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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digidestined[edit]

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

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

I don't think Wikipedia accepts fancruft. There is no real world information to satisfy WP:GNG. Just plot summary. Fangusu (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete unless this can be moved elsewhere as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Im fine with character lists, but this one is a mess of WP:OR it also overlaps with other character lists. Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is an explanation really needed? Its like something you'd find on a fan-based Wikia. Which is why those exist in the first place. —Kirt^Message 06:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madwood Studios[edit]

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

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

Company fails WP:ORG. No inherited notability from producing television shows. Conifer (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I would have speedied this as non-notable spam, but I didn't want to tread on your toes again ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks :) I prefer to send an article to AfD if it's a borderline case. No real harm in letting it sit for a week. Conifer (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of superfoods[edit]

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

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

topic is subject to commercial spam and low or absent WP:RS; topic is a past fad with content lacking WP:V Zefr (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Given that "superfoods" is just a marketing term that's pretty well meaningless, I'm not sure how it could ever be encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - marketing term with no real definition; this is destined to be an indiscriminate list. Neutrality^talk 22:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have an article at superfood that covers the topic well. A list of "super foods" encompassing just about anything that someone has called a superfood, as noted above, will indeed be indiscriminate. Deli nk (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We should not have lists of products which have been marketed at one time or another using meaningless hype mumbo-jumbo language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no 'superfoods'. The topic is not merely non-notable, it describes something that doesn't exist. And a 'List of products that have been described as superfoods' is about as encyclopaedic as a 'list of people that have been described as ugly'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and cant be written to meet them because per User:AndyTheGrump wrote above. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sonamoo. T. Canens (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumin (singer)[edit]

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

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

NONE of the members of Sonamoo have any notable, individual, solo activities outside of the group. As their activities primarily are within the group, it's best to either delete all the articles or redirect the page names back to Sonamoo. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, like I said, these are members of Sonamoo who are NOT notable outside of the group, and such, I'm bundling the nominations together:

D.ana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

High.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

In other words, it is too soon for them to have their own articles at this time. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-(weird it won't let me bold the text and I don't feel like looking it up) Anyways delete all. None of the pages showed any form of establishing independent notability and a quick search for them backs that up. They haven't done anything individually that would make a solo page necessary for any of the members. Peachywink (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment- I do want to add that I said delete and not redirect for a reason. These pages have that odd wording of being built by someone that doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose. Example line from Sumin's biography section "Sumin has a faint resemblance to Hara of KARA when she smiles" -there was of course no source given and all the pages have similar things like this on them. So I feel that if redirected there would be a good chance the pages would just come right back up. Peachywink (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink: I'll bold your comment in this reply. The way to bold text is to use the single quotation marks three times, before AND after the word. But thanks for your input! Tibbydibby (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all these individuals to Sonamoo as they are plausible search terms and redirects are cheap. I am aware of no evidence that existence of a redirect encourages re-creation of a stand alone article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect all. None of them are independently notable. Random86 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all/don't delete As was done with Apink's non-notable members, I feel that it would be more productive to redirect over delete for two reasons:

1.) People interested in Sonamoo's members will go to the main page where they can learn more there instead of being lead down a dead end. 2.) Redirecting these pages will make it easier to recreate them in the possible future occurrence if any of these singers achieve individual notability in the future. Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as unreferenced BLPs. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Stuff Absorbent[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about a non-notable product. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found nothing good and convincing to suggest keeping and chances of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable product. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was trainwreck. Between the !vote changes and !changes caused by the mid-discussion rewrite, and the rambling discussion afterwards, I see no way to reliably determine whether there's a consensus to do, well, anything. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music community[edit]

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

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

See talk page discussion (".music applicant caught using bogus Wikipedia page") and this article . Article has "POV" tag and multiple editors doubt the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever its other problems, this is what novel synthesis actually looks like. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Struck following WP:HEY attempt; see below. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it does seem a bit essay-like for wikipedia as it is, but seems to have some relevance to the sociology of music. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an article examining music socially, but it's not easy to define. There is community organization in music, and how musicians interact and relate to each other is notable. I'm sure you could find further scholarly studies examining how the music business functions in that way. The problem with this though is that I think there's a lack of sources which refer to "music community" as an actual term. Rather than delete I would suggest moving it to a more suitable title which would open more scope for use of reliable sources and reword what is written to become more encyclopedic and coherent. Perhaps Sociomusicology would be the best place to centre such an article or perhaps Commercialism of music and this should be redirected to that and that article considerably improved? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See article talk page - the topic as defined is not notable per se. And none of it would seem salvageable AFAICT at this point. Collect (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, see also my comments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Music community: WP:OR while entirely based on primary sources (thesises and the like), and putting the content of these primary sources together in an "original" fashion. The only two secondary sources in the article don't use the expression "music community", not even once. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do you not think Commercialism of music would be a very valid encyclopedic subject and this would be best written in a broader article there without it seeming OR? Sociomusicology is a very poorly documented subject on here and does need development. In fact I'd argue there should be a subtopic focus on it at Template:Sociomusicology with a series of articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Commercialism of music is a valid encyclopedia topic is of no relevance to this AfD discussion (it certainly isn't a synonym of "Music community"). While for neither Wikipedia:Notability (music) yields criteria for admission, WP:GNG seems the way to go: establish sufficient secondary reliable sources devoted to the topic, and start from there. For the current music community article that was a failure. Since the available sources used in the music community article (primary & secondary) rather seem to indicate that "music community" can be used in the context of (music) fan community and/or (subgroups related to) what is defined as the music scene, there's apparently no fix link between uses of the expression "music community" and "commercial" endeavours (as our questionable article on "music community" seems to contend), which apparently can only be established based on what (in Wikipedia context) is WP:OR. Unless you can show secondary sources... but apparently no, otherwise you'd have used them in the article that is up for deletion now.

Re. improving and/or expanding Sociomusicology: of course (but not based on WP:OR). Re. Template:Sociomusicology: way too early to start about that, I can't see that happening before the Sociomusicology article has developed in something more substantial, e.g. in WP:Summary style, with appropriate spin-offs. And again, please stay away from WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "commercialism of" music doesn't logically parse. We already have that article anyway, at Music industry, though in theory an article could be written about the commercialization/-isation of music as a WP:SUMMARY split-off from it. Which still has little to do with some nebulous concept of a "music community".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The present article could use improvement, but what counts is potential. A quick search in Google Books shows many sources, preview available, that discuss the concept directly and in detail. Three variants are described:
  • Educational: A group of students, teachers and parents involved in music, typically teacher led, e.g. [1], [2]
  • Sociological: A group of musicians and their followers in a community, usually informal, e.g. [3], [4], [5] I assume that Sociomusicology is the study of such groups.
  • Commercial: An online space where musicians and fans communicate, e.g. [6], [7]

Fragments from a JSTOR search include: "This annual infusion of prospective music makers into our schools and our society ensures increasing potential for the music community", "cultivation of a sustainable music community in his southern Maine locality", "sexist attitudes from the eastern music community", "Home on the page: a virtual place of music community", "server mediated peer-to-peer file sharing system like the Napster Music Community...", "Definitions of a music community differ, but one of the most all-encompassing has been suggested by Micheal O Suilleabhain: a music community is a group of interested participants who agree on the form and content of the music and its social contexts.28"

The concepts are somewhat abstract, but it is a valid topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an argument for a definition in Wiktionary - but can you find a cohesive definition or ambit for an article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See the sources noted above, which are just a small sample. A great deal has been written about music communities, enough to support an extensive article. A search before creating this AfD would have showed that. Possibly there could also be an entry in Wiktionary – I suppose that is true of many topics. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, the problem with your analysis is that it comprises hundreds if not thousands of different "music communities", which (A) would be impossible to cover in one article and (B) already have their own dedicated articles or article sections (usually devoid of the redundant word "community"). This article, which purports to be about "Music community" per se, is unnecessary even as a Wiktionary term, because it goes without saying that any "X community" is a/the community of people interested in or involved in "X". This is a pointless exercise in a random accumulation of opinions and facts. If you want to create or expand an article on the Sociology of Music, or Music Education, or some such, feel free, but that is not what this article is or could conceivably be within Wikipedia's parameters. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the sources demonstrated by Aymatth. At worst case scenario a merge into Commercialism of music and revamp there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the sources Aymatth found show that the term is consistently used to mean a particular music community in a particular context, and that there is no single music community; further, they show that the very conceptualization of what is meant by a music community differs from usage to use, so even "music communities" isn't a plausible WP topic. There's no clear definition. We wouldn't even be able to create a sensible "List of music communities" for lack of clear inclusion criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment on version at the time of nomination: The article starts off coy about whether it's talking about "music community" as a common noun, or the music community, but by paragraph 3 we arrive at the definite article and read "The music community shares a cohesive and interconnected structure of artistic expression" -- uh? western classical tradition, western popular, Indian music, Chinese music, various tribal music traditions, ..., cohesive? Well sorry, but bollocks. Better write about garage bands, which at least can usually be shown to exist. (I'm not seriously suggesting doing that.) This is self-evident WP:SYN. The special pleading to the effect of ooh but surely with a change of title it could form the basis of something are just a smoke screen for the fact that this text could hardly form the basis for anything. --Stfg (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC) (Refactored --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete My first impression on reading this "article" was that of an undergraduate essay. I agree with Stfg as to why it should be deleted. Syek88 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Not even an WP:ESSAY, just a compilation of randomness. Not one single viewable reference even mentions the term. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC); edited 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The "delete" arguments above are all based on the status of the article at present. It is essay-like, but that is irrelevant: articles can be improved. The correct question is whether the subject is notable. A quick search shows plenty of sources that discuss in depth the different types of music community. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see multiple issues in that approach:
    1. "status of the article at present", if that status is "nothing salvageable" (as contended in the discussion above, and to which I agree), the preferable approach is to delete the article and start from scratch, so as to have no edit history with "contributors" who didn't contribute anything to a viable version of the article – also in this particular case, with the article being used to back up a commercial claim on content that has been called "bogus" in external sources: if not deleted, the edit history would still make possible to visualise the entirely rejected content via the Wikipedia website, which I'd deplore: this is not the standard of quality we're aiming at;
    2. "whether the subject is notable", seems like many trivial mentionings in all sources I've seen thus far (those currently in the article & the additional ones mentioned above), like it wouldn't be too difficult to find a lot of sources on many "qualifier + substantive" combinations, take e.g. brown horse, but nothing convincing this would definitely pass WP:GNG.
    3. "plenty of sources that discuss in depth the different types of music community" – if there are sufficient WP:GNG-compliant sources it wouldn't be too difficult to have an article on that. Whoever has the time can write it then (what are you waiting for?). In the mean while however, we shouldn't have an article with not a single salvageable sentence, and that over-all is rather a disgrace & liability than an asset for the encyclopedia: rather nothing on the topic than this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is notable and may be large enough that there could be several sub-articles. A school-based music community is a subject of interest to educationalists. The first source cited above is all about fostering such a community. Several other sources discuss these educational music communities in detail. The fourth source is a rather heavy sociological discussion of music communities within broader societies. Again, there are various discussions that cover this aspect of Sociomusicology. The online variety is a distinct type of music community. This site, the first search result I get for the term, indicates that "music community" is a specialized class of web site, with its own supporting software products. Again, there are plenty of sources.

When a topic is clearly notable but the article is poor, it is not usually deleted but may be reduced to a stub. We are not concerned about page history unless it includes attacks or copyright violations. A stub is more likely to expanded than a deleted article to be recreated. A stub may contain no more than a basic definition: A music community has been broadly defined as "a group of interested participants who agree on the form and content of the music and its social contexts", citing This source, p 122. It could then be expanded by interested editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not about the article being "poor", it is about the nothing being salvageable from the whole article. If you have viable content for a stub on the topic (...more than a dictionary definition of course), fine, propose it, what's keeping you? That being said, better to delete the edit history regarding the "non-salvageable" content, nobody needs to be reminded of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a hodge-podge of unrelated source material that's been WP:ORed into a semi-plausible topic that is basically an exercise in really vague fandom. It's like having an article on "the writing community" or "the car-driving community". There is no community, even in the loosest sense. There are various music scenes, and genres with subcultures enmeshed with them, and a music industry, but this does not magically coalesce into a monolithic "music community". Virtually none of the (all-primary) sources that use this term do so in sense anywhere near this loose, but all say or clearly mean something more specific, e.g. the Eastern US music scene, or the scene related to a particular genre, or the music industry, or sociomusicology, or music education, or whatever. Lumping them all together is an exercise in the combined fallacies of equivocation and false equivalence. Another way of looking at it is that this is a multi-pronged WP:COATRACK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Searching "music community" in Google turns up the phrase with many different qualifying adjectives - "country music community", "new music community", "Instagram music community", etc. Claiming that there is one "music community" seems to be original research. John Nagle (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Massive WP:OR. Specific and well-defined communities of musicians, when notable, should be covered in Wikipedia, but this is not appropriate. It's too broad and vague. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reset In response to the above discussion, which is almost entirely about the text, I have rewritten the article from scratch. Perhaps we can quit commenting about the text, which I am sure will be improved as more knowledgeable editors contribute, and focus this discussion on the question of notability. The notability of the subject should be the primary concern in any deletion debate. I obviously consider that this is a broad and deep subject, with the present effort just scratching the surface. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The "reset" basically says that a music community is a community of people who are interested in music. Tautology aside, what would be needed is some cite or group of cites using the term with reference to specific music communities,, and doing so in a reasonably consistent manner. This hurdle has not yet been overcome. Would the author also support "baseball community", "cheesecake community" etc. as there are definitely groups of people with "shared interest" in a near infinity of topics? We do have Barbershop music with information about the groups involved in that specific sphere of music, etc. - but I remain unsure that making an article about all of music is of unquestioned separate notability. Collect (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers of the previous version of the article said there were many specific music communities, but nothing had been written about the concept of music communities in general. The rewrite gives just a few examples of specific communities and focuses almost entirely on what scholarly sources have written about music communities in general, a more abstract concept but more appropriate to the title. Perhaps another article could list specific ones. It could turn into a huge list. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count a total of two believers in the topic being notable for Wikipedia purposes. I fear that is not enough for a closer to treat this as a "keep" at this point in time. Perhaps you might wait for a few months and try an entirely different approach to an article about a cohesive definition of this area? Collect (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This topic is not going to pass muster no matter how it is worded. Any way one words it, it is just going to be a simplistic non-notable tautology and a random accumulation of randomly selected opinions and/or non-noteworthy "observations", and thus a random WP:OR WP:ESSAY. See my reasoning already posted three days ago. Not an encyclopedic topic, any way one cuts it. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Resetting" an AfD is not usually an option. (It's not even clear that the new version is an improvement. It promotes "Old Boy Records", inflating their importance. I will stand by my "Delete" vote.) John Nagle (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I continue to stand by my "Delete" vote too. We don't need to hang on to the edit history for the former failed version for one, secondly I agree with my colleagues that Aymatth2's new version is still unconvincing, too much of a "brown horse" kind of article (or any of the other comparisons made above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment reaffirming my earlier delete !vote: I'm with the above comments on this. The new version is as much a potential coatrack as it was before. The concept hasn't been demonstrated notable. Because of the "how now brown cow" elocution exeercise, it would be easy to find many sources using the phrase "brown cow". That wouldn't justify the idea of an article about brown cows. (The present brown cow is a disambiguation page.) Likewise, here we're dealing with nothing more than an ordinary prefixing of a noun with a qualifier, not with a standard term. The present version hasn't been demonstrated "music community" to be a distinguished concept any more than the previous version did. And I strongly object to the attempt to kick previous comments into touch by unilaterally declaring a "reset". We aren't allowed to !vote twice, so what do we say down here? This is pulling the rug out from under our feet. My delete stands. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a " distinguished concept". The argument against this (aside from moral panic that it might be a "bogus" article), seems to be that because it's a broad term or subject to different interpretations it can't possibly be notable. Aymatth has demonstrated significant discussion of it in credible sources. It is not our job to try to invent terms with OR. The article doesn't do that as it is currently, it reports what has loosely been written about it in reliable sources, and might I say, does so in a fashion much better than many general articles on music we have. It's like saying we can't have a general article on musical instrument because they can differ wildly around the world and what a musical instrument is may mean something different depending on the person. The online music community discussion in particular demonstrates why it's notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The comments on the earlier version were all addressed at the quality of the writing, and said nothing about notability. The complete rewrite tries to solve the "essay-like" concern. The sources cited by the new version discuss the subject of music communities directly and in depth, clearly demonstrating notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You keep on saying that, and it's false. Comments about WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:COATRACK and about the article (in its original version) failing to be clear about what the subject of the article is, are all about notability, NOT about quality of writing. --Stfg (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if an article does not demonstrate notability, what counts is whether the subject itself is notable, which can be determined by a search for sources. That apparently was not done before the previous version of the article was nominated, and was not done by any of the reviewers. I saw no discussion on whether there were sources that discussed the subject in depth, only discussion about the text of the prior version. The new version cites various sources that do indeed discuss the subject in depth, which would have showed up on the most cursory check for notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I look at the issue in the following way, similar to the "brown cow" example given above. If I were to write an article about a Mozart symphony, I would draw the material in the article from publications, written by musicologists, that are about the symphony. The Wikipedia article then gives the reader the complete picture of the symphony. That is not what has been done here. The writer of the amended article has drawn from an eclectic pot pourri of obscure literature, the only common feature of which seems to be that each mentions, somewhere, the concept of a "music community". The result is that the article is no less of an undergraduate essay than the first version. It is a collection of disparate information about music communities, the emphasis on different aspects of which depends entirely on what the individual Wikipedia author was able to find, and where. It is not an holistic examination of a well-developed concept that the article on the Mozart symphony would be. I am therefore also minded to continue to say "delete". Syek88 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The concept of music communities is well-developed in ethnomusicology. A large part of this discipline consists of studies of groups of people who frequently exchange and communicate musical material." -sourced to a reliable author. How is that not notable?? " an eclectic pot pourri of obscure literature," -welcome to wikipedia, most articles to really be comprehensive are an eclectic range of sources. You're basically arguing that we can't have an article on a broad topic subject to different interpretations because not everybody agrees on the exact meaning of it. It is our job as a encyclopedia to collect what has been written about topics, and this has been demonstrated to be a well-developed concept in ethnomusicology anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the sources are ethnographers or ethnomusicologists. The subject is a common one in these disciplines, if somewhat controversial, particularly with the cyber ethnographists. The article presents an outline, including conflicting opinions. Sadly, much of the literature the academics produce would be considered "obscure" by the general public. But Wikipedia has room for articles on any topic that has been discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources, as is the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference to me if the article is deleted or not, but the material used here is encyclopedic in some way, shape or form. I suppose people think Aymatth was paid $5000 to write an article about musical community too LOL. Of course this is less encyclopedic than the content written by the nominator "The paper's Wm. Steven Humphrey wrote, "These nudie cuties were born to entertain, and prove it by leaping from stage to tabletop, hanging naked upside down (by the tops of their FEET!!), and if you're extremely lucky, gingerly lifting a dollar bill off your forehead with their ass cheeks. Now that's talent!" (which is a GA article!!) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that is relevant to the current question just how? It's other stuff, and you're merely trying to poison the well. You didn't bother to link it, but it must be this. Take it to AFD if you want. Good luck with that. --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very relevant, because it demonstrates the double standards which exist on here. The Three Sisters Tavern is notable but never in any way, shape or form is that quote encyclopedic or of encyclopedic value here. If anything the gender gap lot and Jimbo would accuse the writer of misogyny and offense to transsexuals by treating men as women and calling them "nudie cuties" and making them seem like sexual objects. It just amuses me that somebody could think that really encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion but not scholarly commentary on musical community.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on the citation at the start of this AfD page, I believe this article was created by and solely for the benefit of commercial entities which is not an accurate depiction of "music communities. I'm not against having an article about "music communities" but I think it's doomed to fail unless it narrowed down to very specific communities.- kosboot (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I'm a commercial entity then? Do you have any idea how many hours of my free time I've devoted to this project without pay in ten years Kosboot?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or ... something. I do appreciate the effort to WP:HEY this, and for what it's worth, I think the current version is closer on the path to being an article that satisfies inclusion guidelines. But I think the WP:SYN problem is still significant. Although there are points in the article where the contrasts between definitions are highlighted, on the whole, this article treats the title term as though there was some commonality in uses of the term. To make the point more clear, this article dances around the topic of who constitutes the membership of a music community. Does it include the fans? Not according to the NCME source. Does it include the original artists? Not according to Froehlich. Likewise, the article doesn't (and can't) really address what a music community does. For Waldron, it's a community of practice, something akin to a collaborative trade guild (J. Burns uses the term in a roughly analogous sense despite a vastly different culture). Froehlich imagines it as purely pedagogical. Denzin's subculture/scene/community structure is all about the fans themselves, but McCarthy considers that insufficient. I know that Nettl calls the idea "well-defined" in ethnomusicology. And he's an expert in that field, so I'm in no place to argue with him. And maybe that's the way forward for this article: discussing the term's application in different fields and contexts, while being staunchly careful not to syncretize unlike meanings. I don't know. But I'm not comfortable supporting what's here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Nicholsen and Wolf are both doctoral dissertations and should be cited as such; I'll leave to future debates whether such material should be deemed a reliable source. On the other hands, I can happily note that Rikandi is a reliable source, and is not self-published, despite the incorrect citation entry provided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the first sensible input from anybody here aside from Aymatth since this has been started! If we don't like the term "Musical community" this content clearly has some value somewhere on here. But basically this is like saying "McDonalds is adamant that the Big Mac exists because wikipedia has an article on it" and then deleting the Big Mac article, ignoring the content written about it because a company happened to cite it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite attracted to Squeamish Ossifrage's suggestion, but I think this article should be deleted. Not salted, just deleted, and this for reasons given by many editors above. I would have no objection to Aymatth2 copy-pasting their version into their user space, with the intention of recreating it after deletion of the current version. Even with the same title, which doesn't seem to me to be the main bone of contention. But I think the retention of the earlier version visible to anyone who knows to look at the article history would be an invitation to drama that we don't need. --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit slow sometimes... So this whole debate is nothing to do with whether the topic is notable, as it clearly is, but is all about whether the previous version was discussed in some conspiracy theory blog. That is why nobody is addressing the reliable independent sources question, and that is why there is such concern about deleting prior versions of the article. To the comments by User:Squeamish Ossifrage, yes, there are different views about scope, purpose etc, of the various types of music community, and the article tries to draw that out. Of course it could use improvement. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that articles steadily improve as knowledgeable editors contribute. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, lack of notability is NOT the only criterion for deletion. See WP:DEL-REASON, which is part of the deletion policy. Arguments presented here for deletion are well within that policy. It would be better to respect them than to try to pronounce them out of court. --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy that. The topic is discussed in depth by reliable independent sources. The article reports what those sources say without any original research. There is no copyright violation, vandalism or spam. None of the reasons for deletion apply. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novel synthesis is considered a form of original research and is (and has been) my primary objection to this article's content. When substantial, it is most assuredly a valid grounds for deletion. As an example: The second paragraph in the general section is dedicated to the idea that "music community" is a well-defined concept in ethnomusicology. Nettl introduces that assertion, and that's fine (he's an expert, he gets to). The material that follows is presented as though it supports that claim; it does not. Brinner is also an ethnomusicology source, but his writing about the way that music elements change probably requires explicit attribution in the text because it doesn't appear to be a universally held stance (it certainly isn't directly addressed by Nettl). Meanwhile, between the two, Colwell and Richardson is not about ethnomusicology at all; this source is a discussion of the pedagogical formulation of a "music community". But that's not what readers would assume. That goes to the essence of novel synthesis; combining different uses of the term to create a syncretized whole unsupported by the individual sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Squeamish Ossifrage: I would never have spotted any problem there. Please feel free to rearrange the sentences if their present sequence gives a misleading impression. Deletion seems a very drastic approach if the problems are all so subtle and easily fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied at your talk to avoid teal deer-ing this page more than it already is. Short version: fixing novel synthesis isn't that easy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you for your thoughtful comments at User talk:Aymatth2#Synthesis and the music community article. I think each statement accurately reflects what the cited source says. Obviously, they do not all agree. Our audience is the general reader, so I arranged the material in the way that seemed natural: General concepts – different types of community – internet stuff. I am not sure it would be better organized around the ways that different academic disciplines treat the subject, although perhaps the article could do a better job of clarifying the different viewpoints. This is the sort of discussion that belongs on the article talk page though, as we work it up to GA status... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blow it up and start over: I've refactored my delete vote on the previous version to be just a comment. The version by Aymatth2 is an improvement, not successfully avoiding synthesis yet, but a step forward. If Aymatth2 were to develop a version along the lines suggested by Squeamish Ossifrage in the talk page post mentioned in his comment just above here, it could become an excellent article. The current article and especially it's history need to go, imho, but Squeamish's suggestion is a good way forward. --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first reasonable thing you've said all day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is consensus that the article would be o.k. with the content rearranged under the titles "Introduction", "Ethnomusicology", "Pedagogy", "Sociomusicology" and "Cyber ethnography", maybe a bit more stuff added, I can do that tomorrow. I do not particularly like it, because most readers would not know what those big words mean, but if that is what it takes to resolve this dispute, no problem. The separate idea that removing page history would somehow defuse the ridicule of the article at the Domain Incite blog, seems plain silly to me. You can't change history. It is highlighted on Wikipedia Signpost. I have asked user:DGG if he would care to comment on that. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: I didn't mean to insist that the article should be just like that. I only meant that if you and Squeamish Ossifrage can agree on some way to address his concerns about novel synthesis, then my misgivings will evaporate. --Stfg (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not consider it synthesis; it is properly sourced by an expert editor whom I do not propose to second-guess in such matters, and whose good faith I would not conceivably challenge. That an outside organization may have made use of it for its own purposes is one of the inevitable consequence of our CC license. We cannot prevent such use, and we should hold fast to our role in creating an encycopedia, not in trying to construct an encyclopedia that is no neutered as to be incapable of misuse. Personally, I think online music community is also an acceptable topic, and need not be integrated here. If it's going to be rewritten, I urge Dr.B to take the lead in rewriting it.

As for the issue Aymath raises, we could do this if the earlier material was really considered improper--we often do it for e situations like copyvio. But I think it absurd here--there is nothing wrong with the article as it stands. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff: Online music community

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Online music community – Don't appreciate (especially as this is the talk page content). Has the same problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] It's called attribution as a starting point. It's a notable enough topic in its own right too. Sociomusicology is poorly covered on here, and there is a lot of scholarly material which can be gleaned from the subject.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Delete as content fork. Trout as Gaming the system --Stfg (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] You really need to Assume good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] No, I don't. --Stfg (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Considered to post a ((Db-a10)) on top, but then it can still be a redirect to the Music community page for the time being. Removed the unnecessary "origin" history from its talk page, by making that a redirect (to the other page's talk page) Note that if the redirect is undone ((Db-web)) would probably work for the spin-off. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Wrong, Db-a10 doesn't apply because I have begun adding content to it which isn't in the Music community article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indented the above discussion, which I think is closed now Online music community redirects to this article. Further comments on this article can be added below. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a separate topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is. Fine to keep it as a section, but I think Aymatth2 is right that it doesn't need further discussion as long as it's a redirect. I've hatted the gory details. --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we will need a separate discussion, because if the article is kept I intend to revert the redirect. If the article is not kept, that part should be re-started. The suggestion above about Dr.B's lack of good faith is one of the more absurd things I've heard here recently . DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, this version of the article has serious problems: it is an amalgam of case study reports and examples, with some extrapolations not borne out by the sources, without any attempt to present a general approach to what should be the article's subject, and with similar WP:OR issues as its predecessor – on the whole far from what acceptably can be a stub on the topic. So, I oppose resurrecting it, and suggest a similar incubation (and search for more general sources) as has been proposed for the general article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Both articles will always suffer the same problems -- both will inevitably be nothing more than randomly cherry-picked WP:OR WP:SYNTH, and will resemble nothing more than random uncurated essays, no matter what one tries to do with them. Let these things be homework assignments, but please keep them off the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was inclined to take the same approach after three failed attempts, but think the recommendations posted by Squeamish Ossifrage on Aymatth2's talk page provide a viable path forward. After all, we've had topics with similar difficulties, I'm thinking for instance about the epic struggles to get something reasonable on the topic of classical music, for *exactly* the same reasons (vague concept, difficult to find sources that give a general description of the topic). It's not because it is a topic for which it is more difficult to give a clean description supported by sources, than say for a random asteroid, that Wikipedia should avoid to have an article on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Obviously (Western) classical music is a discrete topic, and one that must, like any major (and most-important) genre of music, be covered by an encyclopedia. Where as these tautological and non-notable subjects subject only to random WP:OR are an anathema to an encyclopedia, in my view. These sorts of articles are exactly the reason that homework assignments are so awful on Wikipedia, and in this case, they weren't even homework assignments. Anyway, these conversations are getting a bit distracting and repetitive, so I've said my peace. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it past WP:GNG is an added concern, true. Would avoid prejudice in either direction about that though, while, true, none of the proposed versions have proven to pass it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rather try to get a grip on the issues that have been raised than replying with "snotty" remarks, eh? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would help if my work wasn't referred to as a "homework assignment". The classical music project in general does display a snotty attitude on wikipedia, a reason why myself or Ser Amantio di Nicalao etc don't want to be a part in it despite an interest.. You put off people by your superciliousness and arrogance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More on Irish music community in the United States here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on AfD format - This page is getting messy and the discussion is rambling. AfD discussions are subject to WP:AFDFORMAT. Please stay on topic and follow the format of stating your position, and then stopping. Adding off-topic comments is often considered an attempt to disrupt an AfD. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Its section "General" reasonably proves that the concept is valid and discussed in reliable sources. I disagree with the COATRACK label. There are diverse types of music communities, and trying to write about all of them is clearly not a COATRACK, because these are clearly relevant and not collection of trivia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has changed so much that comments made when the initial AfD was posted may want to be reconsidered. - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtiar Shabani Varaki[edit]

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

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

Despite the article's good format, he is not a really notable person. This article has been deleted twice in Persian Wikipedia long ago. (EDIT) And absolutely no results in google news and newspaper, but there are good results in google books. Leyth (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Notable academics often have little or no coverage in Google news or newspapers. I tidied this article up a bit a couple of months ago and found the subject quite interesting. Varaki's sphere of interest is quite niche but his contribution is considered important as his international approach straddles Western, European and Arabic traditions. The article is reasonably sourced, but I accept that notability is marginal. I cannot comment on the articles that have been deleted from the Persian Wikipedia as the rationales for those deletions are not in English. Poltair (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see any WP:NACADEMICS criteria met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep he has many publications on Google Scholar as a famous researcher. In addition to, his activities listed on ORCID number and academic notworks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu. He is a famous academics and researcher in Iran. I did a google search for his Persian name (بختیار شعبانی ورکی) and many pages found about it. Finally, i suggest that his page remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.143.248.48 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — 46.143.248.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as lacking google scholar references: most cited paper has 15 cites, which is not even close to what is expected under WP:NACADEMICS. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Publishing a lot of papers merely makes you prolific, not notable. Stuartyeates nailed it, his published material is rarely cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel X[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nominator is correct. She fails our notability guideline for pornographic actors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total fails the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Renee[edit]

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

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

Since the SIGNY has no article this fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. The SIGNY Award she won is not well-known. It was argued in the previous AfD that she meets criterion #2 ("has made unique contributions"), but passing semi-RS mentions of her as a bondage favorite are not enough to support this. The only significant independent coverage appears to be the Adult Video News article cited. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Almost all other coverage appears to republished press releases in the porn trade press. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have reliable sources to support her "unique" contributions to a niche category of pornography. One extensive article in AVN is not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there consensus somewhere that avn.com and Xbiz don't qualify as independent reliable sources for questions of notability? -- Irn (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AVN and XBIZ articles should be treated with caution since many of them are republished press releases. That is especially true with releases and event announcements. AVN appears to have one in-depth and independent profile, but that can't establish notability by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k is quite correct. Further, AVN's factchecking, outside of a fairly narrow range of articles focusing on industry operations, can be rather dire. Note, for example, this profile of Tera Patrick[8] (a quite prominent figure), which asserts that "In March 2002 she became the only woman ever to appear on the covers of Penthouse and Playboy simultaneously", which is quite wide of the mark in that 1)February and March are not "simultaneous"; 2)even if they were, it happened, quite famously, with Madonna years earlier. Xbiz is a component of a PR business (Adnet Media), and its editorial independence is dubious (for example, its clients determine the nominations for its awards). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Claimed awards fail SNG standards. A single article in a trade magazine falls short or GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Costello[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO - scene awards no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total failure of the guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amia Miley[edit]

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

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

The mainstream appearance is described as a fan film. Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passing mention in a number of news sources (Vanity Fair etc) for roles in a TV show [9] as a major talent in the adult industry [10] and passing mentions for small role in a popular short film [11] Last time I checked fan films dont have their own wikipedia pages Power/Rangers aren't directed by notable directors Joseph Kahn and produced by the backers of major motion pictures Adi Shankar. Also per WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 ('has been nominated for one several times'); awards that are well known and notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages should be well known and significant enough to meet the criteria of 'well known.' Combination of multiple non-in depth mentions and noms meets WP:BIO basic criteria/additional criteria.--Savonneux (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - You cannot simply add up a bunch of passing/trivial mentions in sources and declare WP:N to be met, and quite frankly it is embarrassing to see someone put that forth as a genuine argument. A porn industry award is not in any way, shape, or form a "well-known and significant award or honor", so WP:ANYBIO is a failure. Multiple nominations are explicitly ruled out by WP:PORNBIO as well, so as the subject meets none of the project's thresholds of notability, delete. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PORNBIO doesn't mention nominations. Without mentioning them, it can't explicitly rule them out. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After extensive discussions and a formal RFC, an "overwhelming consensus"[12] determined that such nominations do not contribute significantly to notability and should be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll admit that I don't have the time to read the whole RFC, but if this edit adequately represents that consensus, then all it's saying is that the nominations themselves are not sufficient to confer notability. That is a far cry from saying that they cannot contribute to notability. If the consensus is that nominations are worthless and should not be considered at all, PORNBIO does not reflect that. -- Irn (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had thought there was wording in Pornbio to reflect the RfC findings, but apparently not. Either way, the end result is the same however we arrive at it; nominations do not count in the slightest towards notability. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Practice in prior PORNBIO revisions has indicated that when a criterion is struck, the factor is simply discounted absent a specific showing that it has led to independent reliable-source coverage. Since the number-of-releases criterion was removed, for example, that factor has consistently been discounted entirely in deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't mean to be singling you out by responding to your comment, and this comment should probably go elsewhere (but where?), but that is a terrible practice. That a small group of people who regularly participate in AFD discussions have a different consensus that goes beyond what is written in the guidelines is anti-transparent and needlessly complicates matters while making it more difficult for other editors to participate in these discussions. -- Irn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Savonneux.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are plenty of "well-known and significant industry awards" out there, and many of them have Wikipedia articles written about them. The issue though is that apparently the subject here hasn't won any of those awards, and the PORNBIO inclusion standard is intentionally set higher than the ANYBIO standard for a variety of reasons.

FYI, being a FAME Award "Finalist" just means that a performer passed the intial, two-tiered award nomination process that the FAME Awards used to have. It doesn't mean that the performer actually won that award. Quite frankly, I don't know what the "AWMBD" is that's referenced in the article in question here either. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that any bio can qualify under WP:ANYBIO right? Just because someone is X doesn't mean they are only evaluated on criteria of WP:BIOX. If the inclusion standard for WP:PORNBIO is higher than for WP:ANYBIO there is no call to only use the criteria of PORNBIO, ANYBIO still applies. Hence: any bio.--Savonneux (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of argument that you're apparently trying to advocate for (basically ignoring PORNBIO & trying to use to ANYBIO to evaluate whether or not to keep or delete a pornography-related BLP) has been tried here at AfD in the past and failed many times before. Whether one likes it or not, the PORNBIO inclusion standard has been raised well above the ANYBIO standard over time specifically in order to limit the number of pornography-related BLPs. I'm not saying that I agree with that trend here on Wikipedia, but it exists none-the-less. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the guidelines for pornographic performers. This person has not won any well known and significant award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No case for meeting PORNBIO. The first True Detective source just recaps the second, and therefore is not cumulative. The principal source reports that she was cast as an extra, providing no substantive biographical information; while slightly better than a passing mention, it's clearly insufficient to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Love[edit]

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

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

Insufficient mainstream activity to pass PORNBIO#3 and otherwise fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I could not find a single independent and reliabel source; clearly fails gng as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joker broadband[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company. Started little more than one month ago, with no indications that they have yet received any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - standard searches did not reveal any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Delete - As you think it is not available in searches but the company founded in rural (outer area of Tier II city) where lot of people lacks internet connection. This company starts it work providing internet everywhere. So this content not to be deleted.User:barnatony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.190.150 (talk)— barnatony (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Delete - The companies Article found on local newspaper, which is unable to found on the internet. In particular this Company article found on local pages of newspaper, so it can found on those papers only..Naannee (talk) — Naannee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Naannee: If the company is only covered in the pages of the local newspaper, then it hasn't achieved the required level of significant coverage to be considered notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @WikiDan61: If it's not notable
  Further information: WP:FAILN
  so we will wait till verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naannee (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Eclipsed, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:ORG notability criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article fails the notability criteria for WP:ORG and even it does not meets the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify pending more sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four corners of the world (disambiguation)[edit]

Four corners of the world (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete and redirect to Four continents: Four continents is the primary topic of this name. All incoming links mean the four continents. There is no article that would discuss the biblical four rivers as a group. See related discussion at User talk:Kwamikagami#Four corners of the world. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Finnusertop's summary is incorrect. At least one incoming link, that from Earth, is ambiguous, and it would be OR to link it to four continents. Even if Finnusertop can find a source that the symbol ⊕ represents Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, there are other references to the four corners of the world predate the discovery of America, where it would be incorrect to rd to 'four continents'. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The link at Earth says "Four quadrants of the world" (which is a redirect to Four continents anyway) but is piped to point to Four corners of the world. Not is this only unintuitive use of piped links (WP:EGG) but it's also not an acceptable way to intentionally link to a disambiguation page (WP:INTDAB#When to link to a disambiguation page): You don't link to disambiguation pages if you are unsure — in that case it's probably better to leave the link out altogether. Notwithstanding the link from Earth, all others mean four continents which makes me conclude that this is the primary topic. I reiterate that there isn't even an article for the four rivers, so this disambiguation doesn't disambiguate between two topics.

According to Kwamikagami: "there are other references to the four corners of the world predate the discovery of America, where it would be incorrect to rd to 'four continents'". However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and disambiguation pages in particular are not supposed to differentiate between uses (WP:DABDIC) but different target articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Dabs are indexes of existing WP articles, not looking at what a phrase or word might possibly also refer to. There is only one WP article which mentions this phrase listed on this page, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The link to Garden of Eden is invalid as the term is not mentioned on that page (see MOS:D). Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created four corners of the world, since I found a several mythological cosmologies that use this phrase and don't mean the four continents. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tajul muluk also does not mean the four continents. It seems likely that St. Maria Angelica also intends the biblical concept. That is, out of the three actual articles linking here, none of them mean the 'four continents'. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Kwamikagami. If we manage to make an article of Four corners of the world, it's a welcome addition and answers the concerns you've presented. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per speedy criterion WP:G6 and per WP:TWODABS, however it appears that nobody notified Niceguyedc, the dab page's creator, about this discussion, and I'm interested in why it was created in the first place. Without knowing the background, when I Google the phrase (with different combinations of words in quotes) I get almost exclusively results for the religious concept (mostly Judeo-Christian but there are others) of the four points of the earth, along with much scholarly commentary on just what the hell that means, but very few results for the Renaissance European view of the four-continent world. This strongly suggests that the primary topic for "four corners of the world" is Kwamikagami's article, not four continents. I agree that the four rivers and Garden of Eden are inappropriate partial-title matches for this dab, which leaves only two entries (TWODABS), and my effort shows that one is clearly the primary topic, so the disambiguation page doesn't need to exist. For users who type one while looking for the other, we have hatnotes. As for why our internal links primarily come from "four continents" topics, that's most likely due to nothing more than the page's historical use as a redirect, and shouldn't be an argument for supporting one primary topic over another. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I didn't create it as a disambiguation page. At the time, Four corners of the world was a disambiguation page (permalink), so I created this page as a redirect to the disambiguation page for any intentional links (per WP:INTDABLINK). I have not edited the page since I created it as a redirect. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Other uses are The Four Corners of the World, a Newsletter for Fair Trade Milwaukee, an organisation based in Washington Heights, Milwaukee.Four Corners of the World, an album by jazz / lounge musician Esquivel and "Four Corners Of The World", a song by Big Joe Williams. There's probably a few more. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have found 2 more. One is a record label, 4 Corners Of The World, that released recordings by Françoise Hardy, Gunter-chorus Kallmann and Raymond Le Fevre. And then there is a song "Four Corners Of The World" by Original Crew, a Jamaican group. Released on the Ranking Joe Music label. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these new additions fail WP:DABMENTION. There is no mention of the term in the linked articles and making any assertions regarding these on the disambiguation page amounts to WP:OR. older ≠ wiser 13:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, at least the Esquivel album and the Big Joe Williams song follow common dab conventions of listing not-separately-notable recordings and pointing to the artist. However the others are a stretch. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Mr Bill Truth's findings above the relist that there are other topics that could be added to this dab, I revise my !vote to keep and add the entries that fit on the page. I still disagree that four continents is the primary topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching the topic definitely doesn't seem to bring up much about "Four Continents." Most of the classical uses seem to refer to the four points of the compass, or the extremities of the world.--Savonneux (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future boat developments[edit]

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

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

The future is subject to speculation and anticipation and can not possibly be described as an encyclopedical fact. Everything substantial in this article is from the present or rather the past, and by the article's title it is suggested that these past events and trends will be carried on into the future. Thus, 100% of this article is speculative and must be removed. Reasons for Deletion: (6) "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"; (14) "content not suitable for an encyclopedia". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a difference between wild speculation and informed predictive analysis. Looking for similar articles, I found List of proposed future transport; there is no shortage of material on future transport and it can be backed up by reliable sources, just as Wikipedia has a huge variety of other articles on future events from science fiction concepts to upcoming elections to cosmological and astronomical happenings to technology that isn't quite ready for the big time, everything from Room-temperature superconductor to 2020 Summer Olympics. There are discussions on the future of boat transport in reliable sources as well as those cited e.g.[13][14][15][16] and it's legitimate to have an article about these. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article has enough attribution to reliable sources for me to say keep. The very first one is a BBC article that quotes a maritime professor with a PhD in "engineering and public policy" [17]. I'd consider that person pretty darn reliable for where the maritime industry is trending in the future. For the nominator's second reason, WP:NOTPAPER is enough for me to say keep. There is room in an electronic encyclopedia to keep this article. It would have been suitable for a paper "maritime" encyclopedia, so why not here. People tend to think in terms of Funk & Wagnalls or other home encyclopedias and forgetting the Not Paper guideline. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not question the relevance of innovative technology in this article, as far as it is sourced. What I do question is stringing it together in a random fashion and labeling it as "the future". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future"; "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are inappropriate". Such musings of what may be one day are certainly entertaining and inspiring, but they do have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia, paper or digital. -- Theoprakt (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE array of things that are already covered in other articles, it looks like some student's paper, and contains OR and speculations, with questionable (primary) sources. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kraxler. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I can't see how this can become anything more then hodgepodge of various unrelated predictions and speculations.--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but as something like Future challenges in nautical design. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP is not a free host for little essays. I doubt that Future challenges in nautical design has any significant coverage in secondary sources. Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a hard call as to whether keep the whole thing or split it up into the various extant and sourced technologies. A wholesale delete would be a poor decision. Propose moving to something with less emphasis on predictive/future, since the gist of the article seems to be on fuel consumption and "green" technology how about Green Propulsion Technology (Nautical) or the like. Im not overly familiar with how WikiProject Ships categorizes their articles.--Savonneux (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "delete" !voters don't find fault with the title, they object to the content, citing the pertaining guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:CRYSTALBALL. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (Rapper)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. All sources cited in article are primary sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found no considerably good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches reveal nothing to support notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BaseThings.com[edit]

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

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

Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found no considerably good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this reads like self-promotion and the article offers no reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject lacks significance coverage in reliable sources; it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in League[edit]

This Week in League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of This Week in League Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability outside of the one ranking: can't turn up any sources on it, thus fails WP:WEB. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significant coverage does not appear to exist in reliable sources. A high ranking on a poll on a fansite is the closest they have come to establishing notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 07:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing to meet the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz al Millat Mufti Abdul Aziz Ashrafi Muhaddith Mubarakpuri[edit]

Hafiz al Millat Mufti Abdul Aziz Ashrafi Muhaddith Mubarakpuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Simple textbook failure of WP:GNG. Like a huge proportion of articles on South Asian Muslim religious figures, this is just a long, poorly written personal reflection essay on a non-notable local cleric the article's author - always a non-native speaker of English who can't write well - admires. Various other peacock terms, honorifics (even in the title) and wondrous anecdotes fit the description of one of these typically disastrous articles on non-notable subjects. As can be seen at the talk page of the article creator, the same individual has already had two other such articles on religious figures from the region deleted, so even the pattern is there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, per WP:TNT as a minimum as the current article looks like "hopelessly irreparable". An unsourced, orphan, poorly written and poorly formatted, sometimes obscure essay-like text full of peacockery about this obscure, unverifiable figure who could even be a hoax (no GoogleHits outside a dozen WP mirrors). Cavarrone 09:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article provides no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Searches revealed nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Ferney[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. Ample opportunity has been given to provide further references. Does not meet any criteria listed at WP:CREATIVE. Shiftchange (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am no poet, nor yet an Aussie; I search for Ferney, here's what I don't see: persuasive sources, article lacks them. My search did find the sources already on page, such as the non-profit, non-bluelinked http://cordite.org.au/tags/liam-ferney/ which interviewed Ferney in 2012 [18]. He once worked for them as an editor, so it may not be quite independent, but the more significant point is how big a deal is this and the other sources? It looks to me as though he had gained some recognition within the apparently very small world of literary poetry in Australia. And I don't think that is quite enough. If you have a way to show that he passes WP:CREATIVE, Flag me to take another look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - references are either dead links, non-authoritative or written by journal of which subject used to be editor and hence is not neutral. No independent coverage to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete Changing my !vote because, as Rpclod pointed out, this poet did not actually win the award. Without that, the one independent review I found does not seem to be enough to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) -This poet did win a significant national poetry award in 2014, which qualifies him at least for notability in his country as per Wikipedia Any Bio guidelines. He is also reviewed here. I don't think we can expect the same amount of coverage for a poet as for other kinds of 'notables.' ) unsigned comment added by ABF99 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • According to the Wikipedia site for the prize, the subject was on the shortlist for, but did not win, the prize.--Rpclod (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rpclod You are right. I stand corrected. ABF99 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Follow the money. T. Canens (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money trail[edit]

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

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

Incoherent personal essay. TiC ^(talk) 04:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a fairly widely used term which is used by everyone from Advocacy Organizations, to Journalists, and News Organizations. A quick Google news search shows wide spread use of the term in a large variety of sources. This article needs clean up, not deletion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Many phrases are widely used. So? Do we need an article explaining what the blame game (far more widespread uses on Google) means? Or propounding on corporate greed? These aren't actual independent subjects. This is an article about money laundering; that's where the concept should be covered.
  • 2) Even if you think it's relevant, this article contains nothing salvageable. "Cleanup" means writing a new one. TiC ^(talk) 04:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reads like an essay, and appears to be original research (and much is unsourced). We already have Follow the money to cover this topic. That article is a bit scant, but more could be added to it. LaMona (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to follow the money to keep all the information in a single article. shoy (reactions) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.--Rpclod (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Follow the money.This could be considered a fork. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect into Follow the money per shots and Bearian.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect into Follow the money. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect into Follow the money per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Pink Panther. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romance of the Pink Panther[edit]

Romance of the Pink Panther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

The film never entered production. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per WP:NFF, an unmade film could still meet WP:GNG, and even with Peter Sellers death causing this one to be abandoned, we do have enough coverage to consider a partial merge and a redirect to some other article. Suggestions? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Peter SellersThe Pink Panther; fails WP:NFF, which says that films which have not begun principal photography should not have standalone articles. The mention in the Sellers article is sufficient. Miniapolis 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If merged and redirected, the most appropriate target would be The Pink Panther, which discusses the entire series and could be improved by adding some content about this proposed production. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Pink Panther and merge content, film series gives some context.Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to The Pink Panther, as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe McConnell[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another Page 3 girl with ephemeral coverage at best. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Gifts Catalogue[edit]

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

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

An excellent cause for sure but my searches found no considerably good coverage with the best being here (fades by page 3), here (one page, the BBC News is probably the most outstanding from that) and here with browser, highbeam and Newspapers Archive finding nothing. Overall, it simply seems there's nothing to suggest even minimal improvement or moving elsewhere. Not to mention it must not be that commonly known (or at least as obviously known) as this hasn't been heavily edited since inception in October 2007 with maintenance edits here and there. Inviting past editors @Robofish and Mike Rosoft: to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom basically. Don't even remember editing this one. SwisterTwister has made a reasonable effort to find sources, and makes a good case for non-notability. Robofish (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• uncertain possibly merge somehow, possibly to an article on the parent organization, Charities Advisory Trust. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking indepedent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Pennsylvania Municipal Management[edit]

The Association of Pennsylvania Municipal Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I was actually going to PROD this but I wanted to let users comment. My searches found nothing convincing and good at all with the best here, here, here (11th from top, "Women Leaders in Bucks County, Pennsylvania: 27 Percent and Counting"), here and here (this last one probably has the most results but nothing significant). This organization is probably somewhat well known locally specifically for people from that field and such. It's worth noting User:Kinggeoian listed this as a possible article of improvement but they haven't been here for the past few years (so I doubt they'll be here to improve it) and there's no good move target so thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a directory. Prodding also lets people have a chance to see it--I am however not sure how many people check there--I do, but selectively. I doubt I would have deprodded this, but I do deprod 2 or 3 a day, often BLPprods for which the person is obviously notable and it is easy to find a ref. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of the Philippines (1521–1571). Any useful content may be merged at editorial discretion from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Europeans in the Philippines[edit]

First Europeans in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fringe-theory article is based on a single source, and even that one source is more than shaky: "[...] it is quite likely that some other Portuguese ship on the China voyage had called before at the Luções [...]". So that's supposed to be enough for Wikipedia to rewrite history books? To me this looks no less fringy than Menzies' 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, which, of course we also do not consider a source credible enough to overrule all other history books. bender235 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Regardless of fringiness, it is plainly original research which really would be no more than a paragraph in history of the Philippines in any case. Seyasirt (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I do not regard this as fringe, not is the book on 1421 fringe. The two sources cites are chronicles from the period, which are primary sources, and as such WP:RS. This is thus NOR original research in WP terms. I do not like the present title. Europeans in the Philippines before Magellan might be better. Nevertheless, I have grave doubts as to whether the subject is significant enough to merit an article. We are probably never going to get more than the two quotes, because that is the whole of the evidence. Possibly merge somewhere. This issue is that the Pope divided the world down the Atlantic into Spanish and Portuguese zones, without realising that the world was round and they would meet on the other side of the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menzies' 1421 clearly is fringe, and is universally regarded as such in academia see Finlay (2004). And as for the Philippines article, the quote from Tomé Pires says no more about the “Luções” than Marco Polo reports about “Zipangu.” Just as Polo hasn't actually been to Japan, Pires' quote doesn't imply any European sailor has been to the Philippines. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Of course Menzies is fringe (well, more like fiction), but this article does not cite Menzies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of the Philippines (1521–1571). I find that some of the information on the article may be useful in a section on early European expeditions to/or sightings of the Philippines prior to the Spanish discovery under Magellan. However, as there is no solid proof presented that the Pires expedition actually did land on one of the islands (not merely sighting them as the Portuguese also did during the Colonial history of the United States#Early colonial failures, the entire article's lead is therefore WP:OR and should be scrapped .--RioHondo (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did an edit of the lede to remove the simplistic claims, but it is an interesting question, one asked about all of the "new" lands of the Age of Discovery. I think we can have an article that provides what is known about the first contact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Since when does a vague unsourced speculation merit its own Wikipedia article? What's next? Do we create articles like this for every part of the world? First Europeans in Argentina, First Europeans in Australia, ... it's absurd. At the very, very, very top this deserves one sentence in History of the Philippines and that's it. --bender235 (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am not objecting to a merge, I just want to point out that WP is filled with just such articles as User:Bender235 mockingly imagines; many of them are rather well sourced: List of Westerners who visited Japan before 1868, Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia, Papar, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories. There are probably others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested by RioHondo. This has a lot of OR in it, but could be useful as a section at History of the Philippines (1521–1571). WP:FRINGE does not require deletion, but only that WP:UNDUE not be accorded. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekar swamiji[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)).

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

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

Promotional article of a lesser known person, a couple of primary links and a lot of fluff and praise. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No mention of the gold issue and police raid that is reported a couple of places, I still don't think he is notable even if the article would be rewritten neutrally. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Chandrashekar swamiji is a International Vastu Consultant and Scientific Astrologer. Visit his website to know more about his achievement and social activities [Articles http://chandrashekarswamiji.com/#!/media]. He is official Vastu consultant to World Trade Centre (WTC) which is been rebuilt after terrorist attack September 11,2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.106.36 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet general notability criteria, seems like the sources have mentioned him as pass by and does not stress any notability Shrikanthv (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as WP:G11 else WP:BLOWITUP if he somehow meets GNG. - The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I've gutted the article to remove most of the promotional terminology, and having searched for sources, I reckon there's just about enough out there to warrant an article. It seems pretty borderline, though, and could do with some attention from editors who know more about Inidan topics than I do. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Sri Chandrashekar swamiji spreading true essence of Indian heritage through Vasthu and Jyothishya consultancy to the world. Common People like me were aware of his achievements at international level and his social service activities across Karnataka state only through regional news papers. Surprisingly found all those Karnataka regional articles at one place on search [Articles http://chandrashekarswamiji.com/#!/media] as proof. In my opinion he deserves to take position in Wikipedia for his notable achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PradeepKamath025 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:FRINGEBLP, any biography of a living person who advocates fringe theories must be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion, and must summarize what high quality reliable, independent sources say about the person. We have no such coverage available about this astrologer, so the topic is not notable and the article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Coming back to this, two of the keep comments are single focus users regarding this article Contributions/PradeepKamath025 and 14.141.106.36 both with glaring WP:COI issues if you review their contributions. That only leaves the single weak keep comment from User:Yunshui all else that has no COI is leaning delete. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Cullen328.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZhenFund[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Just like the article on one of the founders, Victor Wang (Angel Investor) (afd), created by the same SPA, there is a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. A look at the current sourcing: TechNode, tech blog with rehash of a routine press release; crunchbase, database listings; zh.wikipedia.org, openly collaborative wiki encyclopedia, not a reliable source; Baidu Baike, openly collaborative wiki encyclopedia, not a reliable source; Bloomberg, about another company, doesn't mention ZhenFund; Forbes Magazine, about another company, doesn't mention ZhenFund; PRNewswire, enough said; ZhenFund, not independent. See also Bob Xu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Xu and Qiang (Victor) Wang. This is just poorly sourced promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article. Junk sources like Crunchbase, PR Newswire, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 05:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as well as my searches found nothing better than what I mentioned at Bob's AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Xu[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Just like the articles on his company, ZhenFund (afd, and it's other founder, Victor Wang (Angel Investor) (afd, both created by the same SPA, there is a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. A look at the current sourcing. zh.wikipedia.org and Baidu Baike are openly collaborative wiki encyclopedias, not a reliable sources. Forbes is just a listing. crunchbase is just a database listing. celeb.uname.cn is listing on a celebrity website, not a reliable source. newss.qq.com is a short 3 sentence mention, lacks any depth of coverage. This is just poorly sourced promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as my searches found nothing better, here, here, here and here. CorporateM Maybe you missed it but this AfD was mentioned at ZhenFund's AfD, maybe you'd like to comment (simply for consistency)? SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hopelessly promotional No opinion on notability, which is hard to assess when the sources are in another language. But there is not a sufficient amount of well-sourced, encyclopedic content in the current article for there to be anything worth keeping here. CorporateM (Talk) 06:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkala Stott[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks substantive independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Karson[edit]

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

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

Scene award only and the usual non-meaningful sourcing means this BLP fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Routine failure to satisfy SNG/GNG standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Phillip Almanza[edit]

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

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

Subject of article seems fairly unremarkable with poorly sourced material. Additionally, the article seems to have been created by the subject himself, judging by his post to Instagram: http://instagram.com/p/5xTPGmqHoq/?taken-by=andrewalmanzaaa Aus0107 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's all basically self-generated with not even an IMDb and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:BLP subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 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.