searches below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

– Also see this source search

Keep – Upon a review of sources, the topic passes WP:GNG. Has received international news coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Northamerica, a simple google search shows a lot of coverage. The references are reliable and diversified. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 22:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick Google News search reveals more articles from Daily Mail [21], Mirror [22], and South China Morning Post [23]. Dates of respective articles are substantially apart, suggesting that this is not an isolated one-off coverage but continual coverage over time. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NA1000 Asked me to drop in again. I don't have the energy to analyze this tide of nonsense, but nonsense it is. This is a publicity stunt which should, at best, be a redirect to Shirley Braha (assuming it survives deletion). EEng (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Are you saying that I'm closely connected with the subject (I am not closely connected, nor am I paid to write this)? Do you see any in-neutrality or promotional content in the article that indicates that this is a "publicity stunt"? Anyway, there is already consensus to keep this under WP:GNG which states that notable articles are almost always suitable for a standalone article, not to be merged or redirected to another page. Esquivalience ^t 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about you -- I'm talking about the dog's owner. Why is everyone on WP so completely nuts? And as I already said, I only came back here because NA1000 asked me to. [24] If y'all think this "organism" qualifies for an article, by all means knock yourselves out. EEng (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PPOV. Esquivalience ^t 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Daily Mail is not a good source to use for a keep !vote, but it appears in other sources as well in a news search, and they show this is an internet phenomenon. I appreciate EEng's comments that a lot of the sources are of the trashy tabloids or near-tabloid style, but I think I could legitimately cite this as a novel application of WP:NOTCENSORED - articles that meet the requirements for inclusion should be included, no matter how we might wince and dismiss them as irrelevant unencyclopedic nonsense. Bacon sandwich, anyone? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has got nothing to do with PPOV or CENSORED. A bunch of tweets by the dog's owner aren't independent coverage no matter how often they're reprinted or rehashed. But look, I'm not that concerned. I hardly ever say this, but this time I will: I'm unwatching. EEng (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources are just reprints or rehashes of the tweets? Esquivalience ^t 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Take all the tabloids away and we are left with SCMP (per above), ABC News, and TIME Magazine. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criizter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable musician. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. Sources at time of nom:

Ibiza Voice: [25] Appears to be self-published and promotional in nature.
The DJ List [26] Self-published user profile.
DJ Beatport [27] Another self-published user profile.
Reverbnation [28] self-published (and blank) user profile.
CDBaby [29] bio appears self-published and is entirely promotional.

Previous nomination was closed no quorum with No prejudice against speedy renomination (WP:NPASR). In addition to the article creator, I have also alerted the original nominator to the new nomination (there were no other participants). In order to hopefully reach a quorum this time, I have also added it to the Music-related deletion discussions delsort, and I added the page to a few relevant WikiProjects. ― Padenton|✉ 17:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (previous nominator) I'm the previous nominator. As before it did not appear that the sources that were supplied established notability (as the new nominator has indicated in a much clearer manner than I did). I searched again for any reliable sources that would indicated notability and was unable to find any. SQGibbon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 17:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources, and provided sources do not look reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable in my opinion. Cannot find any reliable sources reporting on this person. Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. as suggested; I will salt as repeatedly recreated BLP. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Petrik[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Never elected to office, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Previously speedied A7 twice today, following creation by User:Petrik4thepeople. This attempt created by new user, 6 minutes after second deletion, and after previous creator was warned about WP:COI and removing speedy tags. Claims to have been responsible for passage of Affordable Care Act in Ohio, but I can find no evidence for this online. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC for lack of availble reliable sources that cover the subject in detail.- Mr X 22:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy per above vote; seems to be failing coverage of reliable sources. Page author is welcome to improve the article and fix the issues. --TL22 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:POLITICIAN without any other sign of notability--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool, and may have articles only if they already satisfy one of Wikipedia's other inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for political hopefuls to promote themselves. Come back when you can show extensive, independent coverage and a track record of accomplishments that had a significant impact.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, based on recent history, and salt. This is the third time this article has been created, the first two times by a user with an obviously promotional/COI username, the third time by a sockpuppet of that user. After the sock was blocked, promotional edits were added to the article by an IP; anyone have a theory who that IP was? After the first speedy deletion (by me), I wrote a message on the user's talk page, explaining why the article was inappropriate and warning them not to create it again. They immediately recreated it, twice now, making it clear that they will not stop until the article title is indefinitely create-protected. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Members of JKT48. Nakon 01:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ratu Vienny Fitrilya[edit]

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

Contested prod-singer that might not meet notability that is also a COI here. Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. One of dozens of on-off members of an entertainment franchise, with no notability outside membership of the group, and no significant coverage online fron WP:RS in English or Indonesian. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Members of JKT48. Not notable but no good reason not to redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Ill Bill. Nothing sourced to merge. czar ⨹ 20:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Howie Records[edit]

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

Delete Non-Notable Record Directory. Lacks Significantly Independent Sources. Dormantos (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard nomination by sockpuppet of blocked account. postdlf (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, and can't see any good ones on the web either. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete-not notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Merge. Wgolf (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ill Bill, see Ill Bill#Merge proposal: Uncle Howie Records to Ill Bill. A much better WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article can be merged but it won't prove this subject notable. Even it is merged I don't think it will stay long on that page also due to lack of sources. Dormantos (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard comment by sockpuppet account. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge can essentially end up with one sentence and the term redirecting there. That's what I'd envision here. I've added the sources I could find, but it dfinitely doesn't add up to notability. Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ill Bill. If a label is mentioned in a reliable source, but just in passing, it can still go in an article, just not one on its own. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeway Rovers F.C.[edit]

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

Article was originally PROD'ed by me with the rationale Children's football clubs are not generally notable and there is no indication that this one is any different. A few future professional players passed through its ranks but there is nothing particularly exceptional about this. Deletion was challenged on my talk page by the article creator with a lengthy comment which basically boils down to his belief that having been the starting point for a few stars does make the club notable enough for inclusion on WP. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Giant Snowman 12:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failing inclusion on a football-related basis, the club would need to meet WP:ORG and I see now evidence that it does. Simply being the former club of now-notable players does not make the club notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donal O'Mathuna[edit]

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

Delete References are either press releases or reviews. No Significant Coverage. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP Dormantos (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Keep In light to the Worldcat reference, it clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. Dormantos (talk) 02:23, 5 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. The WorldCat reference indicates that at least one of his books is very widely held in libraries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:AUTHOR rationale. (Qué te mejores!) Vrac (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WorldCat reference pointed out by EricEnfermero. APerson (talk!) 20:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was WP:BOLDly redirected to Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball. Can be recreated closer to the season, per WP:TOOSOON. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball team[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a college basketball team of the near future. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page has been redirected to Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball. —teb728 t c 18:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish doodle[edit]

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

Unreferenced, not notable. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable random dog crossbreed. First reference was removed, but added back again, second just as unreliable, self-published and no secondary sources. We can't have an article on each and every dog breed cross. Hafspajen (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?: As noted on the article's talk page, there currently seems to be a shortage of independent RSs and/or hard data on this subject. Perhaps a merge with the general Dog crossbreeds article may be in order, at least until the situation improves. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can't notice any reason to merge. A designer crossbreed had a rational from the beginning, like in 1950, and that was creating an allergen-free guide dog. They started as a try to get a dog that is hypoallergenic and would work as a service dog.

That was the Labradoodle. It had a function, the non-shed hair of the Poodle and the intelligence and willingness of a Labrador to help. It had a purpose. Later there was a try to make an equally functional cross-breed - a companion dog for people who were allergic, Cockapoo. The Cockapoo had the lovable temperament of the Cocker and the the non-shed hair of the Poodle. Ever since then people stated a no-reason-at all- cross-trend of crossing everything with everything. This cross is not currently recognized as a breed in it's own right, is not even vaguely close to being a "breed" -and really it has no really advantage in crossing those two. Irish Setter is a healthy breed, no real problems anywhere, no rationale to create a cross, and has a very different purpose and no real advantages occur as a breed when crossing with Poodle. Hafspajen (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point to merging either; to list every permutation of cross breed under Dog crossbreeds would set an unhealthy precedent. Irish doodle just does not meet the notability requirements. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Seth[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:MUSICBIO. All mentions on web seem to be Youtube and song download links. Jbh (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias Psinakis[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor. Requests for information on notability, extra information, and citations reverted. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first few Google results and the first few Google News results between them appear to show quite a bit of significant coverage in reliable sources. User:Jerodlycett - why do you not feel that the subject is notable given this coverage? --Michig (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are any, none are in the article. Looking at Google News I see a few all about the story that he supports the marbles being returned. The rest are not WP:RS in the first 80 results. Some of the Greek results may be able to give him WP:N on the Greek wiki, but this is not the Greek wiki. I don't see any other significant coverage. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Greek sources are as good as sources from any country or in any language. If he's notable anywhere, he's notable. Why do you see Protothema.gr (for which there are several GNews results) as not reliable? It appears to be a Greek newspaper. --Michig (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would appear we're getting different results. As for the language, I assumed I was on the English Wikipedia, and therefore the subjects should be notable to English speaking citizens. Most of the resources I'm seeing are about his election. That would be public announcements, which are not considered significant coverage. I also tried (and failed) to find the correct page on the Greek Wikipedia, hoping that maybe it could be expanded from there. If you could do so maybe once translated there will be something notable. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject doesn't appear to meet GNG; article appears to be bloated with nothing that is truly noteworthy. Moreover, the article is full of unreliable and primary sources - most of the references that have been added recently both. The article is a waste of space and mainly a puff piece that's below Wikipedia standards. More appropriate for the Greek Wikipedia, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article subject has received significant coverage over numerous sources and clearly meets WP:GNG and has established notability. Please note sources in other languages beside English are acceptable to establish notability WP:N. WordSeventeen (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that anywhere. As I state above, I assume that the English Wikipedia show have content notable to English speakers. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be in English to establish Notability. However Citations to non-English sources are allowed. You may want to read this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page I added 15 reliable links to different Greek and English-language Media, including the link to official website of Marathon Municipality in the list of references. The person is notable and well known in Greece and there are lots of confirmation thereto. Google search for Greeklish version of the name (Ηλίας Ψινάκης), as well as for English version of the name (Ilias Psinakis) provides the relevant content and reliable sources of information, sevelral of which are clearly specified in the article.LanaSimba (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LanaSimba: Some of the references you added are not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Further, you removed a template that clearly says "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". The article is a mess, uses poor grammar, and has lousy references. None of the additions you made make it a better article, nor is it appropriate to remove the AfD template. Please do not remove it again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Winkelvi|WV, You just express your personal opinion about the article, which opinion may be whatever, this is your own business, but only if you don't like the article it doesn't mean it should be deleted. As for links, you also give personal assesment to the issue, considering them unreliable, although those materials publicly provided online and never were claimed by anyone in Greece or abroad. I brought many links from different sources, I added one more link, in English, from enough reliable bilingual website http://www.grreporter.info/, which confirms almost all the information and names provided in this article, and finally I gave back the link to facebook page, cause it is not just a link to someone's personal point of view, but a link to real article published in printed Greek media (i.e. Life&Style Magazine 2007) directly specified by the link, which was reposted on Facebook with all references to authorship. Unfortunately facebook link is the only online source of this article in Greek. As for template: I don't know why the AfD notice was removed, may be during editings. Now it seems posted. I am not so good in Wikipedia advanced editing etc. I posted the article for informational purposes only. LanaSimba (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - LanaSimba My opinion about the sources as well as the article itself is based solely on Wikipedia policies in regard to biographies of living persons, the manual of style and |references/sourcing. Sources you added are not reliable by Wikipedia standards and too much of the content in the article is not referenced. Much of what is included in the article is not encyclopedic in nature. When you remove the content not properly sourced and what's not encyclopedic, there isn't much left of the article at all. I maintain that this article is truly not worth the space. The article subject might be more suited for the Greek Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Winkelvi, the online sources provided here are also provided in other articles about Greek personalities, and never were claimed anyhow. All facts in the article are substantiated by links, verifiability is complied with. You judge the content and sources in terms of language, which you personally do not understand. Please, check some comments above, from people who do understand Greek and confirm reliability of sources etc.. Other verifiable and reliable sources, provided in English and have the similar contents with the Greek sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        LanaSimba, don't be so quick to assume I am unable to read the sources. I stand by my comments above. Please read the article WP:RELIABLE to have a better understanding of what is an acceptable, reliable source by Wikipedia standards for BLPs and how important they are in articles such as this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Newspaper and magazine blogs, i.e websites are considered quite reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought all the possible statements, links and references confirming the information, if some users or admins consider them unreliable or insufficient, I can't help, I just wonder why all the same informational sources are provided as references in other pages about Greek personalities and these are OK ... All this is very personal attitude to articles and authors and sources. Who will decide and how will determine criteria for pages existence? And how can do it people, knowing nothing about subject to decide, and to point their view publicly. .LanaSimba (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned if they were a reliable source. If they aren't, they will be removed from the other pages too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Winklevi. fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- subject of the article meet WP:GNG per significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. The fact that sources are not in English does not make a subject non-notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources present. I suspect the difficulty in finding more sources is because of the language barrier as the subject is the mayor of a historic town with 30,000+ inhabitants. To those referring to a Greek or English Wikipedia, please note there is no such thing. There are English-language and Greek-language Wikipedias for people fluent in those languages, no matter what country they're in. A subject only notable in Greece will still get an article on the English-language Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (Blocked editor) Nakon 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Aarons[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet Notability Guidelines. Last notability tag was placed 2 years ago on February 2013 and yet no references till now. I am not stand strong in support for keeping this article as it fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Dormantos (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard nomination and comments by sockpuppet of blocked user. postdlf (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree, it fails WP:GNG. I've also but it up for deletion as WP:BLPPROD, since it's an unreferenced BLP. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am confused regarding your vote. Although I know vote doesn't really matters, but it's needed @Joseph2302 Dormantos (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

To clarify, Delete, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the Southern Cross[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very long and detailed plot summary lacking in any third party sources or evidence of notability.While it was previously kept in a AFD 4+ years ago, I believe that the arguments for keeping it were severely flawed and based on the identity of the series involved and not encyclopaedic value. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was iffy about it then and continue to be now, if someone wants to they can post this on wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep - Article does needs improving but meets GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18+ (band)[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of this band meeting WP:BAND and they only have one album (singles from it are included in the discography). Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe your Google skills need work. I easily found coverage from the LA Weekly, The Guardian, The 405, Irish Times, and CLASH. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC via significant coverage from three different countries. --Michig (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. E.g. [30], [31], [32], [33]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely agree with Michig about the notability of a band. We have very different ideas of what significant coverage means. In this case, we are in agreement. GNG is easily passed. Keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Michig and NorthAmerica1000 meets WP:GNG and has notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biofrequency Chip[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Refs are not about the topic of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on a non-notable supposed 'therapy' clearly concocted to promote a particular device - the 'biofrequency chip' described on this company website [34] for which the term 'biofrequency chip' has been applied for as a trademark. [35] The description in our article closely mirrors the website, and the same sources are cited on both. Sources it should be noted which appear not to be discussing the 'chip', but instead the supposed or actual biological effects of electromagnetic fields. The claims of medical efficacy for the 'chip' entirely lack WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and as far as I can determine, there has been no published research on the efficacy of the 'chip' itself. Probably, I suspect because the supposed mechanism of action is so vague and ill-defined that such research would be impossible - see the pseudoscientific hogwash on the company website: [36]. Wikipedia does of course cover pseudoscientific supposed 'therapies' that have no support as evidence-based medicine, but we do so when their notability has been established through significant coverage of the actual subject matter of the article in mainstream reliable sources. Such notability has not been demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this article references do not meet MEDRS, as they are not compliant by date and or source (primary). Furthermore, in some cases the source does not support the statement (sentence in the article in question), it is clear the outcome this article should take. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - violates WP:PROMO - not WP:NOTABLE per MEDRS sources Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The content in this article and most of the references are pseudoscience. Of course there are a number of published articles within Wikipedia that are pseudoscience and I don't believe in either (e.g. Reiki, magnet therapy, etc.). However worthless the therapies are, that doesn't mean the therapies don't exist. I think the articles references are weak but has merit and should stay, however it call it what it is - pseudoscience. Cajuncritic (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note to Cajuncritic - your account was just created and your only edits are to this topic per your contribs. I just left some messages on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence the topic is notable, none of the sources, reliable or no, seem to describe it and so establish its notability. The actual sourced content such as on energy medicine already has articles, so no need for this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AndyTheGrump and everyone else above, the article is a transparent attempt to sell snake oil as legitimate medicine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG; very little coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve: One of the great things about the Wiki community is that anyone can contribute information which can make good articles great. I understand the easy and quick decision is to delete an article all together. However when given the choice to do what is right or do what is easy, most people want to do what is right. It is obvious I am not an expert on this topic or editing. My hope is that there is someone in the Wiki community that has more knowledge of this topic than I do who can improve it. That may require removing most all of the current content and contributing fresh information of greater value. Improving a lower quality article isn't easy, but I hope someone in the Wiki community has the ability to do what is right.Aenfinger (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It doesn't work like that. Wikipedia is absolutely not going to promote this non-notable pseudoscientific garbage. This is an encyclopaedia, covering subjects already discussed in depth in secondary reliable sources. If is not a platform for advertising newly-concocted quack 'therapies' based on nothing but bullshit. Sadly, there may be websites that permit the hawking of snakeoil, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aenfinger some are more gruff there than others. Perhaps i can translate. WP articles need to built from the ground up. Everything starts with "reliable sources" about the topic - the first thing you do when you want to create an article, or go to work improving one, is to find what we call "reliable sources." What a "reliable source" is, is defined in WP:RS generally, and for any content related to health, by WP:MEDRS. Both of those guidelines emphasize the importance of "secondary sources" (see the definitions in MEDRS, which are useful for all sciences - it basically is literature review articles, and not articles where research results are presented - those are "primary sources" and you should avoid them like the plague. As an example, one of the sources you used is a primary source (PMID 22011216 which is source 19 and the most cited reference in the article - and that paper was actually retracted (see PMID 23461727]). It should not have been used at all since it is primary but really should not have been used, since it was retracted. The article is full of problems like that. Another example - the very first reference doesn't mention "biofrequency chips" and it doesn't support the content it used for. I actually went looking, and found no review articles discussing biofrequency chips. What that means, is that are not even reliable sources to start building an article from. We have no where to go here, at this time. With time there might be review articles published that discuss them, but they don't exist now. (i found things like this PMID 20674588 - but that is really about Bioelectromagnetics more generally, and doesn't mention any specific devices). I hope that is helpful. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's already a Wikipedia page for Energy medicine that covers pseudoscience like this, including "biofields". The sources available for this separate article are too weak and scarce. Perhaps a redirect from biofrequency to that Energy medicine article would be appropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of similar information in the energy medicine article and a redirect to this page makes sense - thank you Anythingyouwant. The specific and detailed information provided by Jytdog is fantastic and helpful. I appreciate the time you took to coach me further. I did remove the reference that was retracted and I'll look to see if there are other references that can replace some of the primary research. Many thanks! Aenfinger (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG and lacks sources as per WP:MEDRS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there exist enough RS to have this page, in its current iteration it needs to be blown up because so many of citations don't back up statements made in the article. BakerStMD 00:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: I was hoping that someone with a little more knowledge or access to better references on this topic would have contributed by now. Until better references and content is developed (or found), the article can be deleted but I didn't know if I am allowed to do that. Much of the content can be found on other pages already published in WP and it makes sense to use Anythingyouwant's suggestion to re-direct it to an existing article. The original suggestion is "energy medicine" which is good, but fairly broad. The characteristics of a biofrequency chip are actually a little more similar to biomagnetic therapy. If I am allowed to delete the page and redirect to biomagnetic therapy, I'm happy to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Aenfinger (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can see no legitimate case for a redirect. None of the sources cited do anything to indicate that the term 'biofrequency chip' is actually used by anyone but an obscure company pushing pseudoscientific hogwash. Redirects are intended to assist readers in finding encyclopaedic content, and not to promote complete bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely (and DO NOT redirect). Sorry, but somebody locating better references is a forlorn hope. Given the absence of anything even tangentially coming close to being an adequate source for any mechanistic claim, the official retraction of the "main evidence" that is promulgated on the commercial product's website - [37], and the ongoing promotion of this commercial product's name - [38], I emphatically agree with the recommendation from AndyTheGrump: a redirect would be very inappropriate at this time. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no redirect would be appropriate at "biofrequency chip". However, "biofrequency" gets about one hundred times the google hits as "biofrequency chip," so I don't see a problem with having a redirect at biofrequency which is a more general concept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant suggestion Anythingyouwant. Biofrequency makes even more sense as a redirect. Thank you! Aenfinger (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biofrequency already exists, and already redirects to Energy medicine: there is no problem with that. There is a problem with this commercial product, whose webpage deliberately or self-delusionally sets outs to package nothing into a pretty narrative with pretty pictures. If the proposal is amended to a double redirect from this article by way of biofrequency to energy medicine the answer for several reasons should be no. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (Blocked editor). Nakon 01:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keya Seth[edit]

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

~~Delete Speedy Delete~~ The Article isn't covered significantly in independent reliable sources. Last edition of the article was on 24 September 2014 and that too for placing tags such as 'underlinked' and 'BLP Sources' yet there hasn't been any significant changes to the article. According to me, the article can be deleted and re-created when it gains more coverage in reliable sources. The only sources of the article are Primary Sources, and I may not be that hard to say it may not meet WP:GNG Dormantos (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~I have changed my vote because the tags were placed on article 2 years ago and yet no changes in content significantly at all. Dormantos (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Disregard nomination by sockpuppet of blocked user. postdlf (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - no evidence of any notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:05, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Demos and Singles[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NALBUMS. Jbh (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable Dethcentrik release. Depending of results of Dethcentrik's current AfD, this should either stay or be speedily deleted under A9. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - ~~— BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Jbh (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through my contribution history before making accusations -BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyWikipedian: Sorry, when I looked at your contributions all I saw were edits related to Død Beverte who is a member of Dethcentrik and Død Incarnate Records including the Deathcentric albums which are not even remotly near passing WP:NALBUM. I should have looked deeper. Striking SPA and will do so at the other AfDs related to Deathcentric. Jbh (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be specific WP:NALBUMS requires significant non-trivial coverage in RS. Having the album chart on a national chart (in the US that is one based on Nielson's Soundscan), be nominated for a major award (ie Grammy or equivalent) etc. Having an Allmusic track listing is not a source and a single video mention is not significant coverage. Jbh (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom is correct. The subject hasn't received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources so fails general notability and certainly doesn't meet any of the special criteria for albums at WP:NALBUMS. I disagree with notion that this article should not be deleted if the Dethcentrik article is not deleted, it just doesn't work that way. The subject is not notable and article fails our need for verifiability.- Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 01:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Innocent Die Young[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NALBUMS. Jbh (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a covered, notable album by Dethcentrik. Please look out for this AfD's results as well. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - ~~— BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }~~ Jbh (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my contributions before making such statements -BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see two reviews from reliable sources in the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be specific WP:NALBUMS requires significant non-trivial coverage in RS. Having the album chart on a national chart (in the US that is one based on Nielson's Soundscan), be nominated for a major award (ie Grammy or equivalent). Metal Stoem is a blog not RS. The Gauntlet is not RS and is simply providing access to a Youtube banned video and Rockfreaks is also a blog and not RS. Jbh (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Staff reviews after 2008 from Metal Storm are considered reliable, per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES (a post-2008 staff review is being cited in that article). Also, Rockfreaks was discussed in the talk page there recently, and the consensus seemed to be that's reliable too. So, I voted keep, per those two reviews. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 01:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Think You Got the Clean Version[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NALBUMS. Jbh (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Dethcentrik album with plenty of reliable coverage. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - ~~— BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ Jbh (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through my contributions rather than simply accepting this statement-BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see two reviews from reliable sources in the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be specific WP:NALBUMS requires significant non-trivial coverage in RS. Having the album chart on a national chart (in the US that is one based on Nielson's Soundscan), be nominated for a major award (ie Grammy or equivalent). The Brutal Resonance link does not link to a source and the Sideline source is a trivial review. This does not add up to significant coverage even if both sources listed were good. Jbh (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that the Brutal Resonance link was broken. I searched the site, found the review, and have recited with the proper, up to date link-BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see how the two reviews don't constitute as significant coverage. Per WP:GNG, two sources of non-trivial coverage (which reviews usually are) are enough. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Farrell (South Africa)[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a school boy who has not done enough in his short life to meet the notability requirements of wikipedia, The article has been subject to a number of edit wars and it would be better for the article to be deleted until Master Farrell has achieved something and becomes truly worthy of a WP article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 01:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Shirley Hastings[edit]

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

No proof of notability, existing isn't enough. Jerodlycett (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Jerodlycett (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we can presume notability due to the designation of Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added several reviews of her works in major publications. I think it makes a pretty strong case for WP:AUTHOR criterion 4c. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author seems to think that nobility equals notability. FRSL is not quite enough - we need a couple of other references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is spare, and it is not inherited from distant relatives. When and if she succeeds to a title, then we can re-visit this issue. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per RHaworth (talk · contribs) and Bearian (talk · contribs).Keep. Subject of the article meet WP:AUTHOR. Many thanks to EricEnfermero. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per users Wikic¤l¤gy, RHaworth, and Bearian. WordSeventeen (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-: I just reviewed the article again after EricEnfermero recent edit on the article. I think the subject of the article easily meet WP:AUTHOR. Sorry that I have to change my Delete vote to Keep. Apologize that I did a critical review before my initial vote. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per EricEnfermero - meets WP:Author. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 01:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Corteau[edit]

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

The subject of the article has requested deletion of articleabout self - at OTRS TicketID=8262087. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would like to know the reason for pulling out db-g7 tag. Dormantos (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~You can add db-g7 with two curly brackets on both sides. That is used for self-deletion. Dormantos (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Dormantos g7 is for the creator of the article requesting deletion. The subject of the article is not the creator. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corteau has written 14 books and won at least two awards, so would appear to pass WP:GNG with flying colours. Theroadislong (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Neutral~~ If the person himself wants to pull himself out, I don't think any further discussion is needed. Dormantos (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC) I have voted neutral in light to withdrawing db-g7 by User:Flat Out Dormantos (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard comments by sockpuppet of blocked account. postdlf (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does appear to be notable and (I think that) we don't give any information that isn't on his official website where our Wikipedia article is mentioned. We can't read his mind about why he wants this deleted, but it seems to me that he's already thoroughly "outed". --Hordaland (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user wrote this on my talk page "It's just that I'd really like the article, the whole thing, removed, so that if I actually one day become worthy of a mention in Wikipedia, it won't be a botched-up thing bearing a horrendous (where'd they find it???) photo." Though as above I think he already is notable enough and perhaps we can find a better photograph with his help/ Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Globe[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy for hoax on this, but feel it needs attention. It is still unreferenced after a year of existence, and two users have expressed doubts on the talk page. I've never heard of this globe, and can't see anything reliable on Google. There are two mentions in stories, but these are not notable enough for inclusion. Peridon (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced after a year of existence and Google only mentions the "globe" on Marvel-related websites, this article may not be blatant, but may not meet WP:N. The Snowager-is awake 16:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This globe is referenced in passing in a DC comic, but that does not make it notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy, even on the basis of its being unreferenced regardless of hoax status). Imho, "I've never heard of this globe, and can't see anything reliable on Google" is not the right approach. If the creator didn't provide references, speedy it (unless you are willing and able to go out of your way to fix it for them, but that then makes you the effective article creator) --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this isn't a hoax, then there is a shockingly large disregard for this aspect of Norse mythology as not only is there no coverage in reliable sources, there isn't even any coverage in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 01:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature portrait of George Washington, by Charles Willson Peale[edit]

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

This page is a probable mistification, which has been translated from Russian to English. NN21 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a translation of ru:Миниатюрный портрет Джорджа Вашингтона работы Чарльза Уилсона Пила, which is a very probable mistification and is going to be deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Initially this page was suggested to be renamed, see here (in Russian). Then it has been renominated. Here is a discussion, in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NN21 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original full-length portrait by the same artist cataloged by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (in the links section[39]) ~~probably deserves~~ may deserve a standalone article, but Wikipedia doesn't need one on every copy he painted thereafter. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarify that I and other Russian colleagues have been unable to find any evidence in support of main points of this article. It is quite possible that the piece of art described in the article does not exist. It is also doubtful that "a noble Polish aristocrat", Alexandra Vodyaeva ("Vodyaevoy" is a mistake), has ever existed. NN21 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, there is some evidence of existence of the portrait. NN21 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is excess information about the painting I recommend moving it to Charles Willson Peale but the painting itself being so notable as to warrant an entire article I disagree. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and repurpose -- the original now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art probably desevers an article, as a portrait commission in Washington's lifetime and probably taken from life. The miniature is a reproduction, and I doubt it is notable even if by the orginal artist, rather than a copyist. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence_of_proteases_–_chymotrypsin_A_–_trypsin_–_elastase[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sequence of proteases – chymotrypsin A – trypsin – elastase

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

The sequences of specific enzymes are definitely beyond the boundaries of an encyclopaedia. There are specific websites dedicated to this. The formatting of the sequence is also so confusing as to be almost unreadable T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete We have Chymotrypsin, Trypsin and Elastase respectively which can be selectively merged into. That is if this is not too excessive a detail to be included. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO / WP:RAWDATA. Might have instructional use at Wikibooks, but not here. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unreadable attempt to make a wiki article do a job it's not meant for, at a title that virtually guarantees no one will ever find it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making pages about individual sequence alignments is ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RAWDATA (almost a textbook case...). Tigraan (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Blakely[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG after attempts to find more reliable/independent sources other than the subject's employer. Also doesn't appear to have done anything to satisfy WP:MUSBIO. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are several CD releases reviewed in books In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep/improve Well he's done at least one notable thing, performed a world premiere of a song cycle by a major British composer, source added to article. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What criterion would you say this makes it qualify for at WP:MUSBIO? Best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mr Blakely's album releases include Bridge/Britten (2002, Continuum, with Lorraine McAslan (vn)), Elgar/Walton (1985, ASV, with Lorraine McAslan, reissued in 1996), Debussy/Ravel/Saint-Saens (1991, Collins, with Lorraine McAslan (vn)), "A-Courting We Will Go" (1989, Unicorn-Kanchana, with Kathleen Livingston (sop) and Neil Mackie (ten)), and Beethoven Violin Sonatas Opp. 24 and 47 (1987, Pickwick, with Lorraine McAslan (vn)). He therefore meets Criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". He probably also meets Criterion 1 - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" - by reason of the number of reviews each of the above albums received. Syek88 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Ark-La-Tex[edit]

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

Does not appear notable as separate article from Ark-La-Tex. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- There is nothing in the article that even asserts this place, used loosely, even exists. the last section is pretty confirming that this is a hoax and I am going to nominate it for speedy on that basis. John from Idegon (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reformatted this nomination using Template:Afd2. —Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is one of a series of disruptive "contributions" by User:Futurewiki, an editor that has already been taken to ANI and SPI. I've been mulling starting a new SPI. The "city" of Fairview Alpha, Louisiana is the smoking gun. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bino Gambino[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Almost all the sources are primary sources from the organization he is working for. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions /// Also ping @MPJ-DK: who just PROD-ed this. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, all sources like this and this are from own websites and showing ranking from self publishing blogs like this. Fails WP:GNG --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 10:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the SuperLuchas site is the web part of a magazine with an editorial process (not a blog) it just confirmed that he exists and that's not enough or I would have my own entry as well. This guy is not notable and has no independent third party reliable sources to prove it. MPJ -US 15:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocating electric motor[edit]

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

Not notable, is not used for any practical application, references do not amount to it being notable in its own right. GliderMaven (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this AfD is a bit premature as there is already a merger discussion underway which will solve the problem as per Talk:Reciprocating electric motor. - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, prod, kill it with fire WP:MADEUP. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how it is has moved back today [40], where the totally non-notable variant has been returned and the rest of the undivided article is still a mish-mash of linear reciprocating shaver motors and the 1830s semi-rotative engines, it's still a firm delete Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article to include historic motors. If it is to be merged, I suggest a merger with linear motor. Biscuittin (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in process of expanding the article further. Please give me time to complete this before making a decision. Biscuittin (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have knocked the article into shape. It still needs further work but I think it can now stand on its own so I request that the deletion and merge tags be removed. It is not just about linear compressors, it is also about machines with crankshafts. Biscuittin (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a crank on a linear motor changes the electric motor itself in no way.GliderMaven (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original article probably was not worth saving, but the work by Biscuittin has made this a worthwhile page. The thing clearly exists,[41] despite claims to the contrary. The design shown here is identical the driving mechanism of old fashioned electric bells (although I have never heard them described as motors) which at one time were ubiquitous in telephones and also used as door bells. There are also book sources [42] that describe modern applications for such a motor. SpinningSpark 22:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has actually managed to get worse by its expansion.

When it started, it had a simple and clearly defined scope (the kid's demonstration motor). It was a clearly non-notable scope, but at least there was one.

Since then, it has turned into a text match across a Google search. Anything with the words "reciprocating" and "motor" has washed up in here. Doesn't matter that they're unrelated, if the words appear, they go in. That is no way to write an encyclopedic article on a defined topic!

The early motors use a reciprocating solenoid and armature to turn a rotative mechanism. Yet thrown into this same article are compressors and fretsaws that are purely reciprocating. All this in an article that doesn't even have section headings to split them. There's now a proposal at Talk:Electric motor to merge this into linear motor - a motor that provides continuous motion in one direction, without reciprocating.

Articles are written by producing some form of editorial narrative around a defined scope – not by throwing a few keywords into Google and assuming that everything with a match to them is about the same subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley's comments remind me of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. A Reciprocating electric motor can provide either linear motion or, with the addition of a crank, rotary motion, but both are Reciprocating electric motors. Biscuittin (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reciprocating engine does not directly produce linear motion (in the sense of linear motor) any more than it can directly produce rotary motion. In both cases an additional mechanical linkage is required to convert the motion. For instance, a crank for rotary motion, or a ratchet for linear motion. SpinningSpark 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does a Reciprocating electric motor produce linear motion or rotary?

If even this simple definition can't be answered, it indicates that there is no valid scope for this article; it's merely a Google lookup for anything with the word "reciprocating". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary is round and round, linear is on and on, and reciprocating is back and forth. How is that not a simple definition? SpinningSpark 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That defines the terms, but what does the motor do?

If this article ends up stating "Reciprocating motors go either round and round or back and forth" (as it effectively does at present) that's a strong indication that the claimed scope is invalid and is no more than a trivial text coupling between motors of different concepts. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is standard Andy Dingley practice, which I have encountered many times. He tries to confuse us, in the hope that we will get bored and go away. Biscuittin (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That shows that the text string "Reciprocating+electric+motor" appears in several sources. However articles are about concepts, not about strings of text. Do these texts refer to the same concept? Is that concept described here?

This article has been expanded during the AfD. It started out around one concept (which couldn't demonstrate WP:N). It has since expanded to include the early Davis motors (of historical note and probably deserving an article) It has also gone in the direction suggested by Spinning Spark of the non-rotating electric shaver motor. That can demonstrate notability too.

The problem with this article is that it just lumps all three in together. They do not belong together, certainly not when not even described separately. Although the text "Reciprocating+electric+motor" has been used to describe all three, they have little in common beyond the "electric motor" aspect. Their function, design principle, physical principle, construction and direction of delivering power are all far too different to belong in one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Much of the discussion around this has taken place at Talk:Electric_motor#Discussion_of_proposed_merge_of_Reciprocating_electric_motor_to_here Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:electric motor Andy Dingley wrote: "There is no more any such thing as a "reciprocating electric motor" than there is a "wiggly springy magnet motor". I am one of many has demolished this claim so Mr Dingley has changed tack and is now attacking the article because it "lumps three things together". The article Electric motor lumps many different types of motor together so would Mr Dingley like to delete this article as well? Biscuittin (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was in reference to the original article, when its scope applied only to the Fun With Magnets motor and the article treated it as if a reciprocating solenoid mechanism driving a cam was a credible way to build a rotating motor.

To stretch this article to make reciprocating motors look like a credible topic you've had to stretch it to also include electric shaver motors that are reciprocating, but don't even try to produce rotary motion. They might belong in their own article, but it makes no sense to bundle both types up together. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a reciprocating electric motor has to produce rotary motion? Is a linear motor not a motor because it does not produce rotary motion? Biscuittin (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "motor" can wiggle any way that it wants to. However it's a pretty big distinction between rotary and linear motion, or between continuous and back-and-forth motion. This article has now grown to include three completely separate types of motor (i.e. three distinct topics) where two are continuous and rotary and one is linear and intermittent. All of no more basis than including the word "reciprocating" in a Google hit. That is no way to define an article#s scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want me to split it into three separate articles? Biscuittin (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please suggest names for them because I'm sure you won't like the names I give them. Biscuittin (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those topics would at least be coherent and notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which two, and what names do you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Reciprocating electric motor works for me, if applied to the electric shaver motors that are linear, back-and-forth motion directly generated from a coil and pole piece acting against a spring. Either AC or AC/DC with interrupter points. Those are commonplace, easily WP:Notable and match the name.

The point is, as this AfD was originally raised for, is to get rid of the coverage of the Fun With Magnets motor that is in no way notable.

As to the historical motors, by Davis and probably others, then I can't think of a good name offhand. It should be something though that indicates they combine a linear attraction as a prime mover (and it's not reciprocating because they're only single acting) and that also indicates they're generating continuous rotary motion (albeit somewhat jerky) by means of a ratchet or crank. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "reciprocating" is excessively narrow. Per every online dictionary I checked, both of my print dictionaries, and our own article, Reciprocating motion is simply motion that moves back and forth in a straight line. "Double action" is not required. If the motor's prime mover—the armature in an electric motor—shows linear, back-and-forth motion, rather than circular movement, it's a reciprocating motor (or engine). Whether or not a crankshaft and flywheel are attached is also irrelevant. (Note that the double-acting steam engine illustrated at reciprocating motion has a crank and flywheel attached.) If you disagree, please find some references to support your position, don't just declare that your definition is the only one that matters. Jeh (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that your complaint about the "fun with magnets" motor, that it is not notable, is off point. Per WP:N, and in particular WP:N#NCONTENT, the notability requirement applies to article topics. It does not apply to content within an article. Individual examples of a thing do not have to be notable to be talked about in an article about the thing. Jeh (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the article stands, it's still not making a claim for independent notability. If you can find and reference at least another and preferably several real-world, non historical/non toy applications, other than linear compressors which we already have a separate article for, for example (if you can reference it) in electric shavers, then in my opinion it would be notable. But right now, as the article stands, it still isn't achieving notability.GliderMaven (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are history and toys excluded? Should we delete the articles Wimshurst machine and Model engine? Biscuittin (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wimshurst machines and model engines have lots of very good references, those at least are very notable; BUT THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC; Wimshurst machines are not reciprocating electric motors, they do not look like, work like or do anything else the same. You have been unable to establish sufficient notability for this topic.GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable toys aren't excluded. Non-notable ones are. There is no secondary coverage of the motor that started this article and remains at its core. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. comment by Andy Dingley (19:41, 29 March 2015) - would you claim that a petrol engine is not a reciprocating engine because it is only single acting? Biscuittin (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference for electric shaver. Biscuittin (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeh and I have expanded the article. Please comment. Biscuittin (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "expand" it. I replaced the "overview" section, which was completely unreferenced and also (I will say diplomatically) not written to Wikipedia's standards, with better-written prose (but still unreferenced). And I want to state for the record that I wore gloves, and took a long hot shower afterwards. I still don't think it deserves its own article but at least it isn't blathering about "cams" any longer. Jeh (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the term I'd choose for it, but COMMONNAME has rather beaten me to it for that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly improved. Is there now a consensus for keeping it? If not, please give your reasons. Biscuittin (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete - see my comment to SpinningSpark some days ago. The article is now trying to cover three unrelated types of motor in one article. Two of these don't belong together, one doesn't belong on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linear compressor, electric shaver and educational toy all use Reciprocating electric motors. Why do you say they are unrelated? Biscuittin (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a literal example of begging the question, thus a fallacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "three types"? They all involve magnetic fields generated by electric current (hence "electric") acting on an armature to move (hence "motor") it back and forth (hence "reciprocating"). Double-acting or not is irrelevant. Whether a crank and flywheel is attached to convert this to rotary motion is also irrelevant. Is the "electric motor" article invalid because it covers multiple types of electric motors? If we convert a rotary electric motor's motion to back-and-forth with a crank mechanism, does it cease to be a rotary motor? Nonsense. Jeh (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two notable types here are firstly (the 1830s motors) using a linear actuator with a ratchet or crank in order to produce rotary motion; the modern example is using a reciprocating actuator to produce reciprocating motion alone. Those are conceptually two very different functions and just don't belong lumped into one article. I agree that those two, and only those two, could at least demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't find this topic independently notable. You can add the whole thing as a paragraph or two in linear motor, and you wouldn't lose anything, and you're done. The very few references to it seem very trivial, most electric razors don't work this way, and the ones that do, I wouldn't expect them to work any better, and nobody plays with these toys. The linear compressor certainly seems notable, but we have a separate article for that.GliderMaven (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The technology museum in Vienna (extremely good, by the way, I highly recommend a visit there if you're in that city) thought that the motor shown in the first photo was notable enough to be an exhibit. And remember that notability does not expire. However, I'd still support a merge to Linear motor - it seems incontrovertible to me that this is a type of linear motor. Jeh (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Jeh: I don't think a reciprocating motor and a linear motor are quite the same thing. In a reciprocating motor the armature or coil moves back and forth over a short distance. In a linear motor (e.g. when used to power a train) the moving part moves over a long distance in a single direction. Biscuittin (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Andy Dingley: I don't understand your claim of "begging the question". Please clarify. Biscuittin (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that two unrelated things do not belong in the same article. Your response is that because they are in the same article, they are the same thing and so belong in that same article. Such logic is circular. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks to me like all the examples mentioned currently a) are motors, b) are electric, and c) exhibit reciprocating motion. They are in the article because they fit the definition. So again we ask you: HOW are they unrelated? You keep saying they're not; that strikes me as what we used to call on Usenet "proof by vigorous assertion".

Regarding Linear motor and someone's made-up requirement for "a long distance in a single direction": Linear motor says "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned that the motor exceed any particular length of movement. It also says "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.

Meanwhile, nothing I can see requires a reciprocating motor to have just one field.

Say, isn't a conventional loadspeaker driver a "reciprocating electric motor"? How about the linear "voice coil" actuators in older disk drives? Jeh (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion that might satisfy both of you. Move the historic motor with the crank to Electric_motor#Early_motors move the toy motor to Toy#Types and move the others to Linear motor. Reciprocating electric motor can then become a disambiguation page. Biscuittin (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the worst of all possible worlds.

How about this: Reciprocating electric motor becomes the modern shaver motors. These are well-defined, clearly notable and fit the title.

The early motors go to a new article (I'm out of ideas for it). They're notable and of some historical significance. The modern toy version becomes a labelled section at the end of that. Maybe a name that involves "rotative motor" (a term invented for the first steam engines 60 years earlier) maybe a name involving "crank motor" (although many used ratchets instead). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Reciprocating electric motor best describes those with a crank because it is analogous to Reciprocating engine. Why can't the shaver motor go to Linear motor? Biscuittin (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, yet again, the piece you've either failed to read or were incapable of understanding, they are not linear motors, "Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that to be definitive. They have 'nothing' to do with each other??? What happens if you make a reciprocating motor with multiple poles, is it no longer a reciprocating motor, even if it still reciprocates??? It seems it would still be a reciprocating motor. Some electric clocks have fake pendulums that swing with a little coil to power it; presumably they're reciprocating motors?

Under the rules for disambiguation pages, you're supposed to have one of those if completely different things go by the same name, but in this case the term 'reciprocating electric motor' are all being taken in the same sense.GliderMaven (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: To repeat the part that you've either failed to read or else decided to just ignore, Linear motor says: "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned of any minimum length of movement, nor of "multiple pole pieces".

Linear motor also says: "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.

In other words, the definition you're insisting on for "linear motor", which would exclude the content in REM from Linear motor, appears to me to be something you just WP:MADEUP, and furthermore is directly contradicted by content already in that article.

We're also still waiting for an explanation from you of why you think the examples in REM are not all "reciprocating electric motors", or do not all belong together. They are motors, they are electric, and they reciprocate. Your claim of a circular argument is absurd. The article begins with a definition (one that is obvious to anyone familiar with the language) and lists several things which, while different from each other in some ways, do all fit the definition. If you want to claim that one or more of these things doesn't belong in the article you're going to have to show either a RS-supported interpretation of the article title, or other RS-supported argument, showing how they don't fit the definition. n.b.: Your own idea of what a "reciprocating electric motor" is, or is not, doesn't count, no matter how many times you repeat it. Same for "linear motor". Jeh (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer another oft-repeated point of yours, I checked several different dictionaries and not one of them includes any notion of "double action" in the definition of "reciprocate", so that definition of yours appears to be WP:MADEUP as well. Jeh (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'modern shaver motors'? The vast majority of shavers just have a normal motor and drive a cam. The reciprocating motor seems to be just a gimmick so far as I can see; but that is a use for reciprocating motors. Loudspeakers also seem to be legitimately reciprocating motors, although they're never referred to as that (neither are the reciprocating heads on shavers though.) Still, I'm starting to think that there is indeed a topic here, basically, it's about linear motors used to generate reciprocating motion, but I think it should be merged with linear motors given the tactical situation of the current articles, and general lack of really good references.GliderMaven (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will ever get all parties to agree on this. I propose that the article be kept in its present form. Biscuittin (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too small and the subject is not notable enough to be an article on its own. Rotary electric motors were developed decades before the early examples mentioned here, and these motors were largely a dead end except for a few very specialized uses. So a merge to Linear motor, with of course a redirect left here, seems appropriate. It is clearly a type of linear motor, and that article already includes examples of applications of reciprocating linear motors. Jeh (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions of uninvolved users--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB. See Historical development and theoretical principles of compressors driven by oscillating electric motor for more. Andrew D. (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems perfectly notable, even if it is not exactly the latest thing in electronics. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this process supposed to reach a conclusion or is it just a talking shop? Biscuittin (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, debates are closed by an administrator after seven days and a decision is made then. However, this one has been relisted. That often happens when the administrator thinks that more comments are needed to reach a consensus. Have patience, it will happen. SpinningSpark 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We're an encyclopedia and this is encyclopedic.... Not really seeing the point in nominating this but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 07:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodan + Fields[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous afd closed as no consensus. I consider the firm non-notable: the refs are pure PR; the awards are minor & local (e.g. "third largest SF-based women-owned") . This is basically an advertisement for a direct marketing company. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not obviously pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In the last AFD the Forbes article was mentioned as a good source, and Forbes is a fine publication, but the Forbes article is a case study about a business strategy that happened to be used by this organization, and I would argue is less about the nature of this organization itself. The article certainly does not present this organization as being significant mostly as a model for finance practices. The other sources are mostly not about this organization. I expect articles to be apparent in meeting Wikipedia's standards and this one has too much promotional content to have anything which can be saved apparent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references just aren't there. We have a Forbes column - not by Forbes staff but by a "contributor", as in "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." We have a newspaper interview with the founders when they were in town for a convention. Nothing much else. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Hospital[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTABILITY. WP:Unreferenced Vin09 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly is not notable at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not Maps. Dormantos (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick look at the revision history reveals that there were previously external links that were judged (correctly) as linkspam and removed, leaving no external links nor citations. Therefore fails wp:V. BakerStMD 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small hospitals are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Guayana King Air Disappearance[edit]

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

No evidence that this event is notable, appears to have minimum news coverage, nobody notable was involved MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should this apparently well-sourced fatal incident at least be mentioned in the article for Cheddi Jagan International Airport? --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability whatsoever. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just renamed the article to it's correct spelling of "Guyana". Antonio Caballo Loco Martin (aqui, aqui) 08:15, 4 April, 2015 (UTC)
Delete both the original and target articles, as failing Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Pieler Kolding[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE. KDS4444^Talk 11:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason I created the page is because he reached semi-finals of All England SSP and also the ongoing 2015 India Super Series finals (notability criteria no.2 for badminton players). He also won some International Challenges. Griff88 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've been puzzled as to why he didn't already have an article and was preparing to do so myself. He has competed consistently at the major events of badminton for quite some time now and deserves a page.--MorrisIV (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:NBADMINTON. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libre art[edit]

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

Somewhat essay-like article promoting neologisms like "librart" or "ethical artists" that do not seem to be used anywhere else (not in the meanings given, at least; I even have trouble finding anyone speak of "libre artists"). The sourcing is a bad joke: of the seven references provided, only in two the English phrase "libre art" appears at all; some of the others are about completely unrelated topics (for example, that the name "liberal arts" sounds similar is mostly a coincidence). In short, WP:MADEUP WP:SYN/WP:OR thing. The topic at hand can be covered just as well in articles like free culture movement, open content or copyleft. — Keφr 13:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant original research. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Dwyer[edit]

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

Film and TV credits don't come anywhere close to satisfying WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Contrary to what her article suggests, she only co-starred in one film: Man with Two Lives. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source is not to a story about her, but more of a directory listing. Questionably notability for old low budget films. AlbinoFerret 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Hasanov[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights with which to meet WP:NMMA and there is no significant coverage of him. My own search did not find any evidence of him winning any major titles nor did I find anything that looks like it would meet WP:GNG (although there was some coverage of a Finnish hockey player with the same name). The claim of a third place finish at the Russian Combat Sambo championships has no sources and gives no dates. Even if it did, I don't think it would be enough to show notability on its own. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided The various titles claimed for him are probably sufficient for notability, but they lack WP:RS citations to support their reality. If anybody inserts those references, I'd say keep. Otherwise, delete. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear the MMA titles are not significant (in terms of WP notability). I couldn't find him in my search for his third place sambo finish. I agree that if all of the titles claimed were sourced showing he was indeed a national champion in both Pankration and submission grappling, as well as finishing third at the Russian sambo championships that he would meet WP:MANOTE. However, my vote to delete stands until such sources are provided. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search and didn't find anything that would show he's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't seen anything that shows me significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep reasonably well known martial artist who passes GNG. This makes WP:MANOTE irrelevant. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a kickboxer that doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. The only source is his name mentioned in a list of fights for an upcoming event. That's definitely not enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily call him a kickboxer, but you're right that appearing on a fight card is insufficient to meet GNG and there's no evidence to support a claim that he meets MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Akhileshwar Prasad Sinha[edit]

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

Non-notable urologist, fails WP:BASIC. Only sources I could find were: [43][44], however they are only passing mentions of the subject. Also fails WP:PROF because there is no indication that the subject has made substantial contributions to urology (only one published paper with a h-index of 0-1), nor is there any indication that the subject meets other WP:PROF criteria. Esquivalience ^t 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, cant find anything notable in searches. AlbinoFerret 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, fails WP:Prof. BakerStMD 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Perrie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

From what I can tell this is a non noteable voice actor. Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret 19:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharatham (TV series)[edit]

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

Non notable show that is being edited by meat/sock puppets Wgolf (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, at least about the non-notability claim; I found coverage about it fairly quickly here and here to start off with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by Ncmvocalist certainly appear to indicate notability. Wgolf - please indicate why you believe subjects are not notable when nominating and what you've done to arrive at that conclusion. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.N.Taylor[edit]

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

Okay I Had this as a unsourced BLP tag until I just found out its not a BLP. Anyway this page is more of a "how great this person is" as opposed to what made him great. Hard to find this guy also searching considering how many results you get fro K N Taylor! Wgolf (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note an alternate spelling of the subject's name as referred to in media sources.

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

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. A source example includes: [45]. Furthermore, these sources were published after the subject passed away, and provide overviews (to various degrees) of the subject to qualify a Wikipedia article: [46], [47], [48], [49]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all moreover one source isn't sufficient to prove it's notabilityDormantos (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough good sources for notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How so, and what is your definition of "good sources"? Did you see and view the sources I posted in this discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, per Northamerica1000. He's the winner of multiple awards for cinema (I've added two more to the article, with references), and there is good coverage online from WP:Reliable sources in English alone. I haven't searched yet for online coverage in Tulu or Hindi. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well this will probably be closed as neutral given the 50/50, but it is tough to find someone with the name KN Taylor though as I said before. Wgolf (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Totally unconvincing deletion rationale, sources found clearly demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the basis of the awards Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 00:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipa-Nima[edit]

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

Page that has been long tagged for notability. As well as a advertisement-the only ref was for the site which is a dead link now. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The dead link was the old site. It was in the Wayback Machine. This is the about page, which seems to have been the source for most of the text in earlier versions. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A quick google search does reveal numerous references from international media to "Ipa-Nima", including Time Magazine ^[1], Usa Today ^[2], Les Echos (French) ^[3], South China Morning Post ^[4], to cite a few. Mentioned in Who's who in fashion ^[5] and some other books as well. Lack of notability seems like a stretch, the article just needs some work. (Imho what happened is that the "anti-advertising" brigade reduced the formerly more comprehensive and more useful article to just one sentence, thereby preparing it for deletionists to jump on. Also smells of wikipedia bias: if the average wikipedia user was an asian female with an interest in fashion, and not a white western male with an interest in technology and war, the article would be more comprehensive by now. Just my five cents.) ReidarM (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous account of what happened based entirely on a groundless assumption of bad faith. When I tagged the article as an advertisement is was blatantly promotional in both its tone and its content. When I tagged it with needing independent sources to establish notability, it had no independent sources that established notability. You have no reason to assume some nefarious intent. Later, when another editor removed the promotional content, much of which was plagiarized from the subject's own website, that was an absolutely appropriate thing to do according to Wikipedia policy. You should apologize to User:Epeefleche for accusing him of intending to merely "prepare it for deletionists", especially considering that no one nominated it for deletion for more than three years afterwards. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Deletion of material that does not comport with wp:v is not "preparing it for deletion"; nor is the addition of non-RS-supported material preparing it for non-deletion. Two separate issues. Articles are assessed at AfD based on what sources exist, not based on what unsourced-text appears in the article. Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one of the deleted sentences was "Ipa-Nima is regularly featured in fashion magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Marie Claire, Star Style, Latina, InStyle, Personality, Linda, Glamour, Upscale, Glow, and Neo". While not a perfect citation, that sentence certainly gave a few clues to existing sources. ReidarM (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Sources identified above are adequate to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources given above. Pinging Edgeweyes who first tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wgolf, are you satisfied that the new refs show it meets notability and feel you could withdraw the nomination or are you still concerned? Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micromax Canvas Hue[edit]

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

no apparent evidence for importance DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough for a standalone article (as per Northamerica1000's provided sources). Esquivalience ^t 23:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems to pass WP:GNG as Northamerica100 pointed out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shunaid Qureshi[edit]

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

Unreliable sources, fails to meet notability guidelines, promotional piece Cada mori (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, it seems to be more of a magnet for potential defamation than anything else, due to allegations against him. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources currently in article are in-depth, multiple, independent, focusing on the subject, and yes there may be a motive of some contributors to defame the subject, but there are sufficient sources in the article (as of March 31 2015) to justify notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- ------------------Source number 1 is a private company page that is hosted by the same corporation Mr. Qureshi Owns, Source number 2 is blank, Source number 3 is a pdf file with no verifiable information, Source 5 is a dead link, Source 6 is a blog entry with no author, Soruce 10 is a CNN iReport link that was never actually published, Source 12 doesn't even mention mister Qurashi.Cada mori (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tomwsulcer and passes WP:GNG per various Directorship held. The Subject is the chairman of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association. Bloomberg here The Dawn here and subject is also the Chairman Pakistan Ethanol Manufacturers Association (P.E.M.A.) as per Directorships here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Web Company[edit]

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

Not a Notable company. No citations to Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Web Company (SWC) has been a leading provider of Semantic Web technologies since 2004. SWC has published at Springer the first books in this field for the German speaking community ever. See: https://www.semantic-web.at/springer/
SWC is actively participating within the Open Knowledge Foundation since many years, and has been a founding member of the Austrian Chapter, see also: http://okfn.at/experts-team/
SWC is actively developing and supporting Open Data Portals with many projects, e.g. https://www.opendataportal.at/ueber-odp/ or http://datahub.io/dataset/socialsemweb-thesaurus
SWC is actively supporting the DBpedia association, see: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/Leipzig2014
SWC has generated a significant footprint within the Drupal community and a variety of contributions to the Drupal Project, see: https://www.drupal.org/node/1983364 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABLVienna (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SWC's Martin Kaltenboeck is member of the Steering Commitee of the European Data Forum (http://data-forum.eu/committees), which is a significant community for Europe's Big Data industry and research, see for example Neelie Kroes and Martin Kaltenboeck talking at EDF 2014: http://2014.data-forum.eu/program — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABLVienna (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its product PoolParty is used by various large global organizations like Worldbank, Council of the European Union, IAEA, Roche, Boehringer, Daimler, Credit Suisse, Wolters Kluwer, Pearson, British Medical Journals, Healtdirect Australia, The Pokemon Company, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, etc. see: http://www.poolparty.biz/some-of-our-clients/
KMWorld reports about SWC's ongoing progress with its products: http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News/Knowledge-graph-management-and-text-analytics-from-Semantic-Web-Company-101697.aspx
Semantic Web Company is the main organizer of Europe's larges Semantic Web Conference, which takes place the 11th time this year, see: http://www.semantics.cc/ - last year the event attracted over 250 people in Leipzig/Germany.
Semantic Web Company is part of some of the most significant and largest Linked Data and Big Data projects in Europe. E.g. http://www.big-data-europe.eu/ or http://aligned-project.eu/ - which consists of a consortium with Trinity College Dublin, University of Oxford, University of Leipzig, etc.
Semantic Web Company and its product incl. open source components have generated a significant footprint and many references in scientific papers and publications. Here is a list of articles and papers referencing to PoolParty: http://www.poolparty.biz/papers-and-articles/

I leave it up to you if this is "notable" or not. --ABLVienna (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABLVienna (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of these, as far as I can tell, were posted by SWC itself. Wikipedia needs third-party sources, because any company with sufficient capital can make a bunch of pages. Also, 250 people? That's not very many. Blah2 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources are primary, so even if the org were notable, we would still have to delete everything in the article to remove primary sources, so we might as well delete the page. CorporateM (Talk) 05:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Student Association[edit]

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

Claims to notability are unsubstantiated. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7years; time it was resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Never heard of it, but 191 results in Google News Search and its dating to 1947 seem to mean it is notable. It's just a very weak, poorly sourced article. —Мандичка^YO 😜

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, appears to pass WP:GNG, see Glenn H. Utter (12 September 2011). Youth and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-59884-662-1. The subject also has received multiple mentions in a multitude of reliable sources (whether those mentions are significant or not is a matter of debate).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this used to be important, when I was in college, but that's anecdotal. We may need to userfy or fix it quickly. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on a quick web search, seems to meet WP:GNG. often mentioned by AFL-CIO Moonboy54 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Thanks for convincing me, Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Rudiakov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are some (mainly local) sources but I wasn't quite convinced that she meets WP:PROF, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. AfD last year resulted in no consensus, but had only two comments, a delete and a keep vote. This was tagged seven years ago; time for it to be resolved. Pinging Kingturtle who tagged it for notability, and LaMona and 24.151.10.165 who commented in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she has sources in multiple languages, so it seems she had an international career that had some merit. I think an issue may be spelling of her name. Does she have a corresponding article in Hebrew? Her name in Russian would be Shoshana Rudyakova (Russian: Шошана Рудякова), but I suspect Shoshana is her Hebrew name and not birth name. It's unclear when she left the USSR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Bloods. Given that this has already been relisted twice, I think it is not very likely that more participants will appear, so I am closing this with the two opinions voiced up till now. There is no consensus to keep or delete, but both participants in the debate suggest merging to Bloods. So done. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double II Set[edit]

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

Non-notable street gang set. No indication of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Closest thing to notability seems to be a federal indictment. Only reliable source used in the article is a dead link to a govt. document. Fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unknown gang's sect whose only reference is a broken link. Not notable enough to warrant a page. Psychotic Spartan 123 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic meets WP:GNG. Simply clicking on the find sources links above provides some sources. Source examples include:

East Orange police raid apartment building as part of crackdown on Bloods set, authorities say. Nj.com.
East Orange crime crackdown leads to nearly 60 arrests. Nj.com.
To Be an FBI Special Agent. p. 85.
Preteen Gangbangers Go Digital. KTRE. (has what equates to a paragraph)
Combating gang violence in America. p. 10. (snippet view)

Another option is to merge to Bloods. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I considered some of those. They are more news reports that something occurred than significant coverage of the set. In other words, almost any gang name could be substituted and you'd never know the difference. Redirecting to the Bloods article would be fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Illusions de la Psychanalyse[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOKS. There's one reference that endorces the book, but multiple are required per the referenced standard. I'm having a hard time finding more, and think the article doesn't meet WP's guidelines for notability. Mikeblas (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that there is a lot of interest in (and controversy over) psychoanalysis in France. I would be surprised if there were not sources to show that the book is notable, even if they are in French and even if they cannot be found straight away through a simple Google search. Is the article to be deleted simply because not enough work was done to find sources? I was able to rapidly find a review here and another here, and probably more exist that might not be so easy to find. Jacques van Rillaer himself certainly seems notable, since there is an article about him on French Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this AfD discussion has been miscategorized by being placed under (Organisation, corporation, or product). The relevant page states that the category is for "all businesses, schools, government agencies, non-profit organizations." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in case it isn't obvious that what I wrote above is a keep vote. The source already cited in the article and the two reviews above should be enough to establish notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only see one reference in the article. WP:NBOOKS demands "two or more". Adding the additional references to the article certainly would help it; you should do that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be able to do that within the next couple of days. In the meanwhile, I do hope no one deletes the article because I didn't move quickly enough. Not everything needs to be done at breakneck speed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources added. What more need I do? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So far as I am concerned you need do no more. The independent coverage is sufficient. Thincat (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nakon 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toradex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases and a blog. Last afd found no suitable coverage and a search found nothing since then. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wasn't notable in 2014, Isn't notable now, Won't be notable in 2016, 2017 or 2050. –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Still not convinced on keeping but meh sources have been added and it's been improved rather alot so meh keep .–Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if it qualifies for G4, but there's still no indication of notability. Plus, it really seems like WP:ADMASQ here. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 04:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is consistent with articles under Category:Multinational_companies_headquartered_in_Switzerland and Category:Embedded systems categories, it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations with more independent reliable sources. If there are problematic areas of the article trim them down but the article should stay. Sunil (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advertiser who wrote the first keep above claims "it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations with more independent reliable sources". In reality it was bombarded with more bad references, making it more promotional. My nomination stands. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:Notability The article in discussion has a pretty good reference/content ratio and there is coverage in independent sources.Jonathan 4:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The article was "nominated for deletion" with this reason "Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases and a blog". Now the article includes citations from independent reliable sources such as EFY Times, CNXSoft News, This Week Bangalore, Gizmag, EE Herald etc. and also the article information has been published on Biggest Embedded Industry leader's websites such as ARM, Freescale, Microsoft etc. As per WP:Identifying_reliable_sources guidelines the citations are enlisted. I still vote to Keep the article on Wikipedia. Sunil (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil is lying about sources. Let's look at "citations from independent reliable sources". EFYTimes, press releases, see quote "Visit us at http://www.toradex.com and get to know more about our products & services. We believe in building long term partnerships where ever we go." [50]. CNXSoft, personal blog, see quote "I aim to share some of my knowledge though this blog and possibly learn from others as well." [51]. This Week Bangalore, press release, see the quote "Press Release" [52]. gizmag, repost of someone else's content, lacks any depth if coverage about the company. EE Herald, press release, see quote "Source: Toradex" [53]. etc? such as APN News, press release, compare it [54] with This Week Bangalore [55]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's look at "Biggest Embedded Industry leader's websites". ARM? who? that goes to a disambiguation page? How about the link? Just a company listing. Freescale, just a listing, nothing independent. Microsoft, blogs.msdn.com, "Partner Spotlight", not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to M. Padmakumar. Closing early as both nom & MQS prefer redirect and no one's !voted or objected so speeding it up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanal Movie[edit]

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

Non notable film that is yet to be released-the only refs were to Facebook. Wgolf (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now as TOO SOON to director M. Padmakumar where it can be spoken of and sourced as a planned project and his first with Mohanlal in five years. As the topic is getting coverage, we can allow a return once filming begins. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-A redirect probably does sound like the best Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhtar Jomehzadeh[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on what presumably meant as a claim that the Azadegan League is fully pro, a claim not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Taylor (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACTORBIO, "known for" role has not aired yet, all non-notable shows (all redlinks). Created by possibly a promotional account given the user name. WP:TOOSOON. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A handful of credits in a really obscure film and TV series --> way TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above after a quick scan. I could change my view if new information emerges.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This actress is currently airing on Netflix on Richie Rich and filming Best Friends Whenever on Disney Channel which will be airing in August. There is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.118.37 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - way way TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes are not policy based and mostly boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. The "delete" !votes correctly point to deficiencies in the sourcing. Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Identifier Network[edit]

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

Possible violation of WP:NOTNEO. Unable to find any sources other than patents that even describe any concept called a "Universal Identifier Network". No sources describing a segregation of network into "Pervasive Service Layer" and "Infrastructure Layer" either. ― Padenton |☎ 07:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is another version of (this article), which was userfied in (this AfD). It's the result of a Chinese research project into the next-generation Internet. The original article had cites for that article. This one needs cites for the other projects. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –This is one case of the Identifier Network. The related reference need to be cited.Cheewii (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –We have added several references and patents to support this article. And we would complete this article as soon as possible. Thanks for your valuable suggestions.Jiangzhongbai (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –These references seem ok. More contents should be added later by others.Cheewii (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NOTNEO and WP:SOAP. To be honest, I consider this article just like a promotion which can promote so-called "Identifier Network" and the refs in this article may even do not exist. Besides, I noticed a article on Chinese Wikipedia in a similar name which has been deleted. Clearly, they wanted to do the same promotions on other projects. (per here) Whaterss (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -All the references can be found using google scholar and IEEE Xplore. We can ensure the reliability of our references. Besides, this article is another version of Identifier Network with a more accurate title and is wrote neutrally. Our purpose is just describe the Universal Identifier Network, not promoting any organization. Thanks for you valuable comments. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion, Universal Identifier Network is a new design for the future Internet architecture, which is a hot research topic now. According to the references, I find some papers and patent can support the Universal Identifier Network. Therefore, it is useful for some researchers and should be kept. Cheewii (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Tigraan (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Universal Identifier Network is not a crystal ball because it is an approach to evolve the Internet infrastructure to a more efficient and energy saving network architecture. It is something like the information-centric networking. The preparation for the implementation of the Universal Identifier Network is already in progess. And it has been tested and applied in several areas and corresponding pantents have been granted. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UIN itself is not crystal ball speculation, but saying it will become famous any moment now (without providing sources) is. Tigraan (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Patents are meaningless, they give them out like candy. Provide a WP:RS source that the structure of the internet is being changed to use your research project and I will withdraw this nomination. ― Padenton|✉ 14:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Padenton. I have got some demonstrations of the applicaiton of Universal Identifier Network. It may be illegal to post these documents in the wikipedai because of WP:PROMO. So, could you please give me an e-mail address so as to transfer the documents to you? Thanks for your valuable advices.114.255.40.50 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD evidence is supposed to be public. Moreover, even a 1,000 pages long laboratory book would not prove anything, since it is a primary source. Padenton's point is (I suppose) that anyone who wants to pay the money for a patent is granted one, provided some very general rules apply for patentability, none of which having anything to do with notability. (Quite oppositely, products are usually not notable until commercial distribution, which comes after the patent.) Tigraan (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also like to draw attention to the fact that Cheewii appears to be one of the other people on this research project judging from their edit history. ― Padenton|✉ 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The application demonstrations have been added in this article, which demonstrate the feasibility of the Universal Identifier Network and the structure of the internet is being changed gradually.Jiangzhongbai (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of interesting ideas, groundbreaking industrial processes, or mind-changing books are not on Wikipedia. You have not demonstrated that the UIN is notable in the Wikipedia sense, which is loosely translated in plain English by "covered by independant press". Tigraan (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable advices. The UIN is a famous program for the next generation network in China. Just as the Named data networking in America and Future Internet Research and Experimentation in European Union, UIN is notable in the research area of future Internet architecture. Therefore, I post this article on Wikipedia for more users to refer to it. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. First you become notable, then you get a WP page, not the other way around. Maybe it is notable, but then WP:PROVEIT. Tigraan (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean some of the citations are not reliable? If it is the case, please point out the citations which are under doubt. Because I thought I had cited the reliable references. Thanks. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the verifiability of the references, neither is anyone else from what I read; I am questioning their worth in establishing notability. See WP:IINFO: the mere fact that something is true, sourceable or useful to some people does not warrant inclusion, and demonstrate how the sources meet the requirements from WP:GNG or another notability guideline. You should really read the whole thing, but "notability" loosely translates to "with unusual coverage by press". Tigraan (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the unpublished reviews added do not demonstrate notability. Only published material does. When it does become impotant, there will be abundant references. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content in my article, wchich demonstrate the academic impact of the Universal Identifier Network. Moreover, the UIN has won the National Award for Science and Technology Invention in 2014. Combined with the engeering application, it may be enough to demonstrate the notability of the UIN. And in my opinion, the purpose of all the engineering disciplines is to be accepted and used by industry. So, the applicaion demonstrations is able to demonstrate the value of the UIN.Jiangzhongbai (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG at a level I'd like to see for a research idea. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At first, thanks for your valuable advices. I have added some content in this article to demonstrate the academic impact of UIN. And in my opinion, the purpose of all the engineering disciplines is to be accepted and used by industry. So, the applicaion demonstrations is able to demonstrate the value of the UIN. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find there are many similar wikipedia artcles （projects） about Future Internet, such as Content centric networking, Named Data Networking. It seems great to connect all these related projects. 218.249.50.171 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Consulate General in Chennai[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. all the coverage in the article is routine LibStar (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Pax 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree: Keep all of them. Howard61313 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please provide reasoning. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG, which has nothing to say about routine coverage. This consulate being in India, I think it is reasonable to infer that there may be offline undigitised sources that cannot be found with Google (NRVE). ORG is not clearly relevant as the word "consulate" is quite capable of referring to a building (see eg Harrap's Essential English Dictionary, 1996, p 199), in this case the room or rooms on the 9th Floor of Express Chambers, Express Avenue, 49, 50L Whites Road, Royapettah. Moreover, a public office held by one person at a time (such as consul general) is not an organisation for the purposes of that guideline, which requires, in all cases, "a group of more than one person". Even if this wasn't notable, I would expect it to be merged into, and redirected to, an article on relations between the two countries, not deleted. James500 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it fails WP:GNG regardless. You haven't actually supplied any sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. perhaps the fact you haven't, actually means you've proved it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) NRVE says that as long as sources exist, or are likely to exist, they need not be cited. (2) The sources are already in the article. James500 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the word "consulate" was referring to the building, the entire article is off the mark. If the article is about both the consulate-building and the consulate-diplomatic activity, it ought to be splitted.

I could see an argument that diplomatic missions should not be covered by WP:ORG, but this one is ludicrous to say the least... Tigraan (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be split. An article about a building should include the history of that building, and that history includes all the human activity that takes place there. And a building is often notable for its history. N does say that we can have an article whose topic is two or more related subjects. James500 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either the building is notable on his own, because of its history and what happened within his walls including, but not limited to, the diplomatic activity for which it is known as "consulate"; or it is considered exclusively in relation to the fact diplomatic activity takes place between its walls. If it is the latter, I cannot see how it can escape ORG on the basis that the article deals (partly) with the building. If it is the former, then the topic is not the Australian Consulate but the 9th Floor of Express Chambers, and needs a huge rewrite.

Moreover, WP:CONSPLIT gives the specific example of coffea (plant) vs. coffee (consumption good) as a legitimate split, and I doubt anyone would ever dispute that building vs activity is a legitimate split if it weren't for the fact there is a single word that covers both meanings. If either of the two is not notable for a stand-alone article, then it should only be treated in the other's article, where guidelines relative to that "other" apply. Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, redirect is useless (long title), and there is nothing to merge.

By the way, from Wikipedia:Notability#Events (aka GNG):

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.

Although it is about events, anything that happens to object X (where X could be a consulate) and would have been covered pretty much the same if it happened to any other similar object Y is an event that does not make X notable (it could make "event about X" notable, at best). Tigraan (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section of N is headed "Events". Whatever a consulate general is, it is not an event. I cannot regard that section as relevant. James500 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again what I wrote just below the quote, where I explain why it has relevance to non-event subjects. Although it is not written as such in the guidelines, I find it pretty clear that's their spirit. If you disagree, please provide an argument. Tigraan (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that your "explanation" above simply makes no sense to me at all. I don't see how that follows from the wording of the guideline. I don't see how that could be the spirit of the guideline. The events that have happened "to" an object don't need to be independently notable for the object to be notable. And I can't see any reason why they should, especially where there are multiple events. James500 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage of events should not bring any notability whatsoever, either to the event itself or to the interested parties, that is my point. If it did, then all consulates, embassies, diplomatic organs and everything else that issues press reports on the behalf of a sovereign state would be notable, since those press reports are sometimes picked by the press. That sounds very unreasonable to me.

Moreover (emphasis mine)

(...)it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example (...) tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. (...) In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.

If the strictly-event view were to be adhered to, then the tabloid restriction would apply to the article Some star nose-picking incident, but not to a Some star article where notability depends on the nose-picking incident. I think this would be an incredibly narrow view of the guidelines and certainly not the one it was intended for.

I agree that if there were multiple events that go only a little over routine coverage, the number can make up for the quality, but routine coverage is routine precisely because it happens regularly. Which brings us back to the original point: where is the GNG material? Tigraan (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The two !votes following the nomination do not provide rationales qualifying their respective stances. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12; copyright violation of [56] and [57] §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Pelczar[edit]

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

An orphaned article whose subject may not meet the notability guidelines and relies upon a single source. This article may also be a possible copyright violation. http://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Helen+Pelczar&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 The Snowager-is awake 04:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly copied from some website I would CSD it myself but can't be arsed to find out where it was nicked from. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep per nominator's withdrawal and no !votes for deletion. The nom granting "It was pretty late and didn't feel like going through the history for some reason" is a different concern toward his not following proper procedures, but his withdrawal is appreciated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sreebala K Menon[edit]

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

~~Director who has little notability it appears, though the thing I find odd is the text at the top saying strong delete. Wgolf (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)~~Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined towards keep. Coverage cited in the article and the award looks sufficient for notability. --Michig (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was unsure at first to do-and I have no clue why it said strong delete on top (I didn't feel like going through every history update either) Wgolf (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Sreebala K Menon

Keep per meeting WP:BIO through multiple sources discussing she and her work directly and in detail. Any issue with perceived peacock terms can be addressed through regular editing. Issues that can be corrected through regular are rarely reasons to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article subject meets WP:GNG by having significant coverage in multiple independent WP:RS. I would hope that in the future the nominator would more completely follow WP:BEFORE. I do not really get the meaning of this sentence nominator. "(I didn't feel like going through every history update either)" What did you mean by that statement, and how does the meaning of said statement coincide with WP:BEFORE? Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-It was pretty late and didn't feel like going through the history for some reason. Anyway withdrawing this! Wgolf (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AntibodyLink.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AntibodyLink.org

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

Changed to CSD per A7, requesting close. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close Tried to fix header. And nom has changed the AfD tag to their desired CSD tag instead. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
posible keep I declined the speedy, as it indicates plausible importance. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the references never mention anything about AntibodyLink.org. they only talk about "The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt)".

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Website appears to have stopped updating in 2010-2011, and doesn't look like it was really ever finished in the first place. Header links include odd non-sequiturs (the Asperger's quiz? umbilical hernias?). About page says "Or methods are deeply rooted in scrupulous research." Indeed. References are not about the article topic. No coverage or uptake in the scientific community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reasons given by OR above seem sound. The references have some relevance in pointing to resources & the method for creating the database, but not to the article topic itself. Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leeza Mangaldas[edit]

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

Was going to put this on a prod but someone did over a month ago and it was removed by the article creator. Anyway unotable actress who falls under way too soon. Only 2 roles (and one was a short film) to date. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't establish notability, but I don't have the linguistic skills to feel confident I haven't missed anything. Pinging Athachil who applied the prod. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I proposed this article for deletion as the subject has acted only in one movie, the movie itself is not a notable one. I couldn't find any sources which backs WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. Athachil (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mamikon Mkrtchyan[edit]

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

I put a blp prod on this but I'm starting to wonder if this guy is even notable at all seen kind of a slanted bias too which it might be a complete COI Wgolf (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources found from a Google/GNews/GBooks search. --Michig (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches, the subject has not received coverage to meet WP:BASIC, and not finding any evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Magazine[edit]

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

Promotional article that does not establish the subject's notability; no coverage in reliable third-party sources. Huon (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as stub. Remove all the unsourced stuff. Appears to exist and might have coverage in the future. (I basically am a WP:Deletionist.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note.Could just be a matter of time before it gets noticed. See https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Mafia+Magazine%22. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Madegray, the creator, has blanked it, and no one else has added any substantial content. Is this a G7? ekips39 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reverted the blanking. IMO this magazine is probably notable given that it's been around for ten years. Let's let the AfD run its course to see if anyone can find RS. Pax 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence of notability, and I have been unable to find any. Ok, "might have coverage in the future" and "Could just be a matter of time before it gets noticed"; if it does become notable, then an article can be created. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, where are the citations/references for this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Is_%28Nitzer_Ebb_EP%29 and I am sure I can find several others in just minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madegray (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Pax 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he's right, that is another strong candidate for deletion. Maproom (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; he's wrong, because that's not the point he was trying to make. The essence of WP:OTHERSTUFF argumentation is that non-notable material be retained because there are other inferior articles on the encyclopedia. While that may be true, the argument is invalid. Pax 08:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nakon 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodphil[edit]

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

While two articles about the event have been found both appear to be primary sources. I have not found in-depth persistent coverage of the multiple events associated with this article from non-primary sources, therefore the subject appears to fail WP:EVENT. Furthermore, this article can be argued to also fall under WP:ADVERT. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Ben Jones. Nakon 00:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Root[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable band. No suitable sources found through a basic check, all the sources in the article are passing mentions, non-independent, or sales sites. A7 tag removed by IP (presumed to be the article creator while logged out, but for the sake of argument...), so I'm bringing it here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Band features Ben Jones, who already qualified for a Wikipedia page 3 years ago. Whilst a relatively new band, the members have established independent notoriety. Cartersengland Cartersengland

WP:NBAND requires that a band contains two or more notable musicians in order to become independently notable. Whilst Ben Jones has a Wikipedia page (and I'm none to sure that article actually meets the inclusion guidelines itself), Andrea MacGee does not, nor do sufficient sources appear to be available to warrant one. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben Jones. Non-notable, fails WP:NBAND. The one independent source in the article, the Belfast Telegraph, mentions neither Jones nor the duo. I'm curious: why are they notorious? The article makes no mention of any wrong-doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Justlettersandnumbers. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AR-Ab[edit]

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

Okay so I put a BLP prod up then I noticed that it kind of does have refs. Not sure if this is a page to have or not or if he can be redirected to Cassidy (rapper) (Almost comes along a news story) Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - maybe being an artist mentioned on Complex [58] makes it important but not (yet) notable. Can't be redirected to Cassidy (rapper), they are way different stories and people. WP:TOOSOON. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Content Platform[edit]

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

A huge advert, a full brochure, with specs and all, of a proprietary database. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following questions:

What specs do you see on the page? I do not see any specs.
As far as I can tell, the page contains general info. Can you please point out the reason(s) why you think the page is "a huge advert"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thergon (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Thergon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Unreferenced spam. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Spam. No cited references, let alone 2nd or 3rd party references. Thergon, who commented above, is the primary author trying to protect his creation. This has been around far too long. Tapered (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are still no references whatsoever--for a large size article. Plus a graphic that's almost certainly copied and pasted from promotional/technical literature for the product. Tapered (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Weyi[edit]

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. There is a real lack of independent coverage of the subject and connected entities--I searched. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Cowboy, I responded to your COI comment and just wanted to reiterate the challenge of sourcing third parties in the developing world. Do you have any tips on this challenge? And I do believe that his western notability will greatly pick up based on what I saw in Africa. But it may not. I removed the part about his policies (which to me did seem a bit promotional) to be maintain neutrality. -Jcruise Jcruiseonya (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a real challenge. But are there any newspaper articles about hi? That's the sort of sources we need. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like something between a campaign advertisement and a hoax. The Congolese Central Party gets almost no hits on Google, other than Facebooks and Twitters. [59] Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate for election to an office that the topic hasn't won yet does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And that's not a "third world double-standard" thing, as it's the exact same standard that we apply even in countries where unelected candidates can almost always technically get sourced over GNG. But that hasn't been shown here; this article is relying almost entirely on primary sources. Delete, without prejudice against recreation next year if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article may be a hoax or some weird advertisement. The Congolese Central Party gets almost no hits on google--does it actually exist? Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Yousif[edit]

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

Contested prod (which the creator removed last week actually) unotable art critic. Wgolf (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I searched his Arabic name and he seems to have quite a few mentions. Seems he is also a poet and children's book author (if it's the same Farouk Yousif/Yousef). I linked it to the Arabic article on him (the one I think is him). So I would challenge the creator to improve the article considerably before deleting. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Oceans Ate Alaska. Nakon 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Isles[edit]

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

Okay so the page does say under construction But I am wondering how notable this is given that its the bands first and only album and it was just released. Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now It appears there are quite a few news articles about the album, so even though it's the band's first one, they have probably released a few singles or had success as a live act to generate this kind of buzz. I would suggest giving it a few days or so and see if it's suitably improved. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oceans Ate Alaska. There are a few articles discussing the album, e.g. Alternative Press, Rock Sound, and Allmusic, but there isn't a lot to be said about the album and the article on the band is short, so merging there makes sense. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique De Beau[edit]

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

This artist does not appear to have gained traction; one "studio" album and two EPs (all digital downloads) without any chart recognition. Insufficient reliable sources ("Obscure Sources" is a blog, and the Top40-charts ref is announcement PR). IOW, failing WP:MUSICBIO. Pax 21:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cada mori (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO is upcoming but not notable at this point and lacks WP:RS sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bahou[edit]

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

A autobiography of one who is likely not notable. Yeah he won something-but from what I can tell its a website award. Too soon if ever (though I will admit he does sound interesting) Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely obscure and recent, but just squeaks by in notability. He has coverage of his work in English, Dutch, Russian, etc... and not just sharing his cute photos, but things about him. The Russian one was an interview with him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do have to admit I am interested to know more about this guy so if anyone can give references to show he does reach notability go ahead! Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lü Zhenzhong's version of the Bible[edit]

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

I'm sorry, but I just can't convince myself this meets WP:NBOOK. I don't think WP has a notability guide for bibles, so that's all I have. It's not easy to find any references; I'm almost convinced the book doesn't exist. Can anyone do better? Otherwise, I think we must delete this article. Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — unless there was some kind of massively horrendous translation going on, and the Lü Zhenzhong Bible converted throngs of people to worshipping Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, this is a speedy delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Most Bible translations are notable. Since Chinese is the language of such a large proportion of the world's population, I would have thought this applied particularly to a Chinese translation. My one concern is that a translation publihsed in 1970 is probably inot the traditional Chinese script, rather than the simplified one used in PRC; accordingly, its importance is likely mainly to be in Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (warning may be going off topic:)) bible translations are not inherently notable, they still need to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NBOOK, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Bible, similarly a book in chinese doesn't make it notable, there are heaps of english books that aren't notable, even though there are lots of english speakers. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) keep or Merge with translator article Lü Zhenzhong which definitely needs expansion, a quick google search yields an academic abstract [60] mention of translator in a book [61] probably more can be found Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sufficient number of reliable sources can be found on Google Scholar. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a pretty sloppy search, I am One of Many. Note that Google search will find articles which have one, two, or three of the different keywords you entered and try to sort them for relevance. You don't offer any specific articles as representative of your claim, so I don't know which ones you think provide the significant coverage that Wikipedia demands of references used to establish notability. When I search more carefully, I find only three references. A slightly looser search generates more results, but of those I sampled, none seem substantial enough to warrant inclusion in WP. They're mention of Zhenzhong himself, or uses of his text as a comparison. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than this too narrow search, three references, we have several academic sources, which are quite sufficient to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. All three results are either pay-for, non-English, or both. Have you verified that they're non-trivial references? If so, I think you're obliged to sort out the referneces and add them to the article. Otherwise, your position seems to be nothing more than WP:LOTSOFGHITS. --- Mikeblas (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharyn Scott[edit]

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

Singer whose notability is in question-no reliable sources to be found at all. Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found, or any real coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as about as notable as my left foot!. Fails NMUSIC + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Ultra[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was While superficially this is a referenced article it seems to be referenced to the subject website itself and to various non-notable web blogs and forums. It does not demonstrate notability of the subject, which is just a fansite. The only RS reference (Metro) barely mentions the subject. It just quotes one of its tweets as an example of, well, something or other. So that is just a passing mention and does not confer notability. Subject fails WP:WEB. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything stating that the website is notable. Appears to be just a fansite.--5 albert square (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website in question produces original and notable content, including but not limited to exclusive news stories and show cast member interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISawYouSeeMe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — ISawYouSeeMe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the PROD nominator and I see nothing to change my original assessment. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a crappy fansite that no one gives a flying toss about. –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a barnstar for diplomacy? ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha well it's such a peaceful and non-controversial comment, Meh if anything it's the truth

. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Davey2010. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The site has been referenced better, proving it's notability and reliance by those interested in the subject matter. ISawYouSeeMe (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the point of the referencing. Your edits and references do not address the notability of the subject here, which is Eastenders Ultra, not Eastenders itself. Eastenders is notable and already has articles on its main valid topics. Ultra does not seem to be notable as it lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. Passing mentions and a few random links don't count as significant coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: The author has been adding lots of links to EEU to various articles as references. As EEU does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, should we just remove all of these or is more care required? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: I just reverted one since it's probably a COI edit, which is not allowed per the ToU to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organ transplantation in fiction[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list; the prose ends up being original research and synthesis. Entirely unreferenced. Mikeblas (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Yes, it's unsourced, but there is plenty of scope for improvement. There are plenty of other examples that could be included, e.g. Spock's Brain, Percy, Crank: High Voltage - it's a fairly common theme and there are undoubtedly sources out there. Indiscriminate? Original research? Synthesis? I don't see any of those. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)If[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. See Transplant Medicine and Narrative, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think categories that don't have main articles tend to just be stub generators, so I support keeping the article but of course we should work on improving it and getting it referenced. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pleasantly surprised to find prose, not the too-common bullet list of "every video game/comic book/cartoon/movie instance that ever mentioned an organ transplant" listcruft. The Transplant Medicine and Narrative source above is the type that of secondary sources that these types of articles must be built-upon to structure and hold back the tidal wave of primary-source trivia like Spock's Brain. In short, primary sources (works of fiction) should be only be mentioned if one or more secondary sources discuss the significance of it, otherwise we'll get a list of "oh neat, so what?" If multiple similar sources to Transplant Medicine and Narrative can be found then I hope The Anome and other editors voting to keep are willing to aid in sourcing and (re)structuring, to better keep any original synthesis or essay-ish tones at bay. To wit, unsourced terms like "generally", and "(in a less overtly horrific manner)" imply the editor is imparting his/her own assessment, which even if eventually found true, constitutes original composition. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. Something of a mashup of different ideas, too. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve -- I wouldn't have created this article if I did not think the topic, and its content, met the notability criteria: it clearly needs citations to demonstrate this, but I think these can be found relatively easily. Just for starters, Donna McCormack at the University of Leeds has published on this topic, for example in her 2002 paper "Intimate Borders: The Ethics of Human Organ Transplantation in Contemporary Film", and Linda Badley's Film, Horror and the Body Fantastic (Greenwood Press, 1995) also has a chapter on the theme. Yesheen Yang's dissertation Organ Ensembles: Medicalization, Modernity, and Horror in the 19th and 20th Century Narratives of the Body and its Parts, while not of itself a RS or available onlne, may also be a source for good RS cites. And thanks to Andrew for finding Transplant Medicine and Narrative, see above, and its reference to the 1927 story "New Stomachs for Old" of which I was previously unaware. I'm sure many more reliable sources, and further information to expand the article, can be found with more digging. I also think that the body horror article could use similar improvement, and there's probably a place for a standalone medical horror article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this might also be useful -- "Dr Frankenstein and the Industrial Body: Reflections on 'Spare Part' Surgery." Cecil Helman, Anthropology Today Vol. 4, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 14-16. -- The Anome (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]