< 13 February	15 February >

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. Missvain (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Defreeze[edit]

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

A album by a band who does not even have a Wikipedia page. Wgolf (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has had enough reliable reviews and other sources for inclusion of a Wikipedia page. It doesn't need an artist page. 和DITOREtails 23:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating more than just a one-line stub would be appreciated. If you're doing the research, why not expand the article some? Just a small assertion of what makes the album notable would be nice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 15 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jori Chisholm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article feels highly promotional and is complete with "Trivia" section. Perhaps marginally notable on competitive success - first place at Oban - but there are many other pipers in the same position. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for all the multiple reasons documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jori Chisholm. To relaunch an AfD is a farce and the nominator clearly has an agenda against such articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reason cited "there are many other pipers in the same position" is hardly a reason for deletion, but I would argue a reason for inclusion of a page for other pipers in the same position. This was mentioned in a previous discussion also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9980:99:CDD5:AC82:45B3:5213 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Relaunch of AfD is completely unreasonable, as it betrays a personal vendetta against subject, and ignores subject's many detailed achievements of notability, all of which are given within scope of article; namely, 1) subject is a notable ensemble performer, with Simon Fraser University Pipe Band, with other notable ensemble performances with the Chieftains, and with the Bob Weir group Ratdog, which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #6; 2) subject has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works, appearing in the New York Times, Piping Today, and American Profile magazine, which satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion #1; 3) AfD nominator's inane suggestion that subject is "perhaps marginally notable on competitive success" indicates that nominator did not READ article. Subject won 1st place in several major music competitions, including 2 times winning 1st place at Cowal Highland Gathering (Open 'A' Piobaireachd) in 2008 and 2010; winning 1st place 4 times at US Gold Medal Piping Championships in 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2014; and winning 1st place in 'A' Marches at Argyllshire Gathering in Oban in 2001, all of which satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #9. Subject is not "marginally notable", but is VERY notable. Please keep article on subject. ~jungstensgericht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungstensgericht (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreeing with the entry above re "there are many other pipers in the same position". There should be many more pipers with pages in wiki, and this performer should be one of them. He is one of the most notable professional pipers in the USA, is highly regarded by many other notable professional pipers from around the world and has made significant contributions to the art. AfD discussion should be closed with no further action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.98.11 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion). (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 21:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Camac[edit]

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

Contested prod, non notable ceo Wgolf (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I put the Prod on. At the time the subject was described as the CEO of a company with no article of its own and with not much else to confer notability. Now he is described as an academic, which might be a slightly better approach, but based on the the article contents I do not believe that he is sufficiently notable in that regard either. A very cursory search does not turn up additional notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-looks like the page creator wants it speedied. Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-yes please delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyC284 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Sugawara[edit]

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

I was originaly going to put up this but decided to put a prod instead. Anyway this looks like a unotable actress. With only one credit. Wgolf (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Searching on her Japanese name, she seems to have been in one more porno film, but nothing since then. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any reliable sourcing (other than IMDB) or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria are satisfied. --DAJF (talk) 01:21, 17 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I Love You?[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 04:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ward (politician)[edit]

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

Withdrawing nom ~~Failed governor candidate. That's about it. Only source is an obit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~~ - I overlooked the mention of his state legislature membership, as the opening of the article focused on his failed gubernational election. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic keep He served in both houses of the KY legislature and was a major party nominee for governor in 1967; only a narrow loser. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:NPOL#1. "five-term state representative and one-term state senator" per [1]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources for the article's subject were readily found, two of which were in the top ten results of a Google search [2][3]. Also Ward has received significant coverage in a book [4] as well as in various newspaper articles which I've added to the page. I don't see anything in WP:BIO that disqualifies using an obituary to substantiate significant coverage, but that notwithstanding, I believe the multiple sources I've found show this article meets WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All members of state legislatures in the United States are notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of state legislatures are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Elected member of a state legislature, ergo an auto-keep per Politician Special Notability Guideline no. 1. Carrite (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, as a member of a state legislature. It already said this in the article when it was nominated - nominator obviously should have read it a little more closely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close the discussion - nomination has been withdrawn. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Number Zero[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 04:07, 21 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of funerals[edit]

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

Cannot make heads or tails of what this list accomplishes or why it's necessary. Notability of most of these entries are questionable, remaining ones may be better served as a category. PROD removed without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ways in which lists are superior to categories are detailed at WP:AOAL. There are entire books devoted to the topic such as Funerals of the Famous and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Use of prod in such cases seems disruptive as the page is well-developed by numerous editors and the prod process is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases. Andrew D. (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the prod would be controversial, thus my usage of it. I am not basing my deletion rationale on the notability of the topic (although a funeral industry publication is probably not the best way to judge notability of a list of funerals in any regard), but rather that the list form does not lend itself to the topic nor is the article able to be limited to truly notable funerals. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find more coverage of funerals. For example, this source discusses notable Tudor funerals such as those of Queen Elizabeth and Sir Philip Sidney, while this one discusses major funerals of later periods. Per WP:CLN, structural objections to the list format are not policy and so should never be used as the basis for a deletion nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a structural objection, but an objection based on the fact that this isn't really a good way to handle the topic. An article about state funerals is appropriate. An article about an individual funeral may be appropriate. A random list with no real benefit for readers or any sort of standard in place for inclusion or even notability of the individual topics is where the objection lies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable entries are better served by a list than a category, as dates, attendances etc can be given. Siuenti (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The inclusion criteria need tightening up. The table could do with a bit more formatting, making it sortable. Martin451 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above !votes. In this case, a list is more appropriate for listing funerals than a category. Esquivalience ^t 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST, and also qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Funerals by person. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Thargor Orlando's comments, it is difficult to see what criteria for inclusion have been, or should be applied. Worldwide and throughout history, notable funerals would be an enormous list. If limited by historical period or geographical location or 'area of notability, I could see value. As presently constituted, the list appears random. Would a list of funerals that have their OWN article be a constructive interim measure? Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Funeral of Thatcher had an estimated 4.5 million viewing on TV, with about 1 million watching via iPlayer, I cannot see worldwide figures. The funeral of Bal_Thackeray had 1-2 million in attendance, and 15 million watching on TV. The first has its own article, the second was deleted AfD. The second is in this article, the first is not. So I personally do not think having its own article is suitable inclusion criteria. Martin451 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be useful to move this to a slightly more descriptive name, like List of largest funerals. "Largest" is defined within the current article by "based on both the number of attendants and estimated television audience". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the last suggestion (or "large"). Purge of any below 10,000 attenders. For pre-TV items N/a is unsatisfactory: is it not available or not applicable. I would suggest the column should say "no TV". This probably applies to Jinnah, as I doubt there was much TV in Pakistan at his death. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somer Engin[edit]

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

Rather unotable person-yeah has followers on twitter but still don't see much to say-if we include everyone who has a twitter/facebook account that be nuts. Wgolf (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WeRCharm[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group lacking non-trivial support. No independent resources and a search of Google shows nothing of substance. CSD removed by ANON. reddogsix (talk) 17:49, 14 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revolucija (TV show)[edit]

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

This discontinued Serbian TV programme is largely sourced to promotional material from the presenter/producer himself. A small amount of notable material was already on presenter's main article (Boris Malagurski). There is little reason to believe that independently sourced material will surface now to establish notability. I propose notable material is re-merged with main page and this article be deleted. There seems to be no equivalent article on Serbian Wikipedia. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - Just because a show was discontinued isn't reason enough to delete its article. Neither is the fact that there is no equivalent article on Serbian Wikipedia an argument for deletion. There are reliable sources regarding the TV show, including the Association of Journalists of Serbia, NaDlanu.com, Story.rs, and I just found a few more from The City of Subotica, Nightly News (Večernje novosti), Teleprompter.rs, NSPM.rs (New Serbian political thought), etc. The notability of the show is evident and though it wasn't, of course, popular worldwide, in Serbia it certainly was. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that I, as the creator of the article in question, wasn't notified on my talk page by Pincrete that the article was nominated for deletion, which is not very nice. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note was left on the Malagurski talk page, specifically in order that ALL connected editors (including yourself), would know about the AfD nomination. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "little reason to believe that independently sourced material will surface now"

Surface now? It's been there all along. It received plenty of coverage in main stream press and web outlets in Serbia and also to a lesser extent in Croatia. In addition to the sources listed above there's also Press [5][6],Story, Glas zapadne Srbije, Monitor.hr, Večernje novosti [1], frontal.rs Not to mention the show ran for three seasons on a station with national broadcasting license in Serbia. Fairly straight-forward keep.Zvonko (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't had time to examine ALL the links provided by Zvonko and UrbanVillager, and some are dead to me. The ones I have looked at either do not say anything about 'Revolucija', or are directly promotional comments by the presenter himself,(eg New Serbian political thought simply reproduces the presenter's Facebook page,[[7] with no independent content by NSPM. The 'Nadlanu' source used in the article,[8] simarly uses as its sole source, the presenter's Facebook page).

IF these links provide any substantive, independent RS material about the show or WHY it is notable, I hope that material will be included in the article. Links which simply mention the show existed, or what the presenter said about the show's nature and importance, establish nothing at all. I agree that the absence of articles on Balkan WPs, does not, in itself, mean there should not be an en. article, but it is a little strange. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Having looked at most of the above 'sources', I see nothing in them but generalised announcements from the presenter or TV company about what the programme aims are + claims from the presenter of having been 'censored', these are almost all sourced to his own Facebook page. If I am wrong, would someone please put into the article the 'wide (independent) coverage' which is claimed. Pincrete (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'generalised announcements from the presenter '

Not sure what your level of comprehending Serbian is, but it seems it could use a little work if this is your takeaway. Six of the 7 links I posted discuss various specifics of the issues raised either in different episodes of the show as show topics or as controversy raised from the station's programming decisions regarding the show. Those issues being: murder of Brice Taton, HR decision at the state-owned rehab facility in Ivanjica, a previously announced episode of the show being banned, and Croatian journalist Domagoj Margetić's allegations against Serbian finance minister Mlađan Dinkić. Furthermore, each piece specifically references the show when discussing these things. The remaining piece is a fairly in-depth interview with Malagurski about the show. None of the above remotely fits the description of "nothing in them but generalised announcements from the presenter or TV company".Zvonko (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understood these reference, however in almost all cases, the claims as to content are pre-showing and are sourced to comments/claims by the presenter or ocassionally the TV company (in several cases using the presenter's Facebook page as source). We have almost NO content from independent RS. The Taton material, adds nothing to what is already said on that film's article and belongs there anyway. Again if I am wrong, please insert this notable material in this article.Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment Pincrete, I think it's about time you stopped minimizing everything that has to do with Malagurski and his work. There are articles by the Anticorruption League of the Balkans, the Association of Journalists of Serbia and several mainstream Serbian media outlets attesting to the notability of the TV show. As a matter of fact, it was you who added the "Kostic controversy" regarding this very TV show to the Malagurski article, and even later, it was you who added this text to the Revolucija (TV show) article, which you decided to nominate for deletion one day later. Please stop abusing Wikipedia. Strong Keep, per Zvonko and his sources as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning an other editor's motives, does nothing to establish what independent RS material is in these sources. Yes, I did add the 'Kostic' material (from the Association of Journalists of Serbia), as far as I can see, this is the only substantive content which does not trace back to the programme presenter himself.Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice analysis by Zvonko, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:37, 18 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006[edit]

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

Was prodded in 2010 but prod was removed. This bill got scant attention in technology circles, but does not appear to have even made it to a committee vote, let alone get to the floor of any chamber of the United States government. As the bill was proposed over 8 years ago, it is no longer pending or relevant, and there is no obvious place to merge the minimal relevant information in the article (an article that reads more like a term paper on intellectual property and law than an encyclopedia article on the topic). For those reasons, deletion seems to be the most prudent option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a pile of OR. Most of the citations appear to be describing the specific things the article claims are linked to its subject, rather than actually making that link. In fact as far as I can tell only one of the references is actually about the article topic, and that's a link to the bill itself, hardly a reliable source for asserting notability. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = proposed bills that do not leave committee are rarely notable, and run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 18 February 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 Feel free to purpose the merge on article page. . Missvain (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Delayed (DVD)[edit]

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

I suggest merge/redirect into Forever Delayed. Lachlan Foley (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not the place to suggest merges or redirects. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bay[edit]

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

An editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as vandalism. I declined the tag as it obviously wasn't vandalism. However, the editor intended to tag it as a hoax. Given that the article itself states that it is an obscure bay, that makes it harder to determine whether it exists and there's litle about it or whether it doesn't exist at all. Doing Google searches all I've found are clones of the article. If it is a hoax, it should obviously be deleted. However, even if not, if it has no notability, it should also be deleted, although I recognize that many editors at Wikipedia don't like to delete any place articles. I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, not listed at Geoscience Australia place name search.--Grahame (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if it's entirely or just partially a hoax. I certainly can't find any sources to suggest keeping it.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that even say that this place even exists. Esquivalience ^t 02:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the geo coordinates point to a place called Chance Bay, for what it's worth. As a total side note: NOAA provides free nautical charts... why can't Austrailia? —Noah 04:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found that Navonics has a free online chart. Turtle Bay is labled on that one... nothing else nearby. Not definitive, but one more bit of data. —Noah 05:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's not even listed by Geoscience Australia, that's a massive red flag. And come on, named after someone married there in 2009? Seems like a bit of romantic fluff to me, not a serious article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 16 February 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 Withdrawn by nominator. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (non-admin. closure)[reply]

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK to attack privatization. No evidence that this city department has received enough significant coverage to warrant a stand alone article.Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn – Coatrack and notability issues resolved by Northamerica1000. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Google News has over 50 pages of results. Normally when Google says that it has 1,000 nominal hits the actual results peter out after 3 or 4 pages, or 12 pages, but for this they just keep coming. No lack of coverage here. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Most of the pages are about one event (2014 water shutoffs) and do not discuss the department itself in-depth. An organization is not notable merely because a notable event is associated with it. The remain pages provide Routine coverage information, such as news articles about rate hikes. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, yes, but there's a old rule in book reviewing, that a reviewer should always review the book he's been given and never complain that it should have been a book about something else. I think we should do the same here. The author wanted this to be an article about privatization and the water shutoffs, so that's what we should evaluate. There is an abundance of sources about this, like these from papers like the NYT, WSJ, The Guardian, and the Detroit Free Press:

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

There is obviously enough material for a substantial article here. Even if it isn't in the article now, and even if the title is wrong. We can always change the title. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the author wanted an article about privatization and the water shutoffs, the title should reflect that. Right now, the article is a Wikipedia:Coatrack because it pretends to discuss the Water and Sewer Department, but really talks about one event in its history. I would be happy to withdraw the AFD if there is a consensus to rename. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article, including an overview section, and its primary focus is now not about contemporary issues with the water and sewage department. However, the contemporary issues remain in the article, because they have been covered by reliable sources. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand – The topic passes WP:N. Source examples include:

Distribution System Water Quality Changes Following Corrosion Control Strategies. Pages 117-133.
Factor screening for ozonating the taste- and odor-causing compounds in source water at Detroit, USA. Water Science and Technology. Pages 115–122.

Quote: "INTRODUCTION The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) experiences periodic taste and odor (T&O) events in the raw water supplies. During these episodes, DWSD receives complaints from customers throughout the system. ..."

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department: Bringing Credibility to a Beleaguered System Through Regional Cooperation and Technology. Journal of Law and Society. Pages 193-206. (Here is a link to the full article).
What Happens When Detroit Shuts Off the Water of 100,000 People. The Atlantic.
Detroit mayor granted control of water department. USA Today.
Tapped Out Detroit Residents in Water Fight With City. NBC News (national).
The terrible choices Detroit confronts as it cuts off water to its own residents. The Washington Post.
Who Bled Detroit Dry?. Vice.
Detroit water chief says she's willing to sell emergency water to Flint -- no strings attached. MLive.
Detroit Plans Thousands Of Water Shutoffs Over Delinquent Bills. CBS Detroit.
Detroit Water & Sewerage Department deficit could result in rate increases later this year. (includes video). WXYZ News.
Explaining the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department's latest rate hike. (text and video). Local 4 News.
Wayne County Commission OKs joining new regional water authority. Crain's Detroit Business.
Ideas for new water authority. Crain's Detroit Business. (subscription required)
Mayor Mike Duggan takes over Detroit water department. Crain's Detroit Business. (subscription required)

– More reliable sources the provide significant coverage are available; the above are just a sample of them. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 15 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atholl Highlanders (USA) Pipes & Drums of Stone Mountain[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND; sees notability by association, ignoring WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bullocks[edit]

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

~~non-notable per WP:NGRIDIRON, never played pro~~ Deunanknute (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw and comment - the article really makes it look like he never played. Deunanknute (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Played 31 games in the NFL. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess historians[edit]

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

Unsourced list of people with unclear inclusion criteria. While a handful seem notable for their writings on chess, it's unclear where writing about chess stops and being a "chess historian" begins. The articles of several of those who are notable enough to have articles say little to nothing about being a "chess historian". I'm not finding sufficient sources to say this is a notable subject for a stand-alone list either. Originally PRODded, but removed without explanation or improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a category for this too and, per WP:CLN, this tends to confirm that there's a valid need for navigational aids here. There was a newsletter for a while - The Chess Historian — and there are various people celebrated as major historians of the game such as Edward Winter (chess historian). There's perhaps some scope with merger with the similar concept of the chess writer but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, you're right on this one. I don't know how I could've messed up a search yesterday to account for the poor results I found, but another look shows that whatever it was, clearly I didn't do a good enough job. Withdrawn. It still needs serious cleanup, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I am speedy closing this myself as nominator. The article was evidently misnamed and has now been replaces with a redirect to a substantive article with the correct name. JodyB_talk 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belize City Hospital[edit]

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

PROD was removed. The single footnote does not support the statement made in the article. There is no Verification of Notability and no WP:Reliable Sources. JodyB_talk 13:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are now two footnotes, and this is an important, central and the main hospital in the country. Or it should be consolidated and redirected to Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as hoax (currently tagged as such). I'm also concerned we might be linking to a site that engages in wholesale copyright violations §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GBC Channel Germany[edit]

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

The article appears to be an elaborate hoax. Logo looks like it was slapped together in MS Paint, and the official website appears to have been created to deceive people into thinking it's a real channel, complete with far-fetched programming choices. Also, could not find anything about the channel on Google beyond the (supposedly fake) website and this Wikipedia article, and a banner ad for a German business web hosting service displayed prominently on it (the site). Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 11:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this is a hoax; cannot find any sources in English or German discussing the topic other than the extremely unprofessional website that almost certainly does not belong to a major media organization. Would speedy delete, but the topic is difficult enough to research due to the generic name that I may be missing something. —Verrai 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything that needs in depth research should not be speedied. Having said that, I agree that the website is tacky, and is hosted at a free web site host to boot. Never mind Paint, you could probably set the logo up in Word. I've done a search, repeated with more and more removals (such as the Goldenrod Baptist Church's channel, which took thousands off the hits total), and not found anything of interest. If they can't find anything themselves, or can't be bothered, it should go. Peridon (talk) 13:30, 15 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once (Morris Gleitzman novel)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (My redirect to Once (Morris Gleitzman novel) was reverted, with the edit summary " rv deletion by stealth – take it to AfD". The redirect should be restored.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory examination of Trove and AustLit entries for this novel indicate that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --110.20.234.69 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's a work by an eminently notable Australian writer of children's books. Without even trying, I find that it has been translated into German, made into a German radio play, featured in at least 2 awards there, and been reviewed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. It's been recommended by the Children's Book Council of Australia. It's on the reading list of Education Services Australia. The Guardian sells it in its shop. The book is the opener to Gleitzman's Holocaust series and Wikipedia ought to have articles on all of them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamatro (revived series)[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources, and has absolutely no info in the actual article. All it is is an infobox. Page could be WP:CRYSTAL at best, but I believe it's a blatant hoax. Also, "Hamtaro" is misspelled in the article title. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Very unlikely a Japanese anime production went to a German company for a reboot. Claimed website is not available to view. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Wurtzbach[edit]

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

Non-notable person. One source has been added, so it can't be speedied as a non-referenced BLP. Should be an uncontroversial delete, given that this person has not even held a national title (being runner-up isn't good enough), but given the fact that there are ongoing issues with beauty pageant related articles, especially Phillippines related ones, I felt the AFD should be dignified with at least a discussion. Mabalu (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think that Winmelgarcia is necessarily linked to the whole epic Mrdhimas sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation, but unfortunately anyone who actively edits in the same topic areas (particularly move-warring on one of Mrdhimas's favourite pages), is bound to be viewed with suspicion. Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for other sources and couldn't find anything except articles about her being a runner-up last year and planning to compete this year. Not enough to show notability. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tried to clean up and source the article. The subject primarily gets attention as a perennial contestant in a beauty pageant. However, a HighBeam search shows coverage from The Manila Bulletin as a former ABS CBN teen actress (stage name Pia Romero). So far, she comes up short on both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination until such time that sufficient sourcing is available to substantiate a biography. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject appears to meet the GNG as she has quite a bit of press coverage in the Phillipeans (not all in English, but that is not an issue): [20] --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what is this coverage exactly? Is it related solely to her participating in the pageant and failing to place? That is not normally considered sufficient for notability. If all she is notable for is failing to win beauty pageants, how does that make her notable? (Of course if the coverage is also related to her acting career, then that would help.) Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy based reason for excluding coverage of failed pageant entries. That is your personal opinion only. Our notability guidelines say coverage=notability, not accomplishments=notability. And she was first runner-up, so its not like she was just some random contestant. That said, she also writes regularly for the Inquirer, e.g. [21].

The discussions about American beauty pageant contestants are mostly headed toward keep. Wurtzbach has more coverage than almost all of them. It sure feels like systematic bias is at play here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Not sure what you implied with that closing statement, but I'm sure it wasn't nice. As far as I can tell we've never considered runner-ups notable unless they have other reasons to be notable - any contestant will get "coverage" simply by being mentioned in coverage of these shows, but it's hardly significant coverage. By this reasoning I think you're suggesting that anybody who gets regularly mentioned in a national newspaper's society column as being seen at parties or social events would be considered Wikipedia-article-worthy? Blimey, by that reasoning, /I/ would deserve a Wikipedia article of my own, because I've had ongoing multiple mentions in newspapers/magazines/other media since the 1980s, but I'm pretty sure that the fact no straight man would want to see me in a bikini makes me non-notable. ;) Mabalu (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, nothing was implied other than exactly what the term means, see WP:Systematic bias. We've never ever considered anyone not notable based on insufficient accomplishments. That isn't how notability works on Wikipedia; it is not a synonym for "important". The definition of notability is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". There is nothing in the guideline about judging the reason for said coverage. Finally, you are confusing "mentioned" with "has significant coverage". When someone is mentioned in an article about another subject, that doesn't count for notability. When the article is about them, they do. Here, if Wurtzbach was merely mentioned in articles about the pageant then you'd be current that they confer no notability. However, what we actually have is many article about her that mention the pageant. That does convey notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention in reliable sources (such as this one) but none which I would considered providing in-depth or significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Subject has not won any notable pageants therefore fails WP:ANYBIO & does not have a document cult following or meet other criteria set forth in WP:ENTERTAINER. Therefore, it maybe too soon for the subject to be considered notable. That being said I would not be opposed to this article being incubated in case the subject receives more reliable sources coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ThaddeusB, "meet the GNG as she has quite a bit of press coverage in the Phillipeans" WordSeventeen (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Received quite some coverage, but not too in-depth coverage. Most of the coverage only expend a couple sentences on the pageant. Esquivalience ^t 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than just a beauty pageant contestant, a working actress (since age 11 -- supporting her family) and model, gets substantive write-ups in Philippine media such as here and here and here and here and here and here. Meets the WP:GNG. Plus article upgraded (cruft removed) as per WP:HEYMANN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the linked sources are about the pageants which the subject has been involved in and not in-depth coverage of the subject as the primary subject of the sources provided.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wurtzbach is the subject of several articles, with her name mentioned in the headline, the article discussing her (of course in the context of the pageant), with her photo prominent, which meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title mention does not equal in-depth or significant coverage. A paragraph does not in-depth or significant coverage make.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:08, 20 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Sweden, Rome[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. There is also no bilateral article to redirect this to. Also nominating:

Embassy of India, Rome
Embassy of Colombia, Holy See LibStar (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - I'm sorry. What happened there again? :P Jackninja5 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually nominated 3 articles. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I should've put my glasses on. So make that three. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The swedish embassy in Rome is notable because the italo-swedush relations are important for both country. As exemple thousand of Italians live in Sweden, Italy and Sweden are not two small country with less than 1 milion citizen.User:Lucifero4

that may be true but that's facts for a Italy Sweden bilateral article. you haven't demonstrated how WP:ORG is met, an embassy must meet notability criteria not be "important" for people. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all If embassies aren't notable, that needs to change immidiately or else Wikipedia experiences a major lack in the coverage of bilateral relations and international politics. J 1982 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've presented no evidence or argument as to how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin should disregard the two votes immediately above, which make no policy-based argument whatsoever. Neutrality^talk 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of facts that are not at the moment to be found in the article itself but can easily be retrieved from other sources and which show that there is more relevance than "meets the eye" at the moment. First of all: as can be seen in the corresponding article on svwp the list of ambassadors could be drawn back at least to the mid-18th century. Secondly: the 1960s building mentioned in the present article and in this link is only a part of the embassy (used by the administration). There is also the main residence of the ambassador, which is a building from 1896, bought by the Swedish state in 1922; see this link (which also points out that there has been diplomatic relations between Sweden and Italy since the 15th century, making this embassy (as an institution) Sweden's oldest). /FredrikT (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Schou[edit]

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

While the subject of this article has made contributions to his academic field, I do not believe that he has passed the threshold of notability required by WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, the article appears to be mostly self-authored, a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTION. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His University Professor title gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5 despite the relatively weak citation record. But it's only a weak keep because apart from that the evidence is less clear to me and also because of the autobio issue. The article could stand to be stubbed back to something more encyclopedic; I have made a start (removing the listings of his courses and grants) but more could be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF#C5 requires that the professor's university be "a major institution of higher education and research" (emphasis mine), and defines "major institutions" as "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity". I would not say that Idaho State University has a reputation for excellence or selectivity in either education or research, much less both. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources indicate that he has been a fellow and a board member for (ISC)², as well as editor-in-chief of the organization's journal. I have no knowledge regarding the significance of the organization or its journal, but I'm just putting this out there. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:55, 14 February 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. Missvain (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AB Elise[edit]

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

Title is a company, article is only about a "product" design, no indication of notability per WP:CORP Deunanknute (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving this to Eco-city 2020 and removing the spam? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentI don't think "Eco-city 2020" should get an article at all. It's a conceptual design. I haven't found any reference to it being "officially" considered for construction. Deunanknute (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many conceptual designs have an article, including those who are less notable (by google results) than this design. For example, Scandinavian Tower and Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle. --Virtualerian (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment from a quick search; both[22] of those[23] appear to have been approved, then cancelled. Deunanknute (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, From what I can gather it's just proposals at the moment, I'm assuming this is being built in 2020 which if that's the case than this should be recreated in 2017/2018 when things should've hopefully moved ahead. –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 19 February 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. The provided reliable sources appear to meet the notability requirements for this article. Nakon 04:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOOK PianoDan (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an older book the reviews available online may be a little lacking, but there seems to be little doubt that it had an impact judging by the number of citations. A look on Google Scholar shows 241 citations. Studies/analyses have been conducted based on this book, for example, The Conway and Siegelman claims against religious cults: An assessment of their data published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. In Deprogramming, brainwashing and the medicalization of deviant religious groups, the authors talk about the book being "their widely read Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change...". Talked about directly (more than a brief mention, more than just a citation) in a whole lot of papers and books like Religion in America since 1945: A History (Columbia University Press via Questia), Social Theory and Social Policy: Essays in Honor of James S. Coleman (Praeger via Questia), many times in Teaching New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press via Questia), Bill Bright & Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America (University of North Carolina Press via Questia), Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation (Greenwood Press via Questia), New Religions as Global Cultures: Making the Human Sacred (Westview Press via Questia), The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives (University of British Columbia Press via Questia), New Religious Movements in the United States and Canada: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Greenwood Press via Questia), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press via Questia)..... I still have about a dozen tabs open but will stop there as I know it's annoying to have a pile of paywalled links (published provided for each to crossreference elsewhere -- and to show that these are good sources). Seems like it easily passes notability standards. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I caution reliance on the Google Scholar citation count. For example, the list above includes The Conway and Siegelman claims against religious cults: An assessment of their data. The relevant passage in that article is "...In one of the most read and widely-cited articles of this latter type, Conway and Siegelman (1982), the authors of Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change (1979), claim..." which is not about the book in question here, but rather about a 1982 article. In general, this field is pretty fringe and one finds a large number of reprints, compilations, "encyclopedias", etc. all citing each other. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established because no substantial coverage by secondary sources cited. The one secondary source cited in the article is about an article that was a source for the book, not about the book itself. The fact that it's mentioned and/or cited in other books and articles does not establish general notability or notability for books (which policy has fairly high standards.) Borock (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been around since 2005 and still has no secondary sources cited that discuss the book itself.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Cunard was making an eleventh-hour post as I was closing this. Given the content of his post, I'm WP:IAR'ing and relisting this instead of closing it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the long list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
1. From Library Journal:
  In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries.
  Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.
2. From Scientific American:
  Explores the way cults and other factors are causing people to give themselves over to those like David Koresh of Waco infamy, or becoming walking time bombs like Timothy McVeigh, the alleged perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing...a powerful look at a social phenomenon that is making headlines.
3. From The New Yorker:
  Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening.
4. "Snapping" is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research which has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind. -- Kurt Vonnegut
5. Classic returns....More timely now than when first published....An important title for academic and public libraries. -- Library Journal
6. Conway and Siegelman are onto something important..."Snapping" is a fascinating book with frightening implications. -- Edward T. Hall, author of "The Silent Language"
7. Conway and Siegelman deliver a powerful book and an amazing yet responsible look at the inner workings of the human mind. -- The Examined Life: A Psychology Newsletter
8. In a prophetic vein again...."Snapping" is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written....The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a "death spiral" seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex. -- Cleveland Jewish News
9. It is a book of investigative reporting at its best. -- New York Post
10. What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults. -- United Press International
11. What are the social links between cultists, born-again converts, and political extremists? There are closer connections than one might think, and this labels the alteration of personality which has become an American norm, examining how mind-altering practices change the brain's information processing system. Intriguing examples of cult extremes accompany the authors' contentions. -- Midwest Book Review
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book reviews from Library Journal, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Cleveland Jewish News, United Press International, and Midwest Book Review clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage provided by Amazon.com:
1. "Classic Returns!....In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries." - Library Journal
2. "Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening." - The New York Times Book Review
3. "It is a book of investigative reporting at its best." - New York Post
4. "What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults." - United Press International
5. "Credible and chilling . . . The second edition of SNAPPING is as important a resource in understanding spreading societal chaos as the first edition was in explaining the chaos of cults." - Minneapolis Star-Tribune
6. "Important. . . . this book provides a tool to exercise judgment, monitor incoming information, and interpret what has become an increasingly intrusive battle for our minds. . . . At its core, it is language that holds the key to our mental health or to our destruction. What George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' is to literature, 'SNAPPING' is to non-fiction." - Albuquerque Journal
7. "In a prophetic vein. . . . SNAPPING is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written. . . . The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a 'death spiral' seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex." - Cleveland Jewish News
8. "For anyone threatened with snapping, this book is a dispassionate, valuable study of an often frightening phenomenon." - People
9. "There is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are opening the door on areas of human understanding that have never been examined and that are in urgent need of study." - New Society
10. "SNAPPING is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research that has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind." - Kurt Vonnegut
11. "SNAPPING is by far the best and most scientific treatment of the cult problem yet published. For the scientist, politician, clergy or parent, it is valuable and wonderfully readable." - John Gordon Clark, M.D. Asst. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School
12. "Conway and Siegelman . . . place cultic behavior in the wider context of the communication revolution of our time. . . Indeed, SNAPPING unfolds as a traveling detective investigation. . . . they very capably trace and analyze the course of the phenomenon and . . . contribute greatly to our understanding of it." - The Cult Observer
13. "Conway and Siegelman are onto something important. . . . SNAPPING is a fascinating book with frightening implications." - Edward T. Hall, author of The Silent Language
14. "[The] classic book on cults, still the best book ever. . . . Believe me, folks, these are the real experts." - Geraldo Rivera
Cunard (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kitfoxxe- Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please keep. I will try to improve the article by citing texts that define terms correctly and adding citations and reliable sources. SNAPPING is now a classic reference book on this subject matter and time period. The book has been used as a reference for many articles, dissertations, MA theses and research projects in many fields including religion, psychology, medicine, and newer fields actually dealing with deprogramming and the distinctions made regarding the technologies of "information overload", "brainwashing" -- "snapping" and the "epidemic" of cult phenomena, and now there may even be possible current sub-categories that deal with this "disease" / phenomena within politics, multilevel marketing, social media, etc. The fact that users search wiki to FIND "anything" wiki has on this book as a reference for others is a sign that Wiki is a viable source and so it is important for wiki to keep the book. I agree that the article needs work but I will need time to get and link the right sources, etc. Again, in terms of its "classic" status as a reference, this book seems to stand on its own merits and the original research of its authors apart from any other books they may have authored.Startarrant (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I'm very confused how WP:NBOOK can be cited as reason for a delete when it clearly says "two or more ... this includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." (emphasis mine). Looking up there are clearly more than two reviews from notable and reputable sources. —Noah 16:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Noah - The above are Blurbs and don't meet the "non-trivial", "independent" requirement for reviews (see the footnotes in NBOOK). They are solicited by the publisher (and some don't appear to be about this book). Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Keeping my keep for now... even with some percentage of what has been mentioned above being discarded there seems to be enough citations of this book to establish notability. Such as: 1, 2, 3. —Noah 17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I don't dispute that the book has been cited by others, I just don't think it meets the notability requirements for a standalone article. Thanks for the link to 1973 Nervous Breakdown - it looks interesting and I'm going to find a copy of that for myself. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeairn: I haven't read it myself but it does look appealing. I suppose the opening Warhol epigraph was meant to be ironic? The '70s were most certainly not empty. —Noah 17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources in article. It does not matter how many random Amazon blurbs you post here, these are not sources for the notability of the article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources in article. – There is no deadline.
It does not matter how many random Amazon blurbs you post here, these are not sources for the notability of the article. – the snippets I posted from Amazon.com are small quotes from reviews of the book by Library Journal, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Cleveland Jewish News, United Press International, Midwest Book Review, The New York Times Book Review, New York Post, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, People, and New Society.
It is ignorant to say that these small quotes are all blurbs. There are a few blurbs above (like the ones cited to people rather than actual newspaper or magazine publications). But the overwhelming majority are reviews from newspaper or magazine publications, which do not write promotional blurbs for books.
Those reviews strongly support Rhododendrites (talk · contribs)'s assertion that "As an older book the reviews available online may be a little lacking, but there seems to be little doubt that it had an impact judging by the number of citations."
Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add comments in the middle of my comments. I've refactored the discussion so that our comments are not interspersed.
I disagree that the article must have the sources. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP is applicable. Startarrant (talk · contribs) has expressed interest in rewriting the article. Per WP:NOTDEADLINE, we should give him and any other interested users the time to do so. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not indicate notability. I can make up anything and post it on Wikipedia, but it won't be kept just because I say my friend will rewrite it. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From your essay on NOTDEADLINE, "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." This supports deletion by suggesting you should have waited for notability to be established to write the article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument above that the quotes from Amazon are "blurbs" is just false. For your referencing pleasure, here are a few of the full citations:
- Library Journal -- Book Review: Psychology & Psychiatry -- Conway, Flo & Jim Siegelman. Snapping: America's Epidemic of sudden personality change. [review] Library Journal. 6/1/1978, Vol. 103 Issue 11, p1180-1183. 4p.
- Library Journal -- Book Reviews: Nonfiction. By: Rogers, Michael. Library Journal. 12/1/1995, Vol. 120 Issue 20, p165. 1/8p. (note: review of the expanded edition)
- New York Times -- Paperbacks: New and noteworthy. (1980, Jan 06). New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/121183091?accountid=12725
- People Magazine brief review in "Picks and Pans"
- People Magazine full article
- also just happened to run across this one at NYT -- a primary article indeed, but one in the New York Times which was seemingly written in connection with this book: By Jim Siegelman and,Flo Conway. (1979, Nov 15). Still, jonestownism runs on. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/123920755?accountid=12725 --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am still discussing deletion of the article, not of this AfD. When I do a google search, blogs and groups come up, not these book teviews, and, with so many words of discussion, you don't find these sources notable enough to add to the article, only to discuss here, for some reaon I am not interested in exploring. MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I googled it and nothing good came up" is an unusually poor argument. WP:N is very clear about both of these issues: where notability is concerned, the sources must exist. That you don't see them in your google search is not relevant. That they're not cited in the article is not relevant. In the first place, there are links and citations above that should make finding the sources fairly straightforward. In the second, that's what maintenance templates are for (e.g. Template:Refimprove). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Mills Fire Company[edit]

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

Small town fire department in NY fails WP:GNG, only source is primary. Vrac (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is notable being historic and documented in sources such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Woodbury, Orange County, New York. After several source searches, not finding enough coverage per WP:GNG for a standalone article. Passing mentions abound such as [24], [25], [26], so the topic is verifiable. The merge target presently does not even mention this fire department. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedaway[edit]

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

I checked Google, and I didn't find much beyond a few school sites posting the rules. I'm not convinced it has enough notability for an article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something more is shown in terms of notability. There are many games played in school PE departments that don't get articles - I can't see one on Coastguards and Pirates (which definitely makes use of a very wide range of muscles and agility...). At present, there's too much reliance on two sites in the referencing, and I've put a 'citation needed' on the claim to being world-wide. Peridon (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Here's a journal cite. Pax 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:54, 14 February 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. czar ⨹ 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F. Gregory Holland[edit]

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

Autobiography with no indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no substantial coverage online from WP:RS, just passing mentions on niche blogs and self-published lists of his recordings on Discogs, CDbaby, etc. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article stresses that the subject is listed on AllAboutJazz; however, one usually has to be careful in using that site whether as a reference or in an AfD discussion, as it includes both bylined reviews and user submitted content. There is a past discussion on this in the Wikiproject Jazz archive. AllyD (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most substantial reference in this WP:SPA article submitted by User:Greg's wiki is probably the brief review of his new album on "Smooth Jazz Daily", but it falls short as a reliable source as a non-bylined review on a blog which itself has no evidence of notability. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google, Allaboutjazz, Allmusic) are not turning up evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AllyD. Looks like an extensive discography, but they all appear to be self-released (either via eponymous label, or CD Baby). I wouldn't rule out an artist's article based on self-released albums (see also: Sun Ra), if the recordings had been reviewed in a notable medium and/or by a notable reviewer. But as AllyD pointed out, that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U. T. Downs[edit]

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

Being the mayor of a small US town does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Prod was disputed; other than being a small town mayor/sheriff, only other claim to fame is being mentioned in a 1925 encyclopedia of Louisiana OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is in the Henry E. Chambers 1925 History of Louisiana with his own biography. A History of Louisiana, (vol. 2), pp. 245-246, by Henry E. Chambers. Published by The American Historical Society, Inc., Chicago and New York, 1925. This alone should meet notability concerns. That is a major work of pre-1925 Louisiana history. There is no restriction listed in the Wikipedia guidelines in regard to mayors and the population of their cities. Nor are sheriffs specifically mentioned. City council members are not mentioned; there are twelve articles on city council members for Bangor, Maine, a city of 33,000, much smaller than Rapides Parish, Louisiana, of which Mr. Downs was sheriff but larger than Pineville, where he was mayor prior to being sheriff. I found two out-of-state newspapers with articles on U. T. Downs. There won't be much else on the Internet about him since he died in 1941. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:NPOL: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[11] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. I fail to see how a small town mayor or sheriff would meet that guideline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also says "local politicians" can be covered with significant news coverage. The Chamber history should alone meet the notability test. Bangor, Maine has twelve city council members and eight mayors. So if a mayor/sheriff does not qualify, how does a city council member in Bangor, Maine, qualify? Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)A "local politician" should cover a mayor or a sheriff, or in this case, one who held both offices.Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a two page encyclopedia article about him, and newspaper coverage, he will satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source: http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/rapides/bios/downsut.txt Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:BASIC, which indicates that people who meet WP:GNG may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria (such as WP:NPOL).--Antigng (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Pratapgarhi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (yarn) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (utter) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -There appears to be some bit of coverage of subject in few reliable sources such as, -[27], [28], [29], [30]. However they are not enough to help subject meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG standard (majority of the sources are only having passing/short mentions). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to a redirect proposal. Anupmehra is right about numerous mentions in reliable sources. Noteswork (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of progress, not enough notable for having separate article. Noteswork (talk) 15:22, 14 February 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 VIXX. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N (singer)[edit]

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

I don't see any reason why this person should be notable outside of his own band, VIXX; the only thing he seems to have done by himself is be on TV a few times and guest in a video clip or two. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to VIXX. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of individual notability outside of his group. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I see no true reason for a single/individual article. Redirect to VIXX BlackJack58 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyro[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC Cult of Green (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find interviews, including this one but I'm seeing a lot of name association with him, which would contradict WP:NOTINHERITED --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I had to ponder on this but I was able to dig further and find some coverage from some reputable magazines/ news feed. Including Vibe magazine. BlackJack58 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Fernández (director)[edit]

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

It's in Spanish, I think. I don't actually know Spanish. It could be in Portuguese. Either way, it's not in English. k_scheik (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-wrong tag to put on it, you don't put a afd for a article in another language. Anyway, can't say keep or delete. I put the right tag up on the article though. (I know only a little Spanish and that's it) Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tagged this as a speedy since it already exists on the Spanish language Wikipedia here. If anyone wants to translate this into English they can, but all articles should be in English. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note it does say that he's won some Emmys, but I'm having some slight trouble actually finding anything to back this up. His IMDb doesn't say anything about that and while the site will sometimes not have every award on there, the Emmys are one of the more major American awards out there. Even when they're regional they tend to be listed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article is now in English (although it possibly could use a little editing for style) and there are sources. I am not sure if his career actually passes notability, but it seems to. The reasons above do not justify deleting though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:51, 14 February 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 Veil of Maya. Nakon 04:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Magyar[edit]

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

Looking over this-it seems this could just be redirected to the band. Wgolf (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Magyar is the lead vocalist of the band who's had a major influence and in some eyes, is the reason, for the entire Djent metal scene. He's been highly controversial among the fans and a major topic in metal sources and the blogosphere. He's without a doubt having an impact on the this scene of music and plays an important and crucial role in the telling of the Dent metal scene story. Lukas Magyar is relevant and a Wikipedia notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkMayo (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Lukas, we know this is you who made this page and it's you who just wrote that. I highly doubt if you never joined Veil of Maya nobody would have ever heard their name in this entire life. You have an ego the size of Jupiter. Your arrogance is insane. You are not James Hetfield or Ronnie James Dio. What the hell, dude? You've been part of a deathcore band for only a few weeks!!! Second Skin (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Veil of Maya. He was confirmed as replacement lead singer of this band one week ago, and it is far too soon to have an article about him. The article is based mostly on Facebook speculation and social media rumormongering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. He was speculated in November and confirmed January 1, 2015. If he fell of the earth tomorrow, his impression on the djent scene has been profound. Currently he stands as the central reason for the band who began this scene to shift the style of the metal style as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.170.126 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rediect, either one I don't care. This was just some page made by Lukas who obviously has an insanely huge ego. Needs to get over himself. He's not a rockstar just because he's been in a popular deathcore band for a month. Second Skin (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-So it is a COI page also? (And are the IP edits possible sock puppets of him too?) Well that is interesting. Never even heard of this person or anything about this band until well, the other day!Wgolf (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. Too soon, most sources are to facebook and twitter, blogs. Then there are the other troubling issues with COI / autobiography. This member needs to be discovered by some reliable sources. Fylbecatulous talk 12:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas did not create this page. I did. I have no past relationship with him other than meeting him briefly last year. I am working on laying down the foundry for a project I am putting together on the Djent scene. My intention was to build and create Wiki pages for guys like Spencer Sotelo, Marc Ocubo and Tosin Abasi who've all had major influences or helped trail blaze this style of metal. Reason for beginning with Lukas is I began my research back in September with Veil of Maya when the VOM story got increasingly interesting. Lukas, was the center of it. This is likely TMI, but to be fair to him and the band, I just wanted to clear his name of any wrong doing. I've already relocated the content on Lukas to the Veil of Maya page. Would anyone like to do me the courtesy of telling me whether or not the names listed above are WIKI worthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkMayo (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've already created my first Wiki mistake. How do we delete this page? Could someone please inform me on the people listed above?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Music (album)[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUM Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clèmerson Merlin Clève[edit]

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

No exceptional notability established other than being a jurist, professor and lawyer. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:N requires that article topics be notable, not exceptionally notable, so the nomination does not appear to advance a valid rationale for deletion. Multiple papers with 100+ cites is notability in any field. I suspect that a GS h-index of 14 will also satisfy criteria 1 of WP:PROF in this field. Law is apparently a very low citation field for academics. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor (2.8) is the lowest of any of the social sciences, significantly less than the average across all such disciplines (4.9), and far below the number suggested by Hirsch for a (full) professor of physics (18). James500 (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro[edit]

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

This sounds like a local bar in a small town with no history. And it's not even open anymore. It operated for all of three years and nothing important seems to have happened there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strassburguesa (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 01:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Single-location, apparently unsuccessful, short-lived, now-closed restaurant. The article lists a few references but they are standard here's-a-restaurant-in-our-area type stories. (I was almost fooled by the Huffington Post reference into thinking it got national coverage; turns out that was the Los Angeles Huffington Post.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. This really needn't have been relisted... Neutrality^talk 06:36, 15 February 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 Transwikify to Wikisource. I will be moving these articles to User:Ariostos's userspace so they may move it as necessary. Nakon 04:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States political party platforms[edit]

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

This article consists of the full text of various party platforms of political parties in the United States from the 19th and 20th centuries. However, WP:NOTREPOSITORY states that Wikipedia articles are not merely "collections of ... public domain or other source material such as ... original historical documents". Such content may be appropriate on Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. See also the guideline Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. These are indeed lengthy primary sources. I would not object to these platforms being transwikied to Wikisource, but it should be considered whether some of them may be subject to copyright and thus should not be placed on Wikisource. (I take no position on whether that should prevent the transwikiing of any of the platforms, but I just wanted to raise it as an issue.) However, I recommend that this article be deleted from Wikipedia. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a bloody long time since I created that article and, since concentrating on collecting data for American Third Parties and their Electoral Performances, I've been distracted and finally entirely forgot about it. I have never been totally clear with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding what can be placed where so, if it would be better that this material be transferred to Wikisource, which I frankly have never heard of prior, then it should be done. The section was merely meant as a repository for Political Party Platforms after I was told to cut down their size on Presidential Election pages in favor of a summary, with the eventual option to link directly to the platform itself within the Wikipedia system. Predictably not all of the Parties had access to their platforms online, and a number of them required me to type them up directly from texts such as the Union Party, the Anti-Imperialist League, the People's Party, the Farmer-Labor Party, and so on. I would ultimately then recommend at the very least a move of those entries not accessible online to Wikisource, should the page(s) in question be deleted, if not all the entries. --Ariostos (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is also a repository of party platforms which are primary sources:

I haven't found any other American political parties which have separate lists of their political platforms on Wikipedia pages in this format; List of the political platforms of the Republican Party of the United States does not exist, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanswikify both List of Political Party Platforms and List of Democratic Party Platforms to Wikisource as they are texts of primary documents. (I've always wanted to use that recommendation in a deletion debate!). Carrite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify both, per Carrite. And put links in appropriate places so that readers know they exist. Currently they are both orphans. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Stet[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for WP:NN. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments enclosed are from accounts confirmed to have engaged in sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 04:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Artist meets WP:MUS and WP:NN from being apart of a notable national Tour(Hosted by BET Networks, Viacom). Also received and is still receiving heavy radio spins from notable radio networks and Music Video networks. Content rotation including SiriusXM Radio,MTV and many other notable networks. Also, I noticed the artists already have registered lyrics and has worked with many notable musicians, linked to the page. Sec12345 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - BlackJack58 (talk · contribs) attempted to close this discussion as speedy keep, but I've reverted for obvious reasons. Let the discussion continue. ansh 666 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Dear Users please lets wait until a clear consensus is reach before closing a discussion whether you favor or disapprove. Also, try to leave the closing to more experienced users and not the obvious less experienced. Thanks for your participation, also wiki has advice/help articles, for new and less experienced users to help make better decisions. Topdog2014 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep: With capability of being Strong keep. Included sources in article shows requirement for notable musician. Meets more than one requirement. Was able to find additional reputable sources as well including major broadcastings. Also I noticed this article has been updated and have good faith edits from other editors. Chosenone Pie (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep I will say this meet the notability requirement. Don't really see any major issues. Cec2020 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments enclosed are from accounts confirmed to have engaged in sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 04:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Artist meets WP:MUS and WP:NN from being apart of a notable national Tour(Hosted by BET Networks, Viacom). Also received and is still receiving heavy radio spins from notable radio networks and Music Video networks. Content rotation including SiriusXM Radio,MTV and many other notable networks. Also, I noticed the artists already have registered lyrics and has worked with many notable musicians, linked to the page. Sec12345 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BlackJack58 (talk · contribs) attempted to close this discussion as speedy keep, but I've reverted for obvious reasons. Let the discussion continue. ansh 666 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear Users please lets wait until a clear consensus is reach before closing a discussion whether you favor or disapprove. Also, try to leave the closing to more experienced users and not the obvious less experienced. Thanks for your participation, also wiki has advice/help articles, for new and less experienced users to help make better decisions. Topdog2014 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With capability of being Strong keep. Included sources in article shows requirement for notable musician. Meets more than one requirement. Was able to find additional reputable sources as well including major broadcastings. Also I noticed this article has been updated and have good faith edits from other editors. Chosenone Pie (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will say this meet the notability requirement. Don't really see any major issues. Cec2020 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable, meets none of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, falls far short of general notability. Possibly a paid editing job, certainly a strong COI as the editor creating the article went out of their way to avoid scrutiny, creating at least half a dozen sock puppet accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NMUSIC. Rampant sock puppetry is an indication of conflict of interest knowing this article fails notability. LibStar (talk) 15:29, 14 February 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. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent city[edit]

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

The article is almost completely unsourced and seems to be pure WP:OR. Not a single source supports the definition used in the article. Delete and redirect to City-state or Independent city (disambiguation). Zanhe (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. No reason this can't be created into an article. It is a noted thing in many countries that major cities are removed from the local/state government and come directly under federal or state government. It needs referencing yes. And the proposed redirects make no sense anyway. Also see Independent city (United States), Independent cities of Germany and Category:Independent cities. The article name is not good however, a better term that is more common needs to be found. Also don't confuse with Autonomous city. If you want usage of the term, see [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only country where the term "independent city" is clearly defined is the United States (as shown in your links above), which has its own article at Independent city (United States). The German cities are called kreisfreie Stadt or "County-Free City". The first-tier Chinese cities are called Direct-controlled municipalities, which are NEVER called independent cities. The US independent cities are county-level divisions, while the cities of China and most other countries listed in the article are all provincial-level divisions. A truly independent city should be sovereign, i.e., a city-state. This article mixes all these diverse concepts together and labels them all as "independent city" without any supporting source, which violates WP:NOR. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, if it's only a US thing merge Independent city (United States) into this article and turn it into a US focused article. I will note, the Chinese ones are called independent cities by the western media (I provided a link that does just that). JT_dale^Talk~ 23:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Independent city (United States) into this article sounds fine to me, but mixing the US concept with cities of other countries is a bad idea. If we applied the US definition of independent city (cities that do not belong to any county) to China, for example, then every Chinese city would be an independent city, because all Chinese cities are at levels equal or above counties. See Administrative divisions of China. -Zanhe (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article has several flaws as mentioned (fuzzy scope and definition, lack of sources, unclear structure). But it could provide a first good overview over the various types of independent (and "sort of independent") cities. It's certainly a valid encyclopedic topic. GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your argument is not based on policy. WP:NOR stipulates that Wikipedia should not contain ideas for which no reliable sources exist. As mentioned above, there is no clear definition of "independent city" outside of the United States, and applying to US concept to cities worldwide is original research. The vague concept of "sort of independent" cities is best handled in the disambiguation page Independent city (disambiguation), not a full-blown article composed of nothing but unreferenced OR. -Zanhe (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as international phenomenon[edit]

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

This seems to be an excessive split from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and largely states the obvious e.g. the Adams books were published and broadcast in a large number of countries (this could be summed up in a couple of sentences in the main article). Overall this seems to be a rambling, unsourced, over-detailed fan page, cited only to the books themselves. At best I'd say there should be a selective merger to the main article. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and heavily rework focusing on cultural impact and legacy; trim out the publication cataloging. —Noah 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems to be an overflowing dumpster of trivia. Certainly not an encyclopedic title as named. Carrite (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : once you remove the excessive publications WP:IINFO, (nothing notable about books being translated or published in a country) you're primarily left with stage and TV adaptations, and undue, possibly OR comparisons of translation notes. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy already covers stage, radio, TV, and film adaptations, and any non-redundant, actually noteworthy content on "international phenomenon" should be concisely summarized in the section. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above regarding the adaptations. And the rest - lists of what books have been translated into what languages - simply doesn't deserve its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The current article title kind of terrible, much of the text undue and poorly sourced, but there are enough extant sources to sustain a Cultural impact of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article (which seems to be another way of framing this). I'd also probably suggest merging Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rhododendrites' idea is interesting, but I just don't think I could ever vote to keep an article with this title. If we're not going to keep this title or content, why not just start over from scratch? You could just rename the Phrases article into cultural impact, couldn't you? Maybe I'm missing something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be on to something there. —Noah 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's obviously no need for a separate article on this topic. Any relevant information can go in the article about the book/radio series. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Powell[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Most of the article is about his connection to Jesselyn Radack, but her article doesn't even mention him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notable. Nakon 03:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. While he appear to exist (see http://www.justice.gov/oig/about/docs/inv.pdf), I could find no secondary sources confirming the incidents mentioned in the article or supporting notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 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. Closing without prejudice to recreating article from scratch. Nakon 04:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Prison Ministry[edit]

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

This "article" is only an extract of primary sources, written by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (see its talk page). Achieving a neutral article would require a rewrite. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure (and prune) to an article on International Commission of Catholic Prison Pastoral Care. The subject is worth an article, but the present one will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: It would be great if we could just decree the rewrite of an article, but I'm not in a position to rewrite it and I'm not sure if the author of the article is. So do you want to keep the article or delete it? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Peterkingiron: and @Qwertyus: For some reason I would donate my time to repairing this article, but I'm confused. Is this about a specific organization called "Catholic Prison Ministry" or is it about Catholic prison ministries in general? The only thing I found in my 2-second Googling of "Catholic Prison Ministry" was a charity by that name in Australia. Please ping me or write on my talk page b/c I will never remember I wrote this. Wikimandia (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is awful, but surely its problems don't justify deletion? Is the organization notable or not? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article contained much copyrighted material, now removed. Of what remains, only the part below the TOC is original, the lead was taken from Chaplain and Ukraine prison ministry. Crow^Caw 22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Dunne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP created and maintained by subject directly or by proxy. Was deleted as A7 in January 2014. Article was at AfD in June 2014 and was interestingly non-admin closed as Keep after only 1 re-listing based on the keep !vote of 1 editor whose only edit was partly substantiated by self-published sources. Left is

One source is not about subject but briefly mentions him as a producer.([36])
Two sources from 2006 mentions the non-notable band Lotus Lullaby subject performed in: one of these does not mention subject,([37]) the other is not about the band or the subject and only mentions the band and subject briefly.([38])
One source is a short article about subject's music on the non-notable website Nerd Like You. Here everybody can submit an article if "you have a nerdy passion and you are able to string a fairly decent sentence together",([39]) and although the writer, Tom Hoover,([40]) is a regular and self-described "nerd and aspiring multimedia artist [who] enjoys watching bad movies and playing retro video games", nothing here gives the impression of a reliable source. The writer is not a journalist, and the site has no record of fact checking.
One source is a 11 minute interview done by WGTB, a student-run internet radio station at Georgetown University.([41])
One source is a review of his 2014 record Vistas on the website Sputnik Music. Again much like Nerd Like You above, this is a community run site, and the reviewer is not a journalist.
The one reliable source used as a reference, Billboard, quotes subject regarding an incidence with Youtube and copyright, but is not about subject.

All in all we are a far cry from meeting WP:MUSBIO, and none of the above adds up to meeting WP:BASIC. Delete. -- Sam ^Sing! 12:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed that 1st discussion as Keep as JT was interested in saving it so thought Meh why not, Looking back at it I'm surprised it was never taken to DRV!, These days my AFD closures are alot better than that thank god , Thanks Sam Sailor for renominating :) - (I apologize for commenting on this whilst closed but felt I ought to explain the poor closure back then) –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour l'enfer (compilation, France 1985)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any sources to indicate its importance. Best, .jona ^talk 20:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:A9 applies as far as I can tell. Square_(band) formed in 2000 (well after that compilation) and ADX is a disambiguation page with no musical band in it. Tigraan (talk) 16:18, 16 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Dotti[edit]

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

No indication of notability, the content is non-neutral and largely not based on reliable sources, which do not exist in sufficient number and level of detail. Huon (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note previously deleted per G11, unambiguous advertising under a previous title Carolina Tinoco. Also some drafts located at Draft:Nina Dotti, Draft:Carolina Tinoco Diaz, and Draft:Carolina Tinoco Diaz (2). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also at Draft:Carolina Tinoco. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notable. Nakon 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Professional Solutions[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unnecessary content fork. This can be included on the main Sony article. Lack of independent 3rd party references too JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article describes a significant subsidiary of Sony, which deals with a major sector (broadcasting) and is the provider of a number of TV Channels' cameras and control room equipment. Furthermore, there is a page for Sony Broadcast & Professional Research Laboratories, which only consists of solely 3 lines. This article is a) by far not completed and b) already more detailed than the Research Laboratories article. Moreover, SPS is one of the world's leaders in broadcasting, invented 4k technology, and was the first organisation to produce a 3D OB Unit. In terms of merging it into Sony: The article Sony is very long and therefore it wouldn't be appropriate to add all information about SPS in that page, whereas it can be done in this article. For all these reasons, I believe this is significant enough for the page to remain. Muffingg (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sony. @Muffingg: such claims should be substantiated with reference to reliable sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not going to !vote or do any research here because I have a COI, but this is an important company. They (and now Panasonic) are the leading suppliers of equipment to the broadcast news industry, often because they invented it. For example, the official sites in our articles on Betacam and XDCAM are this company. To find 3rd-party sources, it might be better to search simply for "Sony Professional". That will get hits for the equipment that shoots what you see on the news on TV. About merging to Sony, that could be done, but within Sony it's a different division and a different class of products. The ones in Sony are the ones that are familiar to consumers. –– Margin1522 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:43, 14 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Infinite 1st World Tour[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NTOUR, which requires in-depth discussion in reliable sources of the tour as a tour, not just reviews or listings of dates. The only thing is here a note from Billboard saying they're choosing different venues--that's hardly enough to rise to the level of notability per GNG; existence is not notability. The rest is all tracklists and calendar info. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 03:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While this article does need some expanding, there is no consensus to delete. Nakon 03:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of courts which publish audio or video of arguments[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE: only a table, without any claim of significance. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Oral arguments in court cases are per se significant, as are the courts themselves. Because only a minority of courts have public access to those records, the fact that one does is significant. It's new; give it some time to get fleshed out before jumping to delete. --Sai ¿?✍ 17:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the list just needs an explanation written for it's existence because I see information like [42] which talks about the controversy in the first amendment regarding publishing of court video and audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs)

See here for a whole bunch on that exact issue re video in the US Supreme Court. -- Sai ¿?✍ 18:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination does not advance a valid rationale for deletion. This article does not fall under any of the criteria of INDISCRIMATE as it not a plot summary, lyrics database, listing of statistics or log of software updates. Nor does it contain anything remotely similar. In England, the publication of sound recordings or photography of legal proceedings is certainly significant as (in the absence of leave) it is respectively punishable as contempt of court under section 9(1)(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and as an offence under section 41(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (as amended in either case by sections 31 and 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and excluded by orders made under section 32). James500 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this list is particularly useful. A large number of courts in the U.S. post oral argument audio or video. This page is just a list of links to the URLs where that audio/video can be found for some of those court. This seems to fall under both WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Perhaps if some of the First Amendment discussion directly related to the availability of audio/video of court proceedings online and linked to this article, it would be worth keeping. But I do not think that is currently the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osuadh (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument not for deletion, but for improvement. I have no objection to improving it. Be bold and do so. ;-) --Sai ¿?✍ 19:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WebBiographies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting: this is about a minor blogging site which was started by a notable figure in the internet world in 2006 but generated little or no income and had very little activity after 2010 except for a few entries in 2011. The website has been up for sale for at least 6 months and maybe more. There were discussions about deletion in 2007 and 2012 but no consensus. Now there isn't even a website. Chris55 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not a notable company even when it existed. I'm going to be lazy (expedient?) and just quote Starblind from the 2nd nomination: "While it being defunct isn't necessarily an issue, as far as I can tell it never really got off the ground at all. The original AFD says it had an "alexa rank over 100,000 for 5 months" even in its heyday, and it seems to have been one of countless thousands of forgotten contenders in the 'let's make another Myspace' gold rush of the mid-2000s." Also, amusing quote from the website's creator in the MIT ref: "...at that point we seal your biography and it's never deleted, and is stored free or charge.". —Noah 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the creator of this article, but I don't think it stands up to current notability guidelines Shii (tock) 22:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another startup that got a decent amount of publicy around launch time, and some further coverage, and never made it. Like many others. Very few do. I've been argued down in the past for !voting to delete startups that were less successful than this one, under WP:NTEMP. If someone could do the research and find the "going out business" notice and what happened to the biographies, and updated the article to reflect that, I would !vote to keep it. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few brief mentions in genealogy books, but not significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MKVToolNix[edit]

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

Not notable. Mostly first party sources, with the exceptions of brief mention in a tutorial, and promotional pieces on Softpedia which anyway is not a reliable secondary source. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Matroska/MKV is notable, then MKVToolNix is also notable. And like ODF is not merged with LO, these two should stay separate. P.S. I have added non-primary sources. Absolwent (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t work like that. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF whether another article exists, and so its topic is notable, is not a reason to keep this one. Certainly the status of two very different topics (Open Document Format and Libre Office ?) is entirely irrelevant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is format and tool(s) to manipulate the format analogy... Each of this particular pair is notable (not that there is a rule for that, just in the world of Matroska, if you decide that MKV is important then MKVToolNix is important, even if you never use it). The second issue was incorporation of the tool description into the format description, so if you look at ODF, PDF, etc. not only at MKV you will realize that it makes sense to have articles for tools separate from articles for formats. Absolwent (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. What in your opinion article or MKVToolNix are missing?[reply]

Nonsense. I could write my own MKV processing utilities in a few days. Would that make them notable? No. Only reliable third-party sources would. — Keφr 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your not yet existing MKV tools are not 11 years old in 19 languages, and have not yet made it into admittedly obscure Apple patents, a Forensics book, Linux Journal articles, an "official" matroska.org site, reputable (counting article links) video software sites, the unanimously unreliable but nevertheless often referenced Softpedia, wikidata, frwiki, and a Commons help page. The help page was the reason for this requested article; together with mkvmerge it's useful for a few other pages. I've removed "stub" after adding the infobox, the topic is covered, ~~only~~ the genre is ~~still~~ ~~TBD~~fixed. The alexa ranking 110,537 globally surprised me. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Updated: Be..anyone (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the record, this tool is my favorite. But its article? Unfortunately, it is written like an advertisement. The article also fails to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Oh, and Absolwent, notability is not inherited. Sorry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the advertisement argument, sorry. Articles can be rewritten to be more informative and less advertorial, and they don't need to be deleted for that. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep and expand. After checking the references for the article, I no longer believe that this is non-notable given the reviews by non-affiliated sources, as well as the tools being cited in two different technology patents from Apple. There are certainly issues with content that need to be corrected (i.e. make it less of an advertisement) but I don't see that as grounds for deletion -- just grounds for fixing the article. Merge into the main Matroska article, or delete and add a section in that article about MKVToolNix. I hate the deletionist attitude towards non-notable articles, but honestly, the only people who'll even be looking up MKVToolNix on here are people who already know the software and just want to see what Wikipedia has to say about it. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOTADVERT! I myself am the developer of an antivirus program and a backup solution. You don't see me advertising them in antivirus and backup articles. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious where you see "advertizing". I never used this software, and I'm not normally in the habit to write articles about stuff I don't know, this was a special case for a decenct link on a Commons help page I care about. Same idea as Microsoft Download Manager, but that's software I actually use. I'm also not sure that this article needs any kind of expand, the references should be actually trimmed to a minimum required for notability as determined in this AfD. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriot (newspaper)[edit]

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

No coverage in sources independent of the subject (non-Stony Brook). No more than passing mentions, if any, in major databases LexisNexis, ProQuest, Google Books. There are no worthwhile redirection targets, so deletion is the best option. czar ⨹ 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thank you very much to Czar for already doing the due diligence here, and attempting to find additional research in the archival databases mentioned, above. — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reliably sourced content using neutral wording to Stony Brook University#Student life, it can be verified that the subject of this AfD did in fact exist, but it appears to be defunct. That being said the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and as it falls withing the scope of Stony Brook University, verified content could be covered in that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being that the only two sources in the article are both dead links, and ostensibly were primary sources, I'm not sure what you see to be the reliable sources here. In any event, this is not a major part of the university that needs to be covered in its meager student life section and there is no actual, sourced content to merge. czar ⨹ 02:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided at least one link, and the university itself, although secondary, is a reliable source. There also appears to be several other defunct newspaper publications, that would be worth mentioning in the student life section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also multiple mentions in the Stony Brook Press, and sources such as this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could also write about their cheerleading team, which will have similar coverage. The idea is that it has as much coverage as many other student orgs and what those all have in common is a dearth of secondary (non-affiliated) source coverage—in short, that they were both too inconsequential for outside coverage and for mention in the article. And I don't see a good reason to forgo that. That's all I have to add on this point. czar ⨹ 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We need to treat newspapers with kid gloves: a comprehensive encyclopedia needs comprehensive coverage of them. HERE is an article from the Stony Brook Statesman from 2008, "Stony Brook Republicans Hide Political Support," dealing in some significant measure with The Patriot as a conservative organizing center at the university. THIS is coverage of the launch of The Patriot by the Stony Brook Independent, the official campus newspaper. A SHORT BIT listing The Patriot at Snipview's "Student newspapers published in New York." That's the result of a quick Google. There is sufficient material out there for a GNG pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why student newspapers need to be treated with kid gloves as if they get some exemption from the current notability guidelines, but just to confirm, you're saying that coverage in two other student newspapers (the Statesman and the Independent) and a snippet on Snipview ("the illustrated magazine anybody can edit", that is actually just a verbatim copy of the WP page) together constitute significant coverage? Doesn't quite add up for me. czar ⨹ 03:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Baqir al-Fali[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable references for this person. He doesn't appear to be notable. Haminoon (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found a single source mentioning the subject in passing, but what is telling is a large amount of sermons on Youtube. Frequently, Muslim preachers and Qur'an reciters who gain popularity with religious youth online soon have Wikipedia articles dedicated to them regardless of notability. In this case, the individual doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:38, 14 February 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 Bristol Farms. Nakon 03:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Acres Market[edit]

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

A chain of two grocery stores? Seems to fail WP:COMPANY, as I can't find anything of substance about it, unless a Mercedes trying to introduce drive-thru shopping qualifies.[43] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bristol Farms, of which Lazy Acres is a subdivision. Discussion of these stores belongs in the Bristol Farms article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bristol Farms. Source searches (e.g. [44], [45]) are only providing mostly routine coverage and passing mentions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 15 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memati Baş[edit]

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

Looks like a unotable fictional character here Wgolf (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this can be covered in the Valley of the Wolves article. Nakon 03:32, 21 February 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. Missvain (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menduh Kızılkula[edit]

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

Another unotable person who has been deleted before. Wgolf (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG since it lacks good independent coverage and no achievements to show he meets any other notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:36, 14 February 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 all. The strongest policy backed arguments have been made by the deletion side in this debate. Whether these countries have relations or not is not what is in question, instead it is whether those relations are proven to be notable. Those asking for the articles to be preserved have failed to provide evidence of notability, through reliable sources, where these diplomatic "relations" have actually been covered. Original research done via synthesis of events (whether sourced or not) is not permissible. Therefore, as that is all that has been presented by those asking for these articles' retention, the consensus (while not shown in numbers, as this is not a vote) is for these articles to be deleted - in accordance with policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Italy relations[edit]

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

Simply a duplication of information already available at Foreign relations of Bangladesh, created as part of a one-person crusade to populate the template ((Foreign relations of Bangladesh)). Nominating a couple of others on the same basis:

Bangladesh–France relations
Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations
Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations
Bangladesh–Jordan relations (essentially about a single story that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT)

St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all all of these articles should be kept according to the general notability guidelines. There are already quite a few references in Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations, Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations and Bangladesh–Jordan relations. Though Bangladesh–Italy relations and Bangladesh–France relations are unreferenced now but they are notable topics because Bangladesh has bilateral trade relations worth more than $1 billion with each of the two countries(Italy, France). There are also significant Bangladeshi diaspora populations in Italy and France. I will expand them now. And I don't know why Stalwart111 has been blanking these articles before putting them in AFD, here are the diffs: [46], [47], [48], [49]. Nomian (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that any of these "meet GNG" is nonsense. None of them do. The "coverage" in each case is about a single visit (or two) or a single historical event (that wouldn't pass WP:EVENT) dressed up as a "bilateral relations" article when such relations simply don't exist. I didn't "blank" anything - I removed those sections that were completely unreferenced. Commercial trade is not the same thing as diplomatic relations. It should be noted that Nomian created all of these diplomati-spam articles but didn't bother to meet his WP:BURDEN to properly source any of them. He's now unilaterally and blindly undoing edits that removed unsourced content and repaired broken English. The articles are original thought, inventions and synthesis and Wikipedia remains the only place you can read about these supposed "relations". St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd encourage participants to actually read the sources put forward by Nomian in each of these articles, rather than simply taking them on face-value. I'm all for WP:AGF but as this AFD and the blind reverts demonstrate, many of the "sources" used to create these articles are actually primary sources, press releases and duplicates thereof. They do nothing to substantiate the notability of these events, let alone the "relations" articles into which they have been sythesised. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin and other voters User:Stalwart111 has been repeatedly removing the sources and blanking the articles Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations, Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations and Bangladesh–Jordan relations just because the sources became dead links but they should know that according to WP:Link rot sources cannot be removed even if they are dead. The links were properly running when I added them in those articles and a google search for those news titles can prove that those sources exist. I feel Stalwart111 is competent enough to understand all the policies of Wikipedia and I'm requesting them to stop removing the sources and blanking these article since this is not conducive to maintain a pleasant editing environment. Nomian (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As on your talk page and elsewhere, WP:Link rot is a how-to guide and not a "policy", no matter how many times you suggest it is. It doesn't give you the right to edit-war to add unsourced content, it doesn't give you the right to summarily undo a series of edits, most of which had nothing to do with sources (but were aimed at fixing grammatical errors and broken English) and it doesn't absolve you of the obligation you have to verify claims you make with reliable sources. You have made un-sourced claims and those claims have been challenged. Rather than blindly edit-warring, how about you follow WP:BRD and take your sources (good, bad and non-existent) to article talk pages. If there is consensus that you should be allowed to add that information without sources, I'll happily accept it. And I haven't "blanked" anything, in fact in several cases I actually added content (which you also blindly reverted). St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing unsourced, you have removed the sources and now saying I added unsourced content, this is clear violation of WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. If you were concerned about the grammar or other errors then you can fix it but why you are removing the sources and blanking the articles? This is really disruptive. Nomian (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank any of the articles, I added information and I did fix the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you don't seem to be listening. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are already given in my comment and they clearly show you have removed the sources and blanked these articles. Nomian (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed non-existent sources and the claims they purported to verify. I didn't "blank these articles" and you clearly don't understand that term if you believe I did. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not non-existent, just because they are dead links now you cannot remove them. Nomian (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete only *Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations and Bangladesh–Jordan relations , these 2 are based on factoids and the usual want to cooperate type of statement but no significant coverage of actual relations. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per GNG. I disagree with the nominator's claim of single purpose account - SAMI ^talk 20:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way to they meet GNG? And with regard to the SPA nature of the article creator, the evidence speaks for itself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the evidence of the SPA nature. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easily, check Nomian (talk · contribs) edit history, I would say 99.9% of his edits are about Bangladesh-x relations. no interest in expanding other Bangladesh articles or other bilateral articles which are more notable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of Bangladesh is my area of interest so I create articles related to this topic but I have also edited many other articles which are not related to this topic. Nomian (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as I said 99.99% of your edits are on bilateral you have little interest in other topics. LibStar (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - each of them passes WP:GNG, fair bit of sources with indepth coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not coverage of any sort of "relations". Its coverage of events (that wouldn't meet WP:EVENT) stitched together to create a bizarre patchwork quilt you can only ready about here on Wikipedia. This is entirely an invention of the editor and we don't publish original thought. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I have to agree. I do see some SPA nature there. I mean how many pages of Bangladesh interactions do we REALLY need? We don't even have every article on interactions between a country and the United States and there is a hell lot of articles on that. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the deletion rationale here is bizarre, stating "one-person crusade to populate" as if it was a bad thing to create articles in Wikipedia. The creator of these articles is doing a valuable effort to expand Wikipedia. Bangladesh is one of the most popolous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally. Countries like France and Italy have size-able Bangladeshi populations. France, as member of the Security Council, played a major role at the time of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. A single project of the France Development Agency in Bangladesh had a budget of 45 million USD (http://www.afd.fr/home/pays/asie/geo-asie/afd-bangladesh/activite-bangladesh). Etc, etc. No more blanket nominations, please. --Soman (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've only presented an argument to keep France and Italy. " Bangladesh is one of the most popolous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally" is so vague and does not give a free pass to any bilateral with Bangladesh m LibStar (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for a procedural keep. The problem here is that virtually all Bangladesh bilateral relations articles get clumped together in mass AfDs, a behaviour that is clearly disruptive and unconstructive. The nominator clearly has not cared anything about WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to the articles in question and my analysis of the available sources contradict that baseless accusation. Your "argument" is without merit. I'm one of three different editors who have nominated Bangladesh-X relations both individually and as part of grouped nominations (which are perfectly valid). They were mass-created; why should they not be mass-nominated when they all suffer the same problems with regard to WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to look at articles like this one to realise what can be done with a genuinely notable relationship; when the purpose isn't to mass-create random [X-Anything relations] articles to fill a template. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (re Bangladesh-Jordan); 30,000 Bangladeshis work in Jordan, http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/old/more.php?news_id=128096&date=2012-04-28 , http://jordantimes.com/Jordan,+Bangladesh+agree+on+domestic+help+recruitment+-47440 --Soman (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Bangladesh has had an increased clout worldwide due to its increasing visibility, diaspora and its political stability in the face of instability in its surroundings. There are multiple established magazines that quote Bangladeshi affairs with other nations therefore it would easily pass GNG. 80.44.185.109 (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — 80.44.185.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

an incredibly generic vote from a 1 edit editor. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Azerbaijan and Bangladesh are political allies. Jordan is home to 30,000 Bangladeshis. Ivory Coast is an important African country, where Bangladesh is the largest peacekeeper; and the former African bread basket looks to Bangladesh for its agricultural development. France and Italy have billions of dollars in investment and trade relations and a history of high level exchanges. All notable relationships in the sphere of the world's eighth most populous state.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being "world's eighth most populous state" does not give a free pass for notability of Bangladesh-X. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Keep a multi-nom like this will never get consensus for deletion of specific articles, since most agree that plenty of these articles are fine. --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of group nominations are closed as delete so that's nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me: "Since most agree that plenty of these articles are fine"... the batch-nom should be closed as keep, because it will be impossible to extract proper attention/consensus on whichever individual articles might be deleted. I'm not saying that batch noms are always bad, or should always be kept. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. Happy to nominate them individually; as explained, they were mass-created so mass-nomination seemed a sensible way of working through the long list created by the editor in question, many (if not most) of which have since been or are in the process of being deleted. The editor in question has been disingenuously "sourcing" the articles after the fact, claiming disruption when broken English is repaired and unsourced promotion is deleted. He's done a great job of disrupting the process and derailing this nomination (and others) in an effort to keep his inventions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitless delete all as non-notable intersections of countries. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to @Stifle:, do you consider 1 billion+ USD annual trade as "non-notable intersection of countries"? (see Italy, France, as mentioned by Nomian above) For you, what would be the minimum level of commercial and diplomatic links to qualify as notable? --Soman (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Each passes WP:GNG and sources easily found, as presented by others in this very discussion. The nom should read WP:BEFORE. And read it again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've made this !vote only 1 minute after a similar style vote in another AfD [50], I wonder if you actually read all the articles up for nomination. This would impossible in one minute. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've all be relisted at the same time. WP:AGF. Read it. And read it again. It's as if you don't actually have a clue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you spent less than 10 seconds reading each one? Isn't hypocrisy fun? I've explained my analysis of sources above (several times) and have made edits to each article to address issues that might be addressed via editing. Your accusation is nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tha immigration of people of Bangladesh in Italy is an important fact so also the relations between the two goverments are important.User:Lucifero4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguments "at weight", such as "Bangladesh - X trade for more that Y billions of dollars per year" or "there are Z millions emigrants from X to Bangladesh" are in my view pointless to demonstrate notability. Such facts are likely indicators of strong bilateral relations, but no proof of notability of such relations. Additionally, if the information is duplicated with Foreign relations of Bangladesh as it seems to be the case, I do not see the need for standalone articles. Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Semantics. By any reasonable standards "likely indicators of strong bilateral relations" would be the very essence of notability at wikipedia. Or do you prefer google hit counts to establish notability instead? --Soman (talk) 18:45, 16 February 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. There is a consensus regarding a lack of significant coverage outside of the primary event in this article. A mention, or possibly section, in Foreign relations of Bangladesh should be sufficient at this time. Nakon 04:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Iceland relations[edit]

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

this article uses synthesis to suggest that a one off visit by the Icelandic President to Bangladesh primarily for a climate change conference somehow translates to notable ongoing relations. there's plenty of "common interest" and want to co-operate type statements but I don't see any evidence of significant trade, embassies, agreements, investment etc. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - most of the article is speculation that there might one day be a relationship between these countries Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be kept according to general notability guidelines, there are 5 references with significant coverage. Icelandic President paid an official visit to Bangladesh in 2008 and held bilateral meetings with the Bangladesh President and the Chief Advisor. Nomian (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomian, you continue to confuse significant coverage of an event with significant coverage of a relationship. That idea has been debated and dismissed with regard to articles like these, sports "rivalries" and commercial partnerships. Gluing several disparate parts together (though in this case we're talking about just one) to suggest a notable whole is a clear violation of our original research guidelines. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused, sources like Relations with Iceland to be strengthened, Iceland wants to import ships from Bangladesh are indeed significant coverage of the relationship, not an event. The visit by the Icelandic President to Bangladesh is a major breakthrough in this bilateral relationship. Obviously relations between two countries often comes in the limelight when a head of state pays an official visit but there are also other references which are not related to the visit by the Icelandic President. And violation of original research will be when someone would try to impose their own set of criteria to assess the notability of an article, ridiculing the general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our original research guidelines apply to "articles", not assessments of notability and policy. The first few lines of the first article you cite say, "an important outcome of the visit of Iceland president to Bangladesh" (obviously related to the visit) and the second is about the "Newly-appointed Iceland Ambassador to Bangladesh" and the so-called "coverage" is a one-line token mention of relations (kind of) which can't possibly be considered "significant coverage" in any context. Again, your attempts to pass off original research and one-line passing mentions as WP:GNG-passing significant coverage is fairly transparent. In the case of the first, it's not clear you even read it before asserting the opposite of what the source says. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is when an editor includes information which are not supported by the sources, when did I do that? Or when did I "assert the opposite of what the source says"? I would consider such false accusations as personal attacks. Now about the significant coverage thing, are you really saying that sources covering the top level leaders of the two countries discussing about strengthening the relationship, common interests or enhancing the bilateral trade are just one line passing mentions? Seriously Stalwart, even after interacting with you in the countless AfDs, I don't think I will ever understand your logic. It'd be better if we leave it to others instead of having this futile argument. Nomian (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, original research is the publication of original thought or a synthesis of ideas. You're talking about verification. Often, original research is partially supported by sources but the conclusion drawn is something else. That is the case here. Authors have taken sources about one-off visits and extrapolated that (which is the original research) to suggest a broader diplomatic relationship. It's like suggesting two people have "relations" because they once went on a date (years ago) and haven't seen each other since. Wikipedia remains the only place where you can read about these supposed "relations" - a pretty good indication the article represents original thought. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we need significant coverage of the relationship between the two, not just significant coverage of one event that happens to involve the two. If you want an article about the event, create one (which will still be subject to, and may not pass, WP:EVENT. But this article purports to be about a relationship and no such relationship exists. Wikipedia is the only place you will see such a relationship suggested. That speaks volumes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, don't know how it's a non-existent relationship when the two countries have ambassadors accredited to each other. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they're non resident ambassadors. The issue is not no relations but lack of notable relations.LibStar (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

having 2 non resident ambassadors is more of indicator of a lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is clearly a significant relationship. Both are bounded by shared interests on climate change and they cooperate in international fora, as is evident from the Icelandic president's visit to Bangladesh. And there are prospects for a lucrative trade relationship. Iceland, with its fishing fleets, is a high potential market for Bangladeshi shipbuilders. These multilateral and economic dynamics are cornerstones of foreign policy.-Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual interest without interaction isn't a sign of "relations" and I can't see how it could possibly be misconstrued as such. Prospects for trade are exactly that; prospects. Crystal-ball-gazing and predicting that such prospects might lead to trade one day isn't what we do around here. Despite the commentary, you haven't actually provided verification of the so-called "significant relationship". St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide enough verification of generally notable relations. And without interaction? The president of Iceland visited Bangladesh and met with top leaders on the issue of climate change; and was invited to address the nation's premier public university. On trade, the fact that Iceland expressed a keen interest in an industry vital to Bangladesh's growth is certainly worth mentioning.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a mention perhaps at Foreign relations of Bangladesh but sythesising an entire article around a single item of potential common commercial interest isn't the right way to go about it. Taking a single visit and a single potential area of trade and extrapolating those to suggest a broader historical, commercial and diplomatic relationship is just silly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be modeled on Iceland-Philippines relations, an example of Iceland's ties in Asia. The trade level can be peanuts, but a relationship exists, isn't that enough? Iceland and Palestine also don't have a "broad historical, commercial and diplomatic relationship". --Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A relationship existing does not mean an automatic article. There is a spike of coverage when the Icelandic president and not much else. There is no evidence of ongoing relations except the usual vague "want to cooperate " type of statements. You can cite other bilateral articles but it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given that the entire focus of the article is on the reasons why it would make sense for the countries to have a significant relationship and talks they've had on how they might form a significant relationship, it almost screams "There is not now a significant relationship between these two countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs)

Iceland and Bangladesh are two of the most climate vulnerable countries when it comes to global warming. That already makes their relationship significant.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-sequitur. Two countries can have a common problem and have no relationship at all. Do a person vulnerable to starvation in Bangladesh and a person vulnerable to starvation in Burundi have a significant relationship? On the contrary, I'd guess that the two of them know nothing of each other's existence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with relations between states, not starving people. And Bangladesh sent peackeeping forces to Burundi for the UN. Climate change is not a third world problem, and Bangladesh and Iceland have a strong common interest here. You keep saying that there is no relationship at all. Yet the President of Iceland made an official visit to Bangladesh to discuss climate change.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because a single one-issue visit isn't the same thing as notable "relations". "Things is common" isn't the same thing as notable "relations" either. Fiji and Portugal are both great places to go for a surf, why no Fiji-Portugal relations? Barbados and Kiribati were both British colonies, why no Barbados-Kiribati relations? Picking a random thing two places have in common and inventing "relations" is as silly as picking two random countries and creating an x-x relations article in the first place. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We're dealing with relations between states, not starving people." I'm always astonished at the number of people who respond to analogies in this way. Yes, the nature of an analogy is to compare something to something else. An analogy that compares a thing to itself isn't an effective one.

The point, as my analogy makes clear, is that from the premise "A and B have the same interest", whether A and B are individuals, communities, countries, ethnic groups, sufferers of two different diseases, or anything else, that A and B are even aware of each other's existence is not a valid conclusion, let alone that they have any relationship, let alone that they have a significant one. To argue otherwise necessarily would lead, for example, to the absurd proposition that any given starving person in Burundi has a significant relationship with any given starving person in Bangladesh. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they play football in Solomon Islands and also Liechtenstein, therefore a Liechtenstein-Solomon Islands article should be made. bilateral relations are about country to country interactions, not the same as common elements. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change politics is a notable aspect of international relations. In this context, the diplomatic relationship between two ~~most~~ vulnerable countries might well make for an article which passes WP:GNG.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

two most vulnerable countries? Iceland is definitely not on the most vulnerable list, only Bangladesh is [51], it is pure original research to say Iceland is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a potential basis for a relationship is not a relationship. Repeat as necessary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry not most vulnerable. Iceland won't have 30 million climate refugees like Bangladesh. But that's not an environmental source Libstar. Iceland will be impacted geologically. Climate change politics binds together very diverse countries. Bangladesh is a lead negotiator in climate change negotiations and it would be interesting to see its relationship with Iceland in this context. The Icelandic president's visit for example came on the prelude to the COP15 conference.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland is ranked 119th of countries based on the climate risk index. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant geological impact 1 2, apparently there might be no ice on Iceland. But they can offer a model to Bangladesh in adaptation 3 --Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not-a freestanding topic created out of thin air, this is a legitimate subpage of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. Bangladesh has 156 million people, give or take — more than Russia, not many short of Pakistan. Although we in the west are not accustomed to think of this as a large country, it is, and its foreign relations are an area of specialized academic study. The Foreign relations of Bangladesh page is lengthy and gets sunk in detail, splitting off country by country makes organizational sense. It does create esoteric and seemingly non-sensical pages like this one, but Wikipedia Is Not Paper, after all, and that decision was a matter of editorial judgment. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the population of Bangladesh does not give it a free pass for bilateral articles. Do you have evidence of significant coverage of ongoing relationship? LibStar (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article says one thing that's about the actual relationship between the two countries, why can't that sentence be in the corresponding cell in the table on the main Bangladesh foreign relations page, representing the sum and substance of what there seems to be to be said right now about relations between the two countries and have no link there at all? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because merging that single factoid over to Foreign relations of Bangladesh would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. We shouldn't use those articles to give coverage to every single state visit and mentioning some of them suggests they are of more importance than all of the others. In this instance, an entire article has been built around one. That's not just a violation of WP:WEIGHT, it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. There is nothing in a single state visit worth merging over to that article. WP:BIGNUMBER is never a good argument for keeping something. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too insignificant for the large article, then it's all the more too insignificant to serve as the sole fact around which to build its own article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Nailed it. ^^ St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin and other voters User:Stalwart111 has been repeatedly removing the sources and blanking the articles (diff: [52]) just because the sources became dead links but they should know that according to WP:Link rot sources cannot be removed even if they are dead. The links were properly running when I added them in those articles and a google search for those news titles can prove that those sources exist. I feel Stalwart111 is competent enough to understand all the policies of Wikipedia and I'm requesting them to stop removing the sources and blanking the article since this is not conducive to maintain a pleasant editing environment. Nomian (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "blank" any of the articles, I added information and I fixed the grammar and other errors - you reverted those edits when you blindly (without looking at them) cut-paste reverted my edits. I've walked you through the process of having those sources considered (where they actually exist) but you don't seem to be listening. Your accusations without evidence are a blatant personal attack - I request you strike them. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff is already given which clearly shows you have removed the sources and blanking the article. Nomian (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That term doesn't mean what you think it means and your attacks are based on a misreading of policy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just wish there was a different reason for this. I don't want to keep saying that we don't really need so many Bangladeshi relation pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Carrite. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:MAJORITY, AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. Three editors have debunked Carrite's vote. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to badger Pax for his/her vote as well? And do you seriously think that after adding a source to the article I didn't come to my own opinion on this? --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LargoPlazo. This article is absurd. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, another one of these articles that easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ *all* of these "ABC-XYZ relations" articles. Pax 08:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote multiple times, one vote is enough. Thank you. Nomian (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derp. I though this topic looked familiar.... Pax 00:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:32, 14 February 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 Ticked-Off_Trannies_with_Knives#Cast. Nakon 03:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaselyn Wade[edit]

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

I can't find any way that this biography passes either WP:N, WP:ACTOR, or WP:GNG. Sources are blogs or simple listings. It is a contested PROD. Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has no major acting roles and lacks coverage in entertainment sources. Fails the three categories the nominator mentions. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ticked-Off_Trannies_with_Knives#Cast. She is known for this film, but not really for any others. I did find a review for one of her other films, but not really anything that could firmly cement her notability. Now if the upcoming film gains enough coverage to warrant an article (and I hope it does because the title is EPIC) we can always un-redirect this since that would be just enough for Wade to warrant her own article. But right now she just barely falls short of what is needed, unless someone can pull a Hail Mary here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill figure in the moview industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Saxena[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Missvain (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject appears to be failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : A self promotional article. I suspect that the author "vsmusics" is the subject himself. No references and failing all notability criteria. Athachil (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I trawled through this article not long before this nom and I could find nothing that verified notability. Still cannot and, yes, I agree that it is probably self-promotion. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotional article and failing WP:GNG. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:41, 17 February 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. Those asking for the article's preservation have failed to present evidence of independent notability. - Notability is not inherited. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Life (organisation)[edit]

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

Article's a mess, reads like an ad, and appears to strongly advocate for one particular position. If it survives afd - and from where I sit thats a big if - then we can see about cleaning it up. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if this article should stay or go, but there was a lot of material recently removed by an IP without benefit of edit summary explaining why. I've restored it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It looks like there are hundreds of reliable source hits for the leader, Bernadette Smyth. Easily passes GNG. The article itself needs a lot of work, including NPOV. (The leader's name is Smyth, not Smith). – Margin1522 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Responding to the request for reliable sources talking about the subject of the article in a significant way, here are some.

The first four are newspapers and IrishCentral, which may be more RS than the others. The others are a mix of RS news sites and religious, pro-life, and pro-choice sites, but they all discuss the organization – either the number of its members (pro-life sites) or its tactics (pro-choice sites). I would note that being poorly written is not a valid reason for deletion. Being POV is a valid reason, but only when it can't be corrected. I would say that in this case it could be corrected, given all of the information in these cites about its aggressive tactics, which have been called harassment and intimidation. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's possible the leader is notable, but notability is not inherited. I'm yet to see sufficient reliable sources talking about the subject of the article in a significant way. In fact the name of the organization doesn't even appear in most of the sources it currently cites. The article looks to just be a series of opinions held by the group about abortion-related news and events. Perfectly willing to change my !vote if someone else has succeeds in finding sources, and no prejudice to the creation of an article on Smyth. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While not every source frames the issue as "Smyth does stuff, by the way, her group is called Precious Life", I'm inclined to agree with Rhododentries that if there is any notability here, it attaches to Smyth. If the article were better I'd suggest keeping it and reworking it into an article on Smyth, but currently nearly the whole article consists of their statements (from articles on abortion rights developments), not their actions and tactics, so might as well TNT and start over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm rather dubious of the idea that we need to distinguish between the group and the group's leader and spokesperson. If Smyth is notable it's because she's the leader of the activists who are circulating petitions and camping out in front of the clinic every day ~~with their gruesome pictures~~. Granted, a lot of the publicity is from her trial for harassment. But that incident took place as part of a larger demonstration by the group~~, who were heckling and harassing people entering and leaving the clinic, in one case chasing them down the street~~. If Smyth were just another private individual ~~who thinks that abortion clinics in the US are run by Jews and the Mafia (casual remark in one of the sources I listed above),~~ with pro-life views, nobody would care. She's notable because the group is. (Edited for NPOV. Sorry.) – Margin1522 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar / IAS[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a civil servant, leaning extremely heavily on unreliable sources like press releases, Blogspot posts, Twitter tweets, Yahoo Answers posts and YouTube videos — and with all the references simply contextlessly piled at the bottom of the article without even the slightest attempt at footnoting what content is sourced to which reference, it's impossible to properly evaluate whether his claim of notability is actually properly supported by the relatively few genuinely reliable sources or not. And furthermore, there are serious overtones of self-promotional advertising here, which are not allayed by the fact that the article has been edited by User:Ravi5896 (and represent the only Wikipedia contribution that user has ever made), so there's a potential/probable WP:COI. There might be a genuine notability case here, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version of the article ain't it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator. I have looked into some of the sources and started to try to clean up the article. However there is no indication of notability except for the climbing of Everest, and being the first civil servant in his department to do so. Which really, unfortunately is not that notable any more, unless it truly is a first, such as when the first blind man climbed it. So many people have now climbed Everest that a specific civil servant climbing it is not notable.VViking_TalkEdits 01:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the other editors who have posted here. I came across this article and noticed it needed manual of style cleanup, so going through the article and fixing the headers, and spacing, etc., I read through the text and while there might be some notability, I can't see how it would meet notability guidelines for an encyclopedia article. Yes, there are all kinds of references, but we don't know what in the text they are sourcing as they are all added in a general sense at the bottom, plus many of them are blogs and social networking sites which don't meet reliable source guidelines. Reading through the article, I get the sense that's it's more promotional than encyclopedic, and if we were to take out all the promo aspects, fluff and unreliable references, I don't think we would be left with much of an article. Cmr08 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Well, being not hatred of COI and AUTOBIO, -the article indeed in its present shape is very bad but that can be discussed on the respective talk page. Coming to the notability of subject, -they appear to be have received some kind of coverage in some reliable sources such as, -[65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. -At one instance they appear to be someone notable for only one event (yes, BLP1E for climbing a mountain?), on other side they have won two Indian states highest sports award (Bihar Khel Ratna and Sikkim Khel Ratna award. sounds good?). I need sometime to (look for more sources and) make a !vote on here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Subject meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG for having significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources and having won two prestigious awards. If kept, please move it to Ravindra Kumar (IAS officer) leaving no redirect. (courtesy ping to Bearcat, VViking and Cmr08 to take a look at now-version of article.). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's note: Whilst there is a reasonable consensus to delete above, I would be remiss to allow that outcome in the light of the substantial improvements to the article. Hoping the above editors will come back and reassess. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not shown by winning state awards and nothing else meets any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Read WP:BIO and WP:GNG, then sources listed above in my comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am new to the editing community and I am perplexed about the very low bar that seems to be used for WP:GNG. Someone is claiming that this individual is notable because he received some local coverage for completing what is now a common challenge. I do not live in India, but if the Indian press is anything like the Canadian press, this sort of feel-good, "local boy achieves" article shows up in something other than the "News" section of a publication. It does not mean the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Walkabout14 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I don't feel like answering each and everyone here. Needless to say but I would expect closing admin to weigh in policy-based arguments and disregard other !votes (and if possible take a look at article). Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanna Bonta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bit actress with only minor or uncredited parts; author whose novel and poetry are self-published and whose article credits are trivial; artists' model with two credits that can't be confirmed, and one claim that's provably false. She's sufficiently non-notable that it's not even possible to confirm her death. This article has been deleted twice as promotional fluff, and the third iteration hasn't added any evidence that she passes WP:BIO. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notified major contributors to article, as well as people who participated in the last two nomination discussions. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She appears to be notable enough to me. Eeekster (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not particularly notable as actress, but notability not impeached in my opinion as far as author and inventor. Quis separabit? 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - just as before, there is nothing here to meet WP:GNG in general, or any of the subsidiary guidelines. The prior discussions AfD were so laden with nonce arguments by new and single-purpose accounts that other editors deemed it appropriate to remove the content as a courtesy to the subject. Subject's self-promotional efforts were as inept as always. I regret the death of any human being, including hers (assuming as implied above that she is dead); but even fewer reliable sources seem to have noticed her death than noticed her in life. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, without prejudice to any comments above, that I never heard of Bonta when she was alive; glad to know I am not the only one, but I'm old anyway, so ......... Quis separabit? 17:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A newsletter put out by one of her friends includes a farewell that she wrote shortly before her death. It appears that she is, regrettably, deceased. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep That there are major promotional and verification issues in this article is obvious, and the vast majority of sources cited within it are either not independent or secondary (and thus not useful for establishing notability in particular) or are simply not reliable sources for use on Wikipedia in general. Those sources and the many (often dubious or not terribly encyclopedic) claims which they support should be removed. All of that being said, there remains a small core of useful and acceptable sources which do establish a level of notability sufficient to support the article. But good luck to whoever has to wrangle the content into consistency with our policies. Snow talk 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which elements do you find notable? If they have their own article already, moving the details into the other article would be preferable to keeping an entire article on Bonta. There are already articles on the 2suit and quantum fiction, for example, and they go into lavish detail about Bonta's involvement. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a viable solution, but for the fact that a couple of the small selection of viable sources do address her written works. For the record, here are the sources which I think pass muster as reliable sources (as of the current version): 2, 4, 5, 10, 30, 31, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, and 80. The rest of the sources all fail WP:Verification standards (usually by a solid mile), for reasons ranging from the fact that the source is not a viable references on Wikipedia under any circumstances (about two-thirds of the list), the source in question is a primary one and not independent of the subject or the claim being made, the source is utilized in editorial synthesis to express original thought, and a number of other obvious shortcomings.

I'm more than a little bothered by the fact that, with 95 references listed on that article, less than 20 of them are acceptable sources, while the sources are themselves in-lined in a technically proficient manner; this seems to strongly suggest to me that whoever added all of this content must have had significant enough experience with Wikipedia to know that the remaining sources do not meet the standards of our policies, but decided to add them anyway in any attempt to make the subject's notability "unimpeachable". This seems in keeping with the comments that are being added here about previous gaming, sock-puppetry and general bad-faith tactics in the previous creation (and deletion discussions) surrounding this article.

But when it comes down to it, I can't depart from the notion that nearly 20 sources do exist and seem to meet the minimal standards for notability here. I do think the article needs to be stripped down that small fraction of its present claims that are actually verifiable, and anyone adding content in blatant violation of our policies or while evading previous blocks on the matter needs to be dealt with via SPI and/or ANI. Snow talk 11:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the references you listed, I agree that 2, 4, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, and 66 are notable, and 40-44 are notable but need trimming.

5: It's doubtful that the Contemporary Authors team did independent research to compile Bonta's biography. It's more likely that they printed whatever she or her PR agent supplied them.
10: Very fluffy, with numerous unsupported claims whose sole source is Bonta.
30: Are interviews considered reliable, independent sources?
31: Bonta has one paragraph, which the index says is on pp. 235-6. (https://books.google.com/books?id=Vx3BBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT156&lpg=PT156&dq=brief+guide+to+star+trek+vanna+bonta&source=bl&ots=I_hgYKtEVH&sig=AFbPQqZ53MaSCCuovPRM-Mnb9CI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ATbSVOH3IYarNoHOgdAK&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vanna%20bonta&f=false) It briefly describes the plot of the rejected episode she wrote.
38 doesn't mention Bonta. It's a book by an unassociated scholar on a topic that Bonta also covers.
80: The description of the video doesn't mention Bonta. This link was probably added to add weight to the discussion of Bonta's theoretical "smart clothing" inventions.

The claims the notable references support are: that Bonta wrote a novel of questionable notability; that she gave a talk about the 2suit, which the History Channel later fabricated and featured as a segment on a TV episode about sex in space; and she was one of the top 5 winners of a haiku contest. She has enough references to support notability, but not enough achievements. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging her achievements (through the lens of secondary sources) might make sense in a notability discussion based on WP:BIO, but that's an incidental discussion if the topic already meet WP:GNG -- and even if we take just the dozen-ish sources that are non-controversial between you and I (who both clearly critics of the larger content), GNG seems to be established. Maybe there's some sort of argument to be made for why the presumption of suitability for an article established by WP:significant coverage does not apply in this case -- after-all, GNG itself notes that there is not an absolute link between significant coverage and being an appropriate subject of an article, only a very strong one -- but it needs to be predicated on arguments that are not at all based on subjective assessments as the importance of the subject's accomplishments. Snow talk 16:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is, in fact, a notability discussion based on WP:BIO. There may be enough references to support GNG, but the references are for trivial accomplishments--winning a non-notable haiku contest, self-publishing a novel--or for an accomplishment that already has its own page (the 2suit) and covers the important details of Bonta's involvement. There's no point to having a biography for someone who fails WP:BIO.

In any case, I doubt the sources amount to "significant coverage." One short but notable review and one dubiously notable foreign-language review; five references to her winning the MAVEN haiku contest, most of which are short filler pieces that don't go into depth about her, and which are routine coverage of a low-importance contest. She did get significant coverage for her appearance on the History Channel documentary, I admit. However, that appearance doesn't establish her as an inventor of any importance, and the coverage can be rolled into the 2suit page without removing any facts of encyclopedic importance from Wikipedia. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to the first point, see WP:N; she doesn't have to satisfy WP:BIO (or any other subject-specific criteria) if she already meets the requirements of WP:GNG. And as to the second point, we're not meant to be using our own subjective criteria as to whether or not her accomplishments are important and worth discussing; as with all other such matters we take our ques from the sources on that. And while I appreciate that there is some nuance necessary to parse this case in establishing the depth with which sources actually treat her, I still don't see how she could be said to be failing GNG as typically a single acceptable source or two is viewed as sufficient argument against deletion and here we have more than a dozen reliable sources at the least, several of which address aspects of her creative career and cannot be rolled into existing articles -- and even if they could, she would still probably qualify for her own article.

Look, I'm not super happy about it myself; is this the most encyclopedic subject in the world? No, certainly not. But I know a WP:SNOW argument when I see one and I don't see how inclusion can be opposed here on grounds of notability guidelines. Forgive the unsolicited assessment here but it seems like maybe in having had to work hard against bad-faith/promotional behaviour by single-purpose accounts in the past on this subject, you've been forced to move a little too much to the opposite extreme, such that now that a dozen sources are provided which discuss the subject to varying degrees, it still seems insufficient. But I think it's going to meet most editors standards.

But if you are still opposed to the content staying, can I suggest an alternate approach? I know it entails a lot of work that you shouldn't have to take upon yourself, but I think the only thing that might give us a more certain picture of whether or not the subject should stay is to go through and pull out all the material in the article that is not adequately sourced. If socks there oppose these changes on non-policy-consistent grounds, then RfC the matter and/or take it to SPI/ANI/3RR. I know that's a lot of work to propose when you feel it would be so much simpler to just delete the whole mess now and save the extra steps, but I don't see the vote going that way this time. But if the article is reduced to the 1/9 of it's current content that is actually supported by sources, we might have a better idea of whether or not it reasonable to keep it. And even if it is kept, you will have removed the bulk of the inappropriate content. And I imagine from some of the comments here and the previous AfDs that you wouldn't have to do the work alone. Anyway, that's about the extent of my two cents on this topic. Snow talk 02:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've outlined--twice--what the article would consist of if only the reliably sourced information were left. Why do you need to see the entire article whittled down by someone else before you can make a judgement?

For the third time:

She self-published a book.
She won a non-notable haiku contest.
She invented the 2suit and appeared on the History Channel wearing it.

Based on these three accomplishments, does Bonta merit inclusion?

You keep arguing that the 13 reliable references are enough to establish her notability, then you turn around and say that if the unsourced information were removed, mmmmaybe she wouldn't merit inclusion. Which is it? Is 13 articles enough to guarantee notability, regardless of topic, or does the topic actually matter?

You say "we're not meant to be using our own subjective criteria as to whether or not her accomplishments are important and worth discussing," but you also reject the idea of applying the guidelines established to add some objectivity--WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT, among others. At the same time, you're using your own subjective criteria to declare that her references meet WP:GNG, although there's no official definition of "significant coverage," and you yourself admit that there's doubt about the depth of her coverage. You're clinging to the fact that she has 13 sources, and refusing to look at what those 13 sources say.

If it makes you feel better, there's this guideline: "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event". Bonta's invention of the 2suit received enough coverage that even though I think it's a slightly less important invention than the rubber-band gun, my cold, dead heart will thaw enough to admit that the coverage is significant. As it's the only Bonta-related topic with enough notability and enough coverage to meet Wikipedia guidelines, the coverage can be rolled into the 2suit article, along with whatever verifiable Bonta-related facts are relevant to the invention of the 2suit. And then we don't have to gut this article down to Bonta's three verifiable accomplishments and argue, yet again, over the notability of someone that you yourself have doubts about. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've completely misinterpreted my comments here. First off, I'm not "clinging" to anything; I've made it pretty clear that I'm not an advocate for this content nor a particularly big fan. I'm simply applying our basic notability policy, looking at the other perspectives here, and using them to read the writing on the wall. And I didn't suggest you remove the unacceptable content as a condition of my switching my !vote or ceding to your argument -- rather I was suggesting it to you as an alternative route to achieving the best compromise solution to your efforts here, since it seems very likely to me that this AfD will close as a keep (or a no consensus if you're lucky). As such, if you are determined to get rid of as much of the cruft content involved here as possible, you're going to have to remove those unsourced elements peace-meal anyway -- so why not do it now and have at least an outside shot at converting positions here (either amongst those who have already lodged a keep !vote or those who might yet comment)?

Frankly, you are walking against the WP:SNOW if you expect that an article with the number of sources that are involved in this case (and you are low-balling the number of sources at this point) to not be considered to pass GNG. You're trying to parse the wording of that policy down to a place where it will agree with your intuition that this subject is not notable, and you've gotten to the place where people who try this strategy always end up; that is to say, the place where you say "well significant coverage as a standard is rather open to debate". And yes, this is technically true, but from experience with AfD and notability discussions broadly, I can almost guarantee to you that the consensus is going to be that the number and nature of the sources in question here satisfy the condition of significant coverage by a considerable margin.

I'm actually trying to help you get to the closest thing to your desired outcome here as you are likely to get by pointing out that you can count on some degree of consensus for drastically reducing the offending content, and reminding you that you have community tools to help with the socks if they get problematic. I'm encouraging you in that regard because I'd like to see much of that content gone as much as you. Whether you want to wait to see if you can get the article deleted outright before investing that time (instead of doing it now and getting some possible marginal benefit to your AfD arguments now) is completely a matter of your discretion regarding how you use your time editing. But I wish you'd try to understand that I'm suggesting it as an option because I think it would help your efforts, rather than viewing the suggestion with suspicion and borderline hostility simply because I don't happen to agree with you down to the last letter here... Snow talk 19:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After taking some time to think, I see the merit of your suggestion. Is it acceptable for the original proposer to do such a severe edit in the middle of an AfD debate? BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question and an understandable concern. Under most circumstances I would say avoid it if there were any chance that the move could be seen as a bad-faith effort to do an end-run around the AfD result. In this case, however, I think you're probably in the clear because so many of those sources are so obviously nowhere near meeting our RS standards. Even if your edits there will align with the same end as the AfD here, most if not all are going to be unimpeachably consistent with our verification standards.

Still, what I would do to avoid these issues is to start with the most clearly unacceptable sources (IMDB pages, the various quote sites, cdbaby.com) and work your way down from there. Don't be in a hurry to do it all in one go, so that if anyone opposes any changes you have time to stop and show you are willing to discuss. Make sure each inappropriate source is handled in a separate edit and make sure each edit summary is clear as to the policy (or policies) being violated. As a basic rule of thumb, if there's a source you think 25% of editors might accept, err on the side of caution and don't delete it; those can wait for wider editor involvement if it comes to that. If anyone reverts your changes, go to the talk page and give a brief explanation, but don't get caught up arguing every point and instead be willing to let some of the contested edits go for the time being. Although unfortunately the timing could not be worse for me, I will do my best to follow the page and provide a third opinion where necessary so that you do not come off as acting unilaterally or otherwise in bad-faith. I hope that other parties reading this will pitch in a comment or three as well if necessary, so that these changes reflect obvious consensus.

Take your time and show every willingness to discuss and I don't think anyone will have cause to accuse you of acting improperly. In general it's considered entirely appropriate to try to improve an article while it is at AfD. Usually this is to try to salvage the page in question from deletion (rather than demonstrate that it needs to be deleted), but the same principle applies; each challengeable claim needs to be consistent with WP:V and removing elements that do not meet this standard is acceptable and a separate (if parallel) issue to whether the article as a whole is retained. It's more than a bit of work, and I wish I could help you shoulder more of it, but I'll least try to keep abreast of the discussion and keep you from appearing lone wolf on the matter if you have to work against the interests of SPA. And consequently, if you suspect anyone of being a sock, let us know here (or you can contact me on my talk page) and if the case is really blatant I'll do the leg work on opening the SPI, so you can concentrate on the content; it may take a few days though, so just do your best to ignore them until then, even if they get disruptive. Good luck and thanks for taking on this work. Snow talk 12:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I appreciate it. I've removed many of the most questionable sources, but cut the text of the article only modestly to give other editors a chance to find reliable sources I missed. If no one speaks up within a day or so I'll make deeper cuts. There's plenty of work to be done on the remaining citations, too.

For what it's worth, the sockpuppetry and gaming of Bonta-related articles have died down to a whisper. The cluster of editors whose contributions made discussions so, er, lively, all went silent in early May 2014. She did have friends, some of them quite devoted, but the silence of her loudest and most dedicated supporters is perhaps the saddest evidence that rumors of her passing weren't exaggerated. Your support if her friends do show up would be most helpful, though. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough to have an article. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 09:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flight was notable enough to be reviewed (poorly) by David Langford, and the practice of having pages for creators that redirect to individual works, while common here, is unhelpful and ludicrous. Andrew Rodland (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did he actually review it? Or does he just ridicule it occasionally? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared on his Ten of the Worst list (http://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2009/02/david-langfords-top-20-pre-1990-genre.html) and he also chose it as one of the ten books he'd want with him on a desert island: "Since one of my hobbies is collecting really, really bad lines from SF and fantasy, the final selection was a book which had caused unseemly uproar in Internet SF circles: Flight by Vanna Bonta, a novel of 'quantum fiction' (don't ask) which transcends all the old-fashioned, non-quantum ideas of ordinary SF." Then he quotes from it and describes it as "laugh-a-minute stuff." (https://books.google.com/books?id=n78kYbvUd_8C&pg=PA68&dq=flight+vanna+bonta&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOvQVM-WM4ODNuqRgZAP&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=flight%20vanna%20bonta&f=false) If David Langford's review makes Flight, and therefore Bonta, notable, then the article should be edited to note that Flight received significant attention for being awful. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the appropriate solution; we should be reflecting what reliable sources say, including in editorial review. Snow talk 11:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So no review then? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, no, nothing that could be called a review. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly promotional fluff for someone who at best is marginally notable. Editting around this mess and it's related subjects have been a mass of undisclosed promotion, sockpuppetry and bad-faithed gaming of the system. If Wikipedia wants to be a credible encyclopedia it needs to rid itself of such thing. Stop rewarding such behaviour. Ignore all rules and delete spam to help clean up Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the bad-faith behaviour of even baldly promotional users doesn't change the criteria for notability or the content's consistency with it, no matter how disruptive those editors may have been nor how obvious their single-purpose tactics. I agree there's a monumental effort underway here to fluff the subject of this article up well beyond its relevance in reliable sources. But once a subject has a certain number of direct references (of a certain level of detail each) in the form of reliable sources, it's hard to argue that notability has not been reached. I think this article is going to survive deletion this time, so if I were you and very concerned about keeping the most policy-inconsistent content out -- admittedly a tedious task in this case, made borderline obnoxious by the sheer volume of sources that were added against sourcing guidelines, seemingly intentionally -- I'd refocus my efforts into removing all of the unsourced cruft (that is, the vast, vast majority of the article), and making sure that COI-editors are removed from the equation if they are socking to foist inappropriate content on to the project. Snow talk 11:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Women authors are seriously underrepresented and this one seems significant enough. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have we all see the number of project banners on her page? And the rating of the article in those projects? There is no way this article should even have been marked for deletion in the first place. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - those ratings, and in most cases those banners, were inserted by her sockpuppets and supporters as part of the puffery campaign. That they have not been removed reflects primarily the constraint of the non-biased editors here who lean over backwards in the interest of fairness. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've edited the article substantially, per Snow's recommendation, to remove information for which there were no reliable sources. There's still more to go, but a lot of the cruft and questionable claims have been cleared away. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telfaz11[edit]

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

Reason: Because the page did not meet speedy deletion but, to me, the group is not notable, or even tell why it's notable. Ike1x (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is cited entirely to Youtube, Wikipedia itself, and this article. That one legitimate source would certainly contribute toward notability claims for Fahad Albutairi (notable, but whose article could use some cleanup). But that source doesn't even mention Telfaz11, nor does anything else I can find as a reliable, independent source. In part that's because Telfaz11 isn't even the production company—that's C3 Films, which probably isn't independently notable, either—but rather the branding it has given its various online programs. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (Lebanon)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a television program. All of the article sources point to http://mtv.com.lb. Otherwise, I'm unable to find evidence that the show is notable per WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find [73] and [74] and [75], which others may wish to evaluate. Further down the page the individual seasons have also been listed for possible deletion.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Patristics Series[edit]

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

Seams to be non-notable book series. It not even original work, but translation of old works. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reprints, new editions, etc. of old works (in this case, the ancient and early mediaeval Fathers of the Church) normally aren't notable, and the exceptions are notable because they've become standards in the field. There's no evidence that this very new series has obtained recognition comparable to the classic Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I oppose deletion of this article which I started.Reference to translations 5/4 lines above surely does not hold, as they are nineteenth century works and the English language (incl. its American subsidiary) has moved on. The translations appear for the most part to be not from Migne or earlier, but from twentieth century critical editions. At some point I may invoke the argument from authority as some of the translators are particularly eminent.----Clive Sweeting 23 January 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and find it a parent: Category:Works by the Church Fathers is not quite the right one, but is not too far off. Certain churches give considerable authority to patristic literature - the writings of Early Church Fathers. Publishing these in English translation is an important project. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Interesting views on the notability, but that is not what the WP:GNG tells us. Do you know any reliable independent sources that significantly cover the subject? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (confide) @ 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment -- If were talking about one translation of one work, I might have doubts as to notability. However, we are talking about a series of volumes. There can be no question that the underlying works are notable. They are probably regarded as more important by Catholic and Orthodox Christians than Protestant ones, but even their theologians are likely to refer to them. With the original languages nowtaught much less than when I was at school, having these available in translation is important. I am unsure how far a modern critical edition is an advance ones produced long ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important and well known book series. It's hard to track down sources to attest to its notability, because searches are so cluttered with bibliographical citations, but here's a reference in Our Sunday Visitor: Link.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not relevant, since it just mentions the "Popular Patristics Series" is passing, there is no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment'Popular Patristics Series' heads 'Bibliographies' section (3 items only listed before 'General Bibliography') on p.493 of The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth (himself a contributor to the series )online----Clive sweeting, 2 February 2015 post scriptum: I note that the article has been reduced by a contributor by almost half with consequent reduction in meaningfulness. I propose therefore that the earlier version be kept but that the reduced one be deleted----Clive sweeting 2 February 2015

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still Keep~~ -- I have restored some of the deleted text. It would be better still if a full list of the volumes could be provided. Some of the works may already have existing articles, and these should be linked. Many people do not read Latin and Greek and even fewer Coptic. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice. I stroke out your second vote. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reet Sharma[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG criteria, Times of India mentions as just pass by and other website seems like a fan site Shrikanthv (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. I know the sourcing is a bit weak, but I think she looks like a reasonable fit for WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Squinge (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supported by Times Of India, and Zee Association group. Both of them fairly large companies and fair usage. ~~Keep~~, as far as my suggestion goes. Moderator to finally decide. Tanishqsh (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (Struck Keep as user has apparently upgraded to Strong Keep below and can't have two !votes. Have commented below too Squinge (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -Frankly speaking, subject fails WP:GNG (there are all "passing" mentions) and WP:NACTOR (insignificant role).

Subject fails General notability guideline for lacking "significant" coverage (Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.), and WP:NACTOR #1 -for not having substantial roles in whatever films and TV shows they did appear into (if they'd have had been, we were likely to see reliable sources proving the claim. In fact, I've watched all those movies, -in some I just can't remember what role this kid was playing of). Here one should note that just appearing into multiple notable films doesn't make subject notable for inclusion unless they have had "significant" roles in them (see also, WP:BURDEN). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Let's talk!, I agree to your submissions and points put forward, and then I made a point in checking out personally all the projects which are being mentioned here.

I would like you to see once more, and being Indian you might comprehend the difference between a mainstream movie and other class movie. Here, providing some links in order for you to see them and decide onto matter. *Maximum Movie - I looked into this matter and found out that she has portrayed the main lead's daughter along with the Neha Dhupia, Arya Babbar, Naseer etc.

I did try referencing from the tellechakkar's link and found out that she had a significant episode of Gumrah Series - Here is the link : Gumrah Episode 13 Gumrah Episode 13 - The story talked about a girl and its grand-father's bond. You might as well look into the episode to find the significant. I might consider after you looking into this that the content is basically to be Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanishqsh (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Tanishqsh (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is "Anupmehra" and you may now on type ((U|Anupmehra)) to ((ping)) me. I'm not sure why would someone call me, "Let's talk" -that obviously is not my nick on here. Coming to the discussion, I'm still not seeing any sort of reliable sources documenting the so called substantial role in one film and one tv show (two counts multiple?, not sure). You are providing here YouTube and other unreliable sources to make your point. We are not going to do original research -if roles were "some real substantial", why the heck no media out of uncountable in a country of around 1.22 bn population wrote about the same? As I said, in my rationale above -"passing mentions" neither establish GNG nor in this case, prove the claim of substantial roles in multiple films. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anupmehra. Sorry for the previous mention. Yes, in order to make a final call on the statement - I would like you to check the previous mention link thoroughly, the pretext and the content of what it follows. You may find the Coverage: Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Dun? as the source of mentioning the girl as the highlight of their news tally. They have thoroughly discussed about her projects in various films, and shows with even the name mentions. I hope, this proves to be of enough claim to projects she has appeared/worked on. She has been mentioned over different sites like IMDB genre, one such is Movies Buff. I recently got to know about this mention too. Tanishqsh (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tellychakkar, a TV Gossip web-portal, is the only source I am seeing in-here. The reliability of the source is questionable, and afa I can remember we use it to source ordinary claims in Wikipedia articles. Anyway -"one sources neither does make the subject notable" (-per WP:GNG) nor helps to reach another inclusion criteria -that is -"significant roles" in "multiple notable films and tv shows" (WP:NACTOR #1). There are "absolute zero" mainstream reputable sources available on subject that would help them to reach any of the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. And yes, -www.moviebuff.com -is a completely unreliable source, appears to be some typical user-generated site. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Anil, currently a follower of Zee Tv's offering Iss Pyaar Ko kya Naam dun, reached this page after searching for this artist. I suppose this page is regarding this artist's credibility, but she seems to be doing quiet a good work. I am new here, rectify if something is wrong. Anil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniltelevisionbuff (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Aniltelevisionbuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the following mentioned points:
Mentioning the link to the Advertisement campaign by official ICICI Bank (ICICI Claim Care) which runs throughout nation's theaters as mentioned.
Same running through nation's theaters in English ICICI Claim Care English. Note: The above are uploaded by their official channels.

In reversing the order of referencing if we find the logicality of getting a same reference makes all for the points. I hope the debate gets to the conclusion as soon as possible. Tanishqsh (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You can't have two !votes in the same deletion discussion, so I presume this Strong Keep overrides your original Keep above and have struck the original Keep accordingly. Squinge (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I had better reasons to put forward and a strong point and hence better vote. Thanks for the action. Tanishqsh (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Firstly, YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If uploaded by a reliable media, it could be used to cite some basic bibliographical information not to establish notability. All keep !vote here seem to be JUSTAVOTE. No one has been able to provide secondary, independent and reliable sources that discuss subject in detail. That said, being featured in an advertisement (and YouTube links to prove the calim) -is not a valid crietia of inclusion on Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your basic understanding, I would like to point out the references made by Times GroupHere, provided before., even if a passer by mentions her in a leading position on the show. Furthermore to concrete that passerby information mentioned in the Times' report - the video evidences have been provided too, along with a b-town news website mentioning about her tooHere, as mentioned before.. So your claim that they are JUSTVOTES do not adhere to its word, since the mentions are duly provided above. Hence, the above mentions along with suitable evidences of reliability of those passerby or a strong evidences mentioned make her reasonable fit for WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". ~~Hence, Strong Keep.~~ TheAuthor! (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)--no need to !vote twice. See also, Conflict of Interest guideline.. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanishqsh: -Changed signature to TheAuthor!, nice. Have you ever read the WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guideline? Passing mention doesn't establish notability on Wikipedia (read again). Only one source [76] of questionable reliablity doesn't help meet subject any of Wikipedia's notability guideline. So far, We have two source, one is reliable -have passing mention, second unreliable? source -have decent coverage. The fact is that subject never have had any substantial role in any films and tv shows. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact is that subject never have had any substantial role in any films and tv shows." as said by Anupmehra -Let's talk!, If you read closely to what is written in your called, "passing mention" - It is clearly written That the subject will be playing the role of daughter in the new family. And If you reside in India, you can switch on your TV at 5:30 pm Monday to Saturday on Star Plus/HD to watch her play the lead role of daughter(Got this Info from Google, I actually tuned in to see whether if she is there or no, and I found out that she actually plays a lead role). This is for your personal fact clearing. As far as the notability concerned, the second resource, which has decent coverage has mentioned her various works.

For more clearing of facts, I suppose you watch Maximum (film) once - This might clear your facts about her substantial roles. Hence the two mentioned sources also make it eligible for the WP:NACTOR criterion. TheAuthor! (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do original research. If you show me reliable sources that say what you say then I will happily withdraw my delete !vote. One passing mention, another TV gossip, -would not make subject eligible for NACTOR#1 criteria. Lets make it short, we already have wasted enough time on this. Do you have sources for what you claim subject to be, yes or not? Please don't stretch discussion longer. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is my whole point. Can you show me the dis-integration of a source being a passing mention, or how can you compare the strength of a reliable source?. If in that case, yes, the strength of Times Group mention is far widely stronger than any other mention. I am not asking you to do a research, what I am asking is to use some basic knowledge and understanding to measure the strength of that resource. If you think that passing resource cannot be put in NACTOR#1 category, then I think you need to redefine the category, because it is not easy to have a "passing mention" in times group's leading newspaper. TheAuthor! (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Read WP:GNG. We are not only looking for reputable sources but also the extent of coverage. Do you understand, "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources"?? Passing mentions are trivial coverage and Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about that. Do you have any other source beside one passing mention and one TV gossip of questionable reliability?

If you want to modify the Notability guideline, then that is out-of-scope of this venue. Start a separate discussion at Village pump. Stick to the point. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? Yes or No and We are done! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fairly notable to me but not enough english citations are available to prove notability according to guidelines.Mr RD 21:12, 19 February 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 Jaerock Lee#Heaven Volume 2. Nakon 03:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Volume 2[edit]

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

Another book by Jaerock Lee that does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Power of God and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Message of the Cross. bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As wioth the Power of God this is essentially an advert. I have voted otherwise on the Message of the Cross sue to the very high number of transalations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jaerock Lee – Heaven Volume 2, where the topic is already covered. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Jaerock Lee#Heaven Volume 2 per Northamerica1000. I was not able to find significant coverage about the book in English. There may be Korean sources that do provide significant coverage, so no prejudice to undoing the redirect if such sources are found. Cunard (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SVGDreams[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I was unable to find any significant coverage other than blog posts or sites offering the software for download. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails all of the inclusion criteria found at WP:NSOFTWARE. —Noah 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 16 February 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 Lee So-young. Nakon 05:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Model (manhwa)[edit]

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

No evidence to suggest notability because Google results are anime fan websites. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Absolutely no independent sources, no media coverage, definitely in my personal opinion could qualify for a Speedy Delete. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no speedy deletion criteria for books, so this wouldn't qualify for speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lee So-young. I found a review for the series as a whole through Manga Maniac Cafe (which is, I believe, one of the rare blogs that can be used as a source for manga/anime related stuff), but that's not enough to keep the series. For some reason I thought that ANN did a review of this, but I may be thinking of one of the author's other works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 05:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Hared[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet the notability threshold. He apparently played on a newly-formed sports team for one tournament in 2014, but there seems to be no significant coverage on him before or since then. There are a mere 528 total hits on the name, many of which are either mirrors, forums or pertain to other people. Only two of the hits seem to be relevant and in English, but both are again on that one 2014 competition. Thus, clearly fails WP:BIO1E. Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us wait until next week for the 2015 championship (Somalia will be playing) and see whether he is still on the team.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is he likely to receive non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? Reso lute 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Leaning delete, but~~ worth noting that the IOC doesn't do demonstration events anymore, so the claim that essentially tried to mark him as an Olympian is not accurate. Reso lute 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now keep, I searched Russian sources and found pretty of coverage, some of which I added to the article. This is secific coverage for Hared, not just for the team.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The third one certainly qualifies, thanks. I think I am more in agreement with your above comment to wait and see if more comes out of this year's tournament, at the very least. Reso lute 20:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of ~530 total hits on the subject, there indeed only appear to be three English language links with significant coverage. The rest are either mirrors, forum pages, brief mentions, links pertaining to other people with the same name, or are in a foreign language. The fact that only a few Russian language links mention him, typically in passing and almost all in relation to that one 2014 tournament in Russia, further confirms that the subject fails WP:BIO1E. There is a Russian link on another tournament in Russia that is slated to be held in 2015, but this too is just an ordinary roster announcement. Regarding whether or not he may eventually receive significant enough coverage in that or other future tournaments to warrant a standalone bio, please also see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Notability applies to the present, not the future. Middayexpress (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate that you do not see an obvious fact that he has already got sufficient coverage. Certainly WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, and if he gets coverage next week WP:ONEVENT does not apply either. It is not really surprising that his coverage in Russian is better that in English, since bandy is way more popular in Russia than in the US or Canada, and the world championships of 14, 15 and 16 are all held in Russia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage does not simply mean that a subject is mentioned many times in random links. Per WP:BASIC, it pertains to non-trivial coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Even if it did mean that, there are only ~530 total hits on the name, many of which aren't even on the subject. The Russian links are virtually all trivial coverage and related to that one 2014 tournament in Russia (which is not the only bandy playing nation). The subject thus certainly does fail WP:BIO1E. WP:CRYSTAL also obviously does apply because there's no way of knowing if he will eventually receive enough significant coverage after the other 2015 tournament in Russia to warrant a standalone bio; and that's assuming he even follows through and takes part in that event (viz. "avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative"). Middayexpress (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously incorrect. The links which I added to the article are not random links but two newspaper articles (one of which is a central newspaper), and the third one is the website of the World Championship. They are reliable, independent of each other, coverage is non-trivial, and there is more coverage available. None of them is simply a lineup. Counting hits is not really productive. If you want to search in Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian Bokmal or Kazakh, which represents the main bandy playing nations, you are obviously welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And of those references, only one of them actually talks about the player at all as opposed to a small mention. There is nothing here beyond routine coverage, or the BLP1E where they are talking about him just because he scored the first goal as a Somalian. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point they clearly fail WP:GNG. And it would be an violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL to keep him around in the hopes he might meet it following 2015s tournament. Page can easily be recreated if he does manage to meet notability. But at this point I am thinking its a WP:BLP1E for what little trivial coverage there is. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added one more ref, from yesterday, which is an article in a central newspaper. This is now clearly not BLP1E article since his participation in TWO championships is covered by reliable source. Note that for bandy, the world championship is the highest level of competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that article doesn't talk about the subject at all. All it has is a quote from him saying they were disappointed with the result of the game. That is the very definition of routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read about him in Finnish media, didn't find the article online but I added another one as a source. The guy scored the first ever goal by an African team in bandy! 188.67.39.246 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that article just mentions he scored as well. Also a WP:ROUTINE bit of coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Variable Cyber Coordinates (VCC) method of communications[edit]

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

Completely non-notable, and pretty much gibberish Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article about a network communications system that is essentially unknown outside the writings of its creator, Victor Sheymov. Sheymov himself does appear notable (although his article is a dog), but that notability is not inherited. Variable Cyber Coordinates (which redirects to the title under discussion) was previously a redirect to Sheymov's article as a compromise solution, but one that clearly wasn't sufficient. I'd have no objections to the shorter title redirecting back there if it stays that way (although I personally don't think this concept has sufficient third-party coverage to even warrant inclusion in the biography, were it cleaned up), but this more verbose title isn't even a plausible search term. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 14 February 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 USS Fieberling (DE-640). Nakon 05:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon K. Fieberling[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. A merge/redirect to USS Fieberling (DE-640) seems appropriate here. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia running out of pages? The man is different from the ship. As for notability, he's got a Navy Cross, role in the Battle of Midway, and had a warship named for him.

—WWoods (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy Cross isn't the Medal of Honor needed for automatic inclusion, thousands had a role in the battle, and another sailor I successfully(?) nominated for deletion/redirect also had a ship named after him. Are we running out of pages? No. So does that mean I can have a page too? Definitely no. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to USS Fieberling (DE-640). Junior officer with a single second-level decoration. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Many very junior people have USN ships named after them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SOLDIER is an essay only and it is only listing categories of subjects that *MAY* be *PRESUMED* to be notable on the assumption of the level of coverage they *MIGHT* have. It is not a guideline so any deletion rationale made solely on the basis of this alone seems a weak one to me. That aside, in this case it would seem to me that the subject has sufficient coverage to be considered notable under WP:GNG, despite not having received the Medal of Honor. (He did of cse have a destroyer escort named after him by the US Navy instead which would seem quite a high honour to me, even if it isn't specifically included in WP:SOLDIER). There are a couple of dead tree sources listed as references in the article, including a short biography in DANFS and another book, whilst a quick search of Google Books reveals mentions in numerous books which describe the action for which he was awarded the Navy Cross. Whilst short, the article includes a range of bibliographic details which would probably be WP:UNDUE if merged into the article on the ship, and there seems sufficient detail and coverage to justify a stand alone article (albeit a brief one). What benefit to the encyclopaedia is there in deleting this? None that I can see. Finally comments like "So does that mean I can have a page too?" add nothing to this discussion, unless of course you were also posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for your actions at the Battle of Midway, had a ship named after you, and were written about in a bunch of books... That seems unlikely though. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's only an essay, but it's widely accepted by those of us who write in the military field. I can't see why Fieberling is any more notable than any other junior officer who fought in a famous battle and won a second-level decoration. Dozens of these were won every day if one takes all the countries involved in the world wars. The USN has named its ships after many people who've won Navy Crosses. It's typical naming for the USN. Most other nations don't name their ships after people who've won decorations - does this difference in naval naming policy between the USA and other countries mean American recipients of such decorations are more significant than those of other countries who haven't had ships named after them (or indeed, of US Army or Air Force recipients of equivalent decorations)? No, of course it doesn't. As for the sources covering him, they're nothing more than routine coverage. The only possible reason I can see for his inclusion is that he commanded the first unit to engage the enemy at Midway, but I think that's a pretty weak reason to keep the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first, nor even the first naval force to attack the Japanese, according to Battle of Midway. Nine B-17s from Midway Island attacked first, then more bombers, including "six Grumman Avengers, detached to Midway from the Hornet's VT-8". In fact, his entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships makes no such claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD isn't about finding a reason to keep the article though is it? The deletion rationale provided, as it stands, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the essay WP:SOLDIER, which lists categories of individuals that "will almost always have sufficient coverage" (i.e. a presumption) and are therefore likely to be notable (but only if they have said coverage). No where does it state that individuals in categories falling outside that list that also have significant coverage are not notable though, so stating something "fails WP:SOLDIER" is invalid as a deletion rationale as it is not an exclusive list (but an inclusive one instead). Ultimately policy takes precedence over an essay at any rate and that is the general notability guideline. As such this boils down to an assessment of whether the coverage Fieberling received was "significant" or not. On that point we have both made our arguments clear so I guess it is now up to others as to what they think. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me that nobody is misunderstanding anything. There is no especial reason this individual is notable. WP:SOLDIER says that his rank and decoration do not make him notable without another reason for notability. There is not sufficient coverage to make him notable. He isn't notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to USS Fieberling (DE-640). Subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER, most reliable sources are about the namesake of a ship, where the ship is the primary subject of the content. While the ship itself is notable, namesakes of ships are not presumed notable. Furthermore the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage as a stand alone subject. The subject is mentioned in passing in regards to the Battle of Midway, but nothing that would meet WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, either the subject falls under WP:BIO1E, and should be redirected to the Battle of Midway article as was done for the article about Jimmy Nakayama, or to the ship named after the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is not mentioned in the Battle of Midway article. Someone searching on his name and getting the Battle of Midway article would be understandably very puzzled. Do we really want to clutter the articles on famous events with gratuitous mentions of people who fall below our threshold of notability? It seems that if a ship name is all that prompts a bio, then the subject should be included as a short section in the article on the ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015–16 Aviva Premiership transfers[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Teams are subject to change prior to next season; deals could also fall apart in the mean time. At the time of this nomination, even the main season article doesn't exist yet. Article has also suffered an edit war over its contents... and I don't personally see how any of these transfer articles are valid on their own; few other sports use them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lukeno94 WP:TOOSOON — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much as Lukeno94 says, a list of player transfers in the future is a crystal ball. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete First of all what I did with the deletion of several citations on those transfers pages without giving valid reasons. My reasons were just really stupid and naive. I really and sincerely apologise for that. Anyway, why delete these pages? They not breaking any rules, guidelines or anything. Why try to delete the Aviva Premiership and the RFU Championship transfer pages but not the Super Rugby transfers? That's just been a bit biased. I had this problem before last year from other users about putting these transfers on the rugby union teams pages itself. But by putting them onto new link pages it was sorted out, plain and simple. They all just left it alone and let me continue edting. So how come you are making it a serious problem, which is just unfair really. NikeCage68 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015, (UTC)

Because I hadn't spotted the Super Rugby transfers yet? Those need to go as well. None of your vote lines up with any deletion/keep criteria. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query Are these transfers more than just rumour? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

They're "confirmed" right now. However... there are multiple things that could happen between now and the actual transfer completing, and it's far from unheard of for a deal to be completed, and called off later down the line. We certainly don't know all of the teams that will play in the league next season, and, in fact, it is pretty much impossible for all of these teams to be in the league next year; as such, we're also reporting factual inaccuracies. When the main season article doesn't exist yet... then these sub-articles REALLY shouldn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there's a number of issues here. They don't appear to be insurmountable, though the question of which teams will be in the league next year is tricky. The fact that the "main" article doesn't exist should certainly alert one to potential difficulties, but it is not a guarantee that this article should not exist. The issue about the completion of the deals can be dealt with by an appropriate explanation in the lead. The question of which team will be in the league shows that the article title may need adjusting.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

I have altered the lead slightly, this should take care of the issues raised. Potentially the article could be moved to a title like List of 2015–16 Aviva Premiership announced transfers. Therefore:

Keep or move. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India). Nakon 03:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devathai (TV series)[edit]

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

Prod was declined and run-of-the mill TV show. No sources to assert notability Chennai Gopika (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article has no sources asserting to its notability. It is a very long description of the plot and the cast It reads like a PR promo from the TV network.VanishingRainbow (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Program listings (like this) and videos hosted on TOI (example) don't establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Users don't seem to be independent. They have been nominating Sun TV articles together and consistently voting for deletion. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable enough to me Jjamesryan (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jjamesryan your argument is "WP:IT'SNOTABLE". --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just see it as notable because it has enough refs, information etc. to stay Jjamesryan (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject fails to meet required standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India) -While there are not enough sources to establish notability of subject, there are quite a few mention of subject in some reliable sources. Better if we turn it into a redirect -per WP:ATD-R. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of TV shows aired on Sun TV (India) per Anupmehra's argument.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Stai[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician which just asserts his existence, failing to even attempt any actual claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC, and which sources it entirely to primary and commercial PR sources with no reliable source coverage whatsoever. Even the one source which looks like it should singlehandedly cover off his notability, MTV, is actually just a straight mirror of our "article". Delete unless it can be written a lot more substantially, and sourced a lot better, than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 03:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was not able to find any sources on him except for confirming his existence.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian units of measurement[edit]

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

There are no "Australian units of measurement". A previous editor removed the copied list of English units, so now the article has no content which is not already much better covered in the (quite good) article Metrication in Australia. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that there's nothing to say about Australian units of measure is absurd. It has a distinct history for its use of imperial and then SI units - see History of Measurement in Australia. Before then, the aboriginal peoples had their own ways of reckoning - see Tangkic Orders of Time, for example. And now, Australia has evolved its own uniquely complex and idiosyncratic system for its most important commodity — beer! Andrew D. (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the reference you cite as "Tangkic Orders of Time" says the following: "Like other Australian hunter-gatherers, the Tangkic people had no quantitative measurement system for either space or time." That sounds to me like "There are no Australian units of measurement." Imaginatorium (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to say keep by Andrew D., but will wait to see whether any real content is added. If it is, it might be better renamed to something like "Measurement in Australia". --Bduke (Discussion) 08:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using the adjectival form is unfortunate. But the contributor of this series of stubs reverted other attempts to switch to more appropriate titles, so that the list at Category:Units of measurement by country would be consistent (which it isn't, quite). There are English, Dutch, French, and German units (those also being the languages of the names of the units), but similarly there are no Belgian units of measurement, since French and Dutch units were used, until "Belgium" switched to the metric system 20 years before it came into existence. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is substantial content, then keep, however for now I'd suggest Merge with History of Australia. It might have some historical significance, but currently not enough to be worthy of its own page IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Australia is a massive page of over 250K and so needs breaking up per WP:SIZE rather than having more detail merged into it. People increasingly read Wikipedia on their phones now and so, per WP:NOTPAPER, our pages should be short and to the point rather than being huge, rambling compendia. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is pretty awful. There's currently one factoid that can't be dismissed as "imperial", metric, or metrification, but it's an "in popular culture" kind of thing, attributed to a Reliable Source that starts "Many visitors to Australia do not realize how unbelievably ginormous this country is until they actually start travelling around, the distances are simply amazing!" However, it seems to me that in this edit a baby might have been pulled out with bathwater. Meanwhile, the article on Metrication in Australia is less than stellar, telling us: (A) Metrication in Australia effectively began in 1966 with, the successful conversion to decimal currency - under the auspices of the Decimal Currency Board. The conversion of measurements — metrication — commenced subsequently in 1971 (keep those years in your heads!) and also (B) By 1968, metrication was already well under way in Australian industry. The pharmaceutical industry had metricated in 1965 and much of the chemical and electronics industries worked in metric units - there being no "Imperial" units for the latter. It's all too depressing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-this is next to useless. No one measures distance in beer. Also decimal currency is unrelated to metric so that article should be fixed. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, but under a new name An article tracing the evolution in systems of measurement used in Australia would be useful, and there are lots of references to support this. The content of the current article isn't very good though, and it's title is rather eccentric. Moving it to Measurement in Australia would help somewhat. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources showing that the topic "Australian units of measurement" is notable per WP:GNG—what independent sources discuss that topic other than to note that Australians uses measurement systems established elsewhere? Anything useful about aboriginal measurement belongs somewhere else, and jokes such as the colloquial section might be mentioned in an article about slang, but should not appear as if they were encyclopedic information in an article on units. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains just 2 nuggets of fool's gold: a supposition about what aboriginal "units would be", and a collection of indeterminate humorous units. These are padded out with repetitive mentions of imperial and metric units and three pictures of measuring, which we can be confident did not use aboriginal units or bee's dicks. No substance and no notability. NebY (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent independent evidence of notability or need for a separate entry. PianoDan (talk) 15:59, 17 February 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 All, Nakon 03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (Lebanese season 3)[edit]

NOTE: There are two additional articles in this bundled deletion discussion. Please don't close it until the discussion concludes. Only one of the three articles was speedy deleted.

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

Article about a future season of a television program. I am unable to find any independent sources that establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm adding all of the seasons for this show. There is no evidence that there has been are any independent sources that discuss these seasons. The sources in the articles are almost entirely to Twitter profiles and 404 pages on a website http://mtv.com.lb. The articles seem to be original research- Mr X 12:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Dancing with the Stars (Lebanese season 3). This was a combination of a SNOW delete (to call the article "original research" is generous: it is more like fantasy) and speedy deletion as a page created by a blocked editor in violation of a block. However, since MrX has added two other articles as well, the discussion needs to stay open. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dancing with the Stars (Lebanese season 3) has been created again, by another sockpuppet. It qualifies for speedy deletion again, for the same reason, but for the present I am leaving it to be discussed here, to see whether there is consensus for deletion on other grounds too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as no evidence of notability, These consist of nothing but Twitter and dead MTV cites, We could archive the MTV ones but I'm fairly certain they're only character profiles so it'll be a waste of time!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped In Static[edit]

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

Band looks to fail WP:NBAND, created by WP:SPA. Lots of social media refs but I can't find sufficient reliable sources to support the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia these should be considered reliable sources for which they meet more then 1 of the criteria that are required to identify them as notable - specifically criteria 9,10,11 and 12 are mentioned below:

A movie on IMDb that was released in 2014, for which the theme song and music is written by Athan Hilaki / Trapped In Static (under full cast)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3132796/

The trailer of the movie "Preying For Mercy", which was written & performed by Trapped In Static, with title "Nitro (The End)" - the song can be found on their soundcloud and website

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxz38wDiw88

Featured on national cable TV - The band has performed live for the Manhattan Network Neighborhood, below a video from their performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvGXmNo5ywI

Below the bands information on MTV.com a well established music channel

http://www.mtv.com/artists/trapped-in-static/

The band also won Top Artist of May 2013 at ArtistSignal.com - an online worldwide contest that includes over 1000 bands, below the link shows the band as one of the past winners.

https://artistsignal.com/discover/our-winners

The band was also a featured artist and their music was used in more then one episode for the TV series Niteclub Ratings. Below the TV series on IMDb and videos on demand, online from Vimeo, where you can see the band as one of the featured artists.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2204922/
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/6476/78423661 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outliner (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Outliner: Thanks for working to find sources for this. I'd still recommend reading WP:RS, though. Sites that rely on user-contributed content like imdb, youtube, and vimeo are almost always (and in fact always in the case of imdb) considered unreliable. What we need are things like newspaper articles about a trailer that talks about them, magazine articles about the movie, blog posts on well known websites, coverage in books, etc. The artistsignal award and the cable tv appearance may be meaningful, but I don't think the others will have much sway here. Although I do not ultimately decide this, I can say pretty confidently that with the current sourcing the band will be deemed not notable enough yet (maybe WP:TOOSOON). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I read the article, thanks again for the tips. Below is some more information.

This is a very well established blog about movies called MovieClips. In the link below, is the trailer of the movie "Preying For Mercy" which they posted on their youtube account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxz38wDiw88

As far as published material, the band was featured in the first issue of The Revolution Magazine by Model Mutiny. If needed I can upload a screenshot of the physical magazine somewhere.

http://www.trappedinstatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/revmag-preview.jpg

The artist signal contest covers one of the criteria as well, since the article comes from their official blog and can be found in other blogs as well such as the UK arts directory and mi2n.org - Music Industry News Network (a source that has been used for numerous of wikipedia articles, as it shows in search results. Articles such as Sheryl Crow, Songkick and plenty more).

http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=164739

...It seems that I found numerous other bands that definitely have less references then this band here, not sure how those bands are still on wikipedia...I will keep looking for more sources, thanks again. On a last note, the TV show should be quite a big one since it is on a national network, the video is posted on the hostess's youtube account and it does cover one of the criteria (n.12) required to identify them as notable

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 14 February 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. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to User:Andrew Davidson and the nominator. If either of the two would add the found information to the article, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two-step (dance move)[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 5 years. Dubious. The vague description exactly matches what is called chasse in ballet-based dancing (or descriptions using ballet language) and triple step in various folk/club/country/ballroom dances -M.Altenmann >t 04:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

~~P.S. No redirect, unless someone suggests reputable references; I found none. -M.Altenmann >t 04:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~

Withdrawn -M.Altenmann >t 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources such as Folk dancing, "... the American Two-Step craze began around 1890. The Two-Step was a simple dance in 2/4 or 4/4 time that entailed marching chassés steps. The Two-Step flourished ..." Andrew D. (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are confused. The discussed article in not about one of several Two-step dances. When searching for a word, don't forget about synonyms and actually read the reference and compare with the article in question. (By the way, your ref actually confirms what I wrote: the uneducated article writer described what is normally called "chassés steps".) -M.Altenmann >t 19:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more accessible source, Creative Dance for All Ages. It seems that it is taught as a standard locomotor move in the curriculum of the National Standards for Physical Education in the USA, along with other standard moves like the grapevine and schottische. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. -M.Altenmann >t 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relation to Country-western two-step? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CW2S (and many other dances) can have the kind of step described in the article, but the point is they are not called so; see my initial rationale. -M.Altenmann >t 19:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gursimran Khamba[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NOT. The person is known for one viral video and one podcast. I suggest it should be deleted. Coderzombie (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I've mentioned earlier in the talk page of the subject also, the subject is clearly notable. Here are some more citations that I found relating him regarding a recent, apparently India's first roster event AIB Knockout:
The Most Hilariously Offensive Jokes On Karan Johar From The AIB Knockout;
AIB Knockout Episodes – The Roast Of Ranveer and Arjun Kapoor - See more at: http://www.nimblearena.com/aib-knockout-episodes-roast-ranveer-arjun-kapoor/#sthash.uf0MkBtr.dpuf
Knockout moments: Deepika, Alia, Sonakshi flash their smiles as AIB roasts Ranveer, Arjun

Here are some more mentioning him as a writer/author:

I believe even most of them doesn't mention him as a sole subject but he is a notable stand-up comedian and writer whose work is recognized by all big and small media channels. The page should be expanded to include more information on him. Mr RD 10:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Well, references provided above are having only short/passing mentions and many are "by" subject not "about" subject. But I am able to find some that may help subject to meet the WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard such as, -[78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]. One however is required to use these refs to expand the existing article. I am also not sure about deletion rationale made by nominator. May I know how does it actually falls into -"WP:NOT" guideline? Is it a spam or something I am missing? Or are they suggesting WP:BLP2E criteria for being notable for only two event (one viral video and one podcast)? Anyway, please take a look at sources provided in this comment. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anupmehra has listed lot of reliable sources that warrant an article about the person in Wikipedia. Easily passes WP:GNG. Ethically^Yours! 11:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 05:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Town[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: no awards, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Only reference is primary. Vrac (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Stephen R. Johnson, if that's the author, or to the author's page if there is one. Otherwise, delete. Deunanknute (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (see below) As I stated on the AfD discussion of Girl Meets Ghost "I would like to point out that when looking for "solid reviews" to prove "notability" there are many fewer credible reviewers of children's literature, and fewer venues for publishing those reviews, and the page space (the "inches") given to said reviews are much less than for mainstream fiction. Which is not to mention that there are many fewer awards (two main ones and a few others), so the chances of a quality children's book "passing muster" by the standards currently set for mainstream fiction may have to be looser for children's literature: a semi-protected class if you will. Four to five picture books a year get Caldecott medals. By comparison, how many credible SF awards are out there? Too many for me to take the time to count to prove this point. External bias can yield incidental internal bias. And then there is the issue that if I write and publish a review of Girl Meets Ghost in a reputable journal or magazine (which I most certainly could, though I would prefer not to at this time) then I have walked into a Conflict of Interest as I would be self-promoting my own academic work. Children’s Literature is a very large industry with very few critics willing to follow it as it is considered a “career killer” in academe. I am a full professor with tenure, so that does not bother me since that part of my career is done. But many academics and journalist-critics just won’t touch Children’s literature. So we have a systematic bias that results in inadvertent Wikipedia bias. Sometimes the same rules should not apply to everything." HullIntegrity (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I will hit the databases this afternoon and ref it up if possible. With that many books in the series, there will be reviews. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - no books in this series have any reviews/stars on Amazon, or other booksellers websites, unlike Girl Meets Ghost. Notability guidelines may not fit well with children's books, but there should need to be some notability to warrant an article. Deunanknute (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Agreed. But sometimes it takes time to establish credibility, and someone(s) to do it. As I said, few people work with Children's and it, like African American Literature, is a severely underrepresented area on Wikipedia. So, I will see what I can find on this one, but I object to deletion notices on any children's literature works that are useful (to anyone) and may be developed. I do not see 90 hits in the last 30 days as insignificant. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple of comments: the author and illustrator of these books were wikilinked to people who are clearly not them so I think a merge is off the table. User @WordSeventeen: removed the PROD today and added this as a reference. It is a blurb on the website of the company that designed Berry Town's website (which is now defunct by the way); this is about as far from a valid source as one can possibly get so I've removed it as inappropriate. No notability has been demonstrated for an article that is unsourced original research written by someone who most likely has a strong conflict of interest to advertise their work. Should we just let all of that slide because it's children's literature? Vrac (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recant: Delete - Yes, after a bit more snooping, the article does look totally hinky. And, no, "just because it is Children's Literature" is not enough. I only mean there are so few people working in the area it takes more time to check and verify, so I am inclined to "wait and verify". That said, I am in agreement with this deletion. HullIntegrity (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification And after some thinking, I would like to clarify that I think it should be deleted for three reasons: intent (which seems to be advertising), a clear lack of notability (at the moment), and authorship (no registered editors have ever actually worked on it sans myself who made a minor edit while reading it because I could not help myself). I am still unsure about the page hits, though those also can easily be manufactured. HullIntegrity (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 14 February 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 Sanoma. Nakon 03:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanoma Media[edit]

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

This disambiguation page currently serves no purpose. It should lead to Sanoma daughters, however, none of these has its own article. Only the Russia link isn't red, yet it leads back to Sanoma. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Gidonb, the htree redlinks now clearly meet MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION (that wasn't clear for them before you nominated this). It now has 4 valid entries. There may be a valid argument for a WP:RM if the Russian one is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but this is a valid dab, unless I've missed something, for example that they are all really the one company? Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Delete per Gidonb's comments below. Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn Yes, these are daughters of one central company. In the media industry and other industries that were impacted by the internet, we have a huge problem keeping company files up to date because of the quick changes. This disambiguization page basically invites users to build an article for every daughter company, potentially taking our quality further down. Validating this page, while well-intended, does not foster Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanoma; term is short enough that it might be searched for via cut-n-paste. Pax 01:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sanoma. I agree with Gidonb's comments, but I wouldn't delete it completely because Sanoma is a media company, and so a redirect there makes sense. Tavix | Talk 01:41, 20 February 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 Sadaat Amroha. Nakon 05:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharfuddin Shah Wilayat[edit]

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

There was some suggestion that this problem plagued article be deleted at [86] so I'm throwing it up for discussion as suggested. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : I know the sourcing is bit weak, but subject appears to be a notable person. The problem is, Indian media only recently has started keeping archives and related historical books are very few available online and even they having snippet view are completely useless. Here are three sources that suggest significance of subject, -[87], [88], [89]. I'm attempting to find more in the meanwhile. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (do not merge). My comment at the other AfD: "There's an apparent project afoot to create an article on every name mentioned in every Sufi publication. It'd be like every parish priest getting one." Typically of these, this article is OR puffery without any RS concerning some long-dead political appointee. Pax 10:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Sadaat Amroha. Agreed that this is of little relevance to the western reader, but the guy is the founder of a fairly recognisable religious community in Northern India. @Раціональне анархіст: your comparison to a "parish priest" fails to distinguish between a priest and a founder of a religious sect - in Amroha, the guy is revered much like saints are in Christianity. The question is whether there is enough sources to keep the person in a separate article, or merge him to the article on his community. However, seeing that the article is fairly well linked to, I am inclined to keep it. Agreed that it needs some serious editing work. kashmiri ^TALK 14:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you stipulate to there being a question as to whether RS exist and that the article is as ugly as sin, then suggesting 'keep' is improper. As far as Sadaat Amroha goes, that article is a similarly specious wallow in "highly respected" OR puffery that should be nuked right along with this one. (Nom could bundle that into this AfD at his leisure...and follow the blue links in both articles to more of the iceberg under the surface.) Pax 23:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote a single suspicious link in Sadaat Amroha please? So that we know what you are talking about. I have personally "nuked" a few Islam-related promos, but I am surprised anyone would suggest to delete Amroha Naqvis. Unless, of course, the traditions of South Asia are not something you are best at. kashmiri ^TALK 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said the Sadaat Amroha article was specious, not suspicious. (It's written in the typical puffery-laden OR style of all of these Sufi AfDs, including this one.) Pax 04:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Sadaat Amroha, per discussion above. Article now has one inline citation.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not currently seem to be evidence of notability for the subject. Claiming notability isn't enough, in and of itself, to satisfy even WP:GNG which is sort of a first step. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google returns less than I thought but still a few hits to consider. There is a lengthy article about the person on an Indian news TV website [90], a school in Pakistan is named after him [91], and, importantly, there is an annual Urs festival organised for the saint at his shrine [92]. It's not that I insist, but it would be weird if that person, even if notable only locally in India, could not be found somewhere on Wikipedia. Whether he warrants a separate article, that's another question. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 09:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Keep - Per Kashmiri, subject has received well amount of coverage in numerous reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of epilepsy in dogs[edit]

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

Reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedic article; appears to be original research or synthesis. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

Recently I have written down a short article entitled "Treatment of epilepsy in dogs". My aim was to provide an update about the treatment of canine epilepsy based on the recently published papers. The article is considered by wikipedia as "article for deletion". I do not understand the reason tot ell you the truth because I do use references to refer to the original papers published. I have created this article based on the current evidence driven by enthusiasm to share knowledge; and this is my first article in wikipedia.

Therefore, I would like your feedback on this and let me know the reason for deletion please. I am happy to improve it according to your feedback.

Kind Regards,

~Dr Pete Andrews~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPeteAndrews (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also my response on the user's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with Epilepsy in animals, especially the section on treatment of canine epilepsy. Delete per nom: WP:NOR. Shanata (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Epilepsy in animals. Dr. Pete Andrews, if you read this, please don't be discouraged. Please keep contributing! BakerStMD T|C 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect (a five-word phrase is an unlikely search/redirect term). Pax 01:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete improbable article title. But the topic is notable, and the animal epilepsy article is about canine epilepsy, where treatment should be discussed. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biancaneve[edit]

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

No significant coverage by reliable sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. n 1982, a motion picture based on Biancaneve called Biancaneve & Co, was released by Valiant, directed by Mario Bianchi and featuring starlet Michela Miti with Oreste Lionello, Gianfranco d'Angelo and Aldo Sambrell. It was released in English as Snow White and 7 Wise Men. See link Biancaneve & Co Jethwarp (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a few on line references to support what is otherwise offline. Any comic book that would survive to 94 issues and has been the inspiration for two movies certainly has achieved a sufficient level of notability. Trackinfo (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being merely unsourced is not a valid rationale for deletion, now sources have been provided and WP:HEY easily applies. Natg 19's and Trackinfo's points above are also valid. Cavarrone 10:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (actually pretty much leaning keep)--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maghella[edit]

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

No evidence of notability because Google results are unreliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nominator has not done WP:BEFORE. The article also exists in French and Italian Wikipedian - see links [93] and [94]. Had also in same fashion nominated Zora Vampire without doing any research. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because the article exists on another 'pedia doesn't mean it gets one here, Then there's the sources .... well there isn't any (There is however a Trivia section on the French 'pedia but that proves nothing!), Anyway I can't find any shred of notability so delete. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I dont know why you think there is no notability. there are enough sources if you do google web and images [95]. Also Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and any comic books or comic charterers, which has so many images and book history - and especially which is part of an historical era of erotic vampire cult comic - is itself notable. Thanks! Jethwarp (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we are an encyclopaedia and we should keep as many articles as possible, But like this article there's some that just aren't notable enough to be here, Even looking through Google I can't find anything, thanks –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more references on book search in Italian language [96]. Jethwarp (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A film inspired from charterer named "Maghella" was made in 1974 shot by noted French director Francis Leroi, which also establishes the notability. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Possible sources based on a admitedly superficial search and quick translation sanity check: 1, 2, 3, 4. (NSFW, duh) —Noah 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bio sanitizers[edit]

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

I think the page should be deleted. I removed content that wasn't referenced, some didn't make sense and it sounded like an essay. Frobu (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed up the nomination page. For reference, the pre-removal version is here, which does really seem like a high school or college essay. ansh666 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It may have seemed like an essay, but the nominator also removed all content that would distinguish it as a topic before nominating it for deletion. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 20:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. -Augustabreeze (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/possible merge - I took the pre-removal version that ansh mentions above and attempted to re-write the entire page. What I ended up with is not notable: would fail WP:GNG and I was unable to find relevant reliable sources, so delete. It may be appropriate to mention the concept of cleaning with steam at Disinfectant, but some is already available at Sterilization_(microbiology)#Steam_sterilization hence I say "possible merge". Shanata (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relevant part of the article, micro-organisms, was temoved prior to deletion. It was bad before relevant content was removed, but it was not without notability. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Saqqar[edit]

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

It appears that a Berber tribe "Beni Saqqar" does not exist in the area described, the name seems to be only a hypothetical mention in one scientific book and no sources are given about such a tribe having ever existed, neither having been described by histeorians. The only quotable source is "Graindorge, Catherine, "Sokar". In Redford, Donald B., (ed) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. III, pp. 305–307". The source is fine, but what does it say? Apparently, the sentence is "... Saqqara, which probably comes from the name of a Berber tribe, the Beni Saqqar. ...". This alone is not good enough for having an entry about this supposed tribe which may have or may not have existed. The author of the page has not contributed any kind of other sourced material, although a debate has ensued, see talkpage there. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of coverage. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mensans[edit]

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

Duplicative and redundant. We already have Category:Mensans, which is more complete anyway. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories serve different purposes - the list, for example, contains more information than the category, in the form of a one-line description for each entry which can not be duplicated by the category. There must be thousands of cases of lists and categories existing together here - it seems to be a long-standing standard to keep both. Squinge (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid keep rationale. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lucky I didn't use it as a rationale then, I was merely referring you to the long-standing consensus to keep both lists and categories to illustrate what you're up against. Try reading my actual explanation of the difference between lists and categories for why they're not duplicates. Oh, and yes, WP:NOTDUP is the guideline - I was looking for that earlier and couldn't find it, thanks Postdlf. Squinge (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "There must be thousands of cases of lists and categories existing together here" Looks like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? It says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Squinge (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is plainly contra WP:NOTDUP. @The Master: Please either add a valid rationale or withdraw. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not set in stone. This can be judged on its own merits, based on WP:CONSENSUS, and nothing is hurt by the discussion being allowed to run its course. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're trying to overturn the long-standing "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative" consensus, leading to the deletion of most of Wikipedia's list articles? I wouldn't give much for your chances of success there then. Squinge (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far there are no "merits". You've failed to offer a reason why the guideline shouldn't be followed in this particular case, instead posting a deletion rationale that didn't even acknowledge that there was such a guideline despite plainly contradicting it. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very anxious to get this immediately closed and I'm not really understanding the urgency. If the list belongs then it will remain when the discussion runs its course just as much as if I let you bully me into immediately withdrawing it. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can see some use for this if it were Sinclair, Pirie and Serebriakoff. Otherwise it's non-defining. Mensa membership is utter trivia: a deliberate choice to spend a membership fee by a group that forms (by their constitution) 2% of the population. It is nonsense to think of Mensa as "the genius society". Membership of it conveys no significance whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Glad to see an actual, relevant argument.) If that is the case, then obviously Category:Mensans should be deleted as well, as we're even less tolerant of categorization by trivial fact than we are listing. I do see many of the citations in this list are to Mensa primary sources, but not all. It doesn't need to rise to the level of WP:DEFINING (a categorization standard) for us to keep this list, but I would expect the fact to be fairly regularly noted by sources other than Mensa and the...um...Mensee.
  But on the flip side, we do tend to keep lists of notable members of notable organizations (such as List of Scouts, a group membership that is even more common and also typically not significant within the individual's overall life). And another way of looking at it is the relevance this list of notable members has to the parent article, Mensa International, as a subtopic WP:SPLIT for WP:SIZE purposes. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm unfamiliar with List of Scouts, but I doubt that it includes me. Like so many other suburban kids, I was once a scout. I tied things, I saluted flags, I marched, I camped. This conveys absolutely nothing, and it would be wrong to categorise anyone with a similarly trivial connection in such a way. Now for Bear Grylls and Peter Duncan, this is a relevant connection and deserves listing. They have had some active and long-term involvement in scouting beyond childhood. Should Tony Benn and Paul McCartney be listed as scouts too? Unless there's a cover version of Do Your Ears Hang Low? on the White Album that I overlooked, then I rather doubt it.

Same with Mensans. Lucy Irvine, Carol Vorderman, they've all made some capital of their Mensa membership. Most members haven't. A list of Mensans (and I would hazard, Scouts too) belongs here to list some people who've made such overt and definite statements of membership (conveniently, these are the ones that are sourceable too). However it should not be a grab-bag of doxxing for people to whom it is a most trivial fact. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more like you're saying that the list should be pruned down to entries with more substantial connections to Mensa rather than deleted outright, a question of inclusion criteria within the list rather than inclusion of the list in WP. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be possible, but I think it would fail WP:SMALLCAT as a category or notability as a list. Membership of members in general isn't significant enough to be worth recording. Being a "notable Mensan" isn't WP:NOTABLE, as only being of interest within the society.

Do lists have to be only based on defining characteristics? If so, then I think there's some merit in this argument. But if not, then surely a notable characteristic is sufficient for existence of a list article? Squinge (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note There is no reason to delete a list because a category exists. If the two are out of sync, then the solution is to sync them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Mensans, as categories and lists are considered to be complementary. Furthermore, the article is well-sourced in compliance with WP:V, as it should be for these types of articles. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plainly redundant to Category:Mensans. Those who do not have an article should not be on the list, and a self-maintaining category would be superior. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDUP, "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative". I think it would need more than a single deletion discussion here to overturn that policy. Squinge (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list does duplicate a category if it has no editorial scope beyond that category. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. But this list has a one-line description of each entry, which the category can't. Squinge (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. I hate quoting guideline language that you should have already read on your own because it's already been cited repeatedly in the discussion, but your comment doesn't give me much of a choice: "These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." (Note that Squinge merely quoted the guideline's header above this text.) And we want categories and lists to have the same scope when they have the same name; the list defines the category's contents. Lists in any event have the potential for annotations and direct sourcing, as well as alternate modes of internal organization, which categories cannot do, so in that sense they are never merely "duplicative" but accomplish different (though overlapping) functions. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories are inferior to lists and, in any case, WP:CLN says that we don't delete one for the sake of the other. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Mensa member is a trivial fact that is not worth listing. I would also support deletion of the category. If we have to have just one, I would keep the article and delete the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep duplicative is not a valid reason for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD A7, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Silva[edit]

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

Unotable actor-not sure if this is even the same guy on the IMDB given the fact that this isn't that uncommon of a name. Wgolf (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actor. Acticle lacks adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm actually sort of supportive of a speedy deletion of this since he hasn't had any overly notable role and most importantly, the bio on the article is fairly close to being a BLP violation with the comments about acting out and fighting. Not only is this unsourced, but it also somewhat puts the guy in a fairly poor light. But aside from that, the guy simply isn't notable. None of his roles are notable nor are any of the things he's been in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-I was thinking of putting a speedy myself. I'm not even sure if this is the same guy who is in those films given the articles content to be honest. Though maybe wait about a week to see what happens I think. Wgolf (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Brickell City Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete, still violates crystal. Appears to be aimed more at the promotional side of things at this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG. The project is presently under construction, as the sources explain. There is no WP:CRYSTAL violation inherent regarding the topic, again per the sources, which provide proper verification:

‘Climate ribbon’ will cool shoppers at Brickell City Centre. Miami Herald.
Brickell City Centre tower nearly half sold. Miami Today.
Saks Fifth Avenue will anchor Brickell City Centre. Miami Herald.
Brickell CityCentre: A city within a city. WPLG.
One Brickell City Centre: Tallest Building in the Southeast. Miami New Times.
Akerman LLP moving to Brickell City Centre. Miami Herald.
Together, Swire, Whitmans developing retail side for Brickell CityCentre. Daily Business Review. (subscription required)
Cinemex movie theater coming to Miami’s Brickell City Centre. Miami Herald.
Swire launches sales of Rise condo at Brickell City Centre. Miami Herald.
New Brickell project wants a low profile for cars. Miami Herald.
24hour Energy Forecast For Brickell Citicentre. Miami Today.
Brickell CitiCentre ready to break ground. Miami Herald.
Arquitectonica-designed tower planned at 700 Brickell. South Florida Business Journal.
Swire releases new rendering for Brickell City Centre. South Florida Business Journal.
Brickell City Centre Quickly Changing Area’s Landscape. CBS Miami.
Legal Battle Over Brickell City Centre Development. NBC 6.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the first afd.--Antigng (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NORTH AMERICA and first AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This building is pretty much under construction http://www.thenextmiami.com/index.php/eastern-national-bank-moving-building-will-demolished-one-brickell-city-centre/. It will eventually need a page anyway. --Trulystand700 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Wayne Turner Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:Bio article is very spammy/promotional, reads more like a resume than a encyclopedia article. Sources are mostly WP:SPS, unreliable sources, or passing mentions in local routine coverage. No article for company he is president of. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources, this is not a notable person. 108.27.38.227 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 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. Without prejudice to recreation should this develop further. Nakon 04:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Financial Crisis[edit]

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

To put it simply, there is no F1 Financial Crisis, at least not one that reliable sources have identified. The article has just synthesised the disparate issues affecting F1 to draw the conclusion that there is a crisis. It is WP:Original Research. This has been discussed on WikiProject Formula One, where it was the opinion of most editors apart from the creator this article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. QueenCake (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure OR fest, just as QueenCake has stated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons stated above. Also, could be merged with History of Formula One article, after heavy revision of course. Twirlypen (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because it fails WP:GNG. T v x1 01:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this is a topic that is spreading faster and faster by each day, and is getting more and more coverage in the press. The article is accurately referenced as well.

I have discussed this with some detail in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Formula One and have provided sources there. I have also gotten more research as more sources have been made available within the past weekend:

Lopez hits out at 'archaic' F1 management

Why Formula One has failed to conquer emerging markets

Hulkenberg, Perez will test at Barcelona - Force India

I will add the detail to the pages shortly, and improve on the article. In the meantime, I don't think this is "original research" because if it was, it would mean creating your own articles on the subject. These sources prove that other people have researched into this, and what I have done is simply take those sources and turn it into an article.

I don't mind people editing the article - that's what it's there for. It's meant to be edited. If you think that there should be some editing done, please do so. I know that someone wanted the article copy edited, and that would be great, since I don't know how to copy edit. Any other suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help and input on this matter. FordDixon (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please excuse me for not replying earlier, as my busy work schedule prevents me from editing during weekends. I hope everyone is of understanding. Thanks for the help once again. FordDixon (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have done FordDixon is find sources concerning a number of different issues, and then created an article combining these into a new topic you have created. You can reliably source Caterham and Marussia's administration, or Force India's trouble in building their car. What you cannot source is anything tying these all together, which is what makes the article original research. Please have a read of WP:Synthesis, which will explain why this is not allowed on Wikipedia. QueenCake (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FordDixon, it appears that you have the best intentions in creating the article, and I genuinely understand your reasons behind wanting to create it. But there are policies and guidelines set forth by Wikipedia that we (The F1 Wikiproject) try to adhere to as much as possible to set a good standard for the readers. Seeing as regular members of the community have made contributions to your article tells me that your heart is in the right place, but the execution just needs a little work. Namely, reading up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. A lot of these members are nice people and are willing to help improve the article rather than see it get deleted. Twirlypen (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 February 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. (As a friendly suggestion Pigsonthewing I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below - But it's entirely up to you, Cheers) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Weeks with the Queen[edit]

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

Removed by redirection by Pigsonthewing. There was a time when we had a community based process before deletion, not these unchallengeable superusers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep No rationale given in original removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I see no reason for this deletion. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 01:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a) for procedural reasons (no rationale in nomination); b) if "No evidence of notability" should be introduced here, there's a section named "Notability" in the article (which needs improvement). The novel, by a very notable author (after Marsden, probably Australia's second children's author), was apparently adapted for the stage and has been performed for the BBC and in many countries on stage. Aside: the delete-by-stealth for this article is not alone: Once (Morris Gleitzman novel). --
Redirect to Morris Gleitzman. I remember reading this in primary school, but the entire notability section, and a fair bit of the article itself, are not referenced. I don't see that this meets WP:BK, although I'd be happy to change my tune if the sources are presented to demonstrate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Procedural speedy close. It is perfectly acceptable for me to redirect a non-notable article to another. It's perfectly acceptable for another editor to revert me, if he disagrees. It is not in the least acceptable for that editor to make assumptions of bad faith in their edit summary; to make a bad faith AFD proposal with no rationale, and to make ad hominem comments and false statements (The rationale in my edit summary when I redirected was "No evidence of notability") in doing so. People are, not unreasonably, !voting keep, on the basis of that lack of a rationale in this AfD. This AfD should therefore be speedily closed, I will then renominate, with a proper rationale, and we can discuss accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per five minutes' research on Trove and AustLit, the book was multiply reviewed by academic and media sources at the time of its publication, and won an award. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Merge or Take to article talk per BRD: No need for a big drahmah here, it's perfectly reasonable per BRD to redirect a start-class article to the article on the author. A merge tag may have been useful, but WP:BB applies here. Discussion can occur at the article. page. Sheesh. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was just trying to make a link to this book, as an award-winning book, from another article that is under AFD, because I noticed and removed the PROD, then the PROD'ing editor opened AFD. Indeed there have been stealth deletions by redirects going on. --do ncr am 01:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion provided. Mr. Mabbett is strongly cautioned not to pull this kind of crap again. There is a right and a wrong way to bring about the deletion of an article. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morris Gleitzman#Published work for now. The article's references aren't enough to show the notability, altrough a redirect could be useful. Keep - Sorry for the blind vote. I noticed the articles references are seem to be notable enough, and there are some links to ISN what-ever. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R5's upcoming second studio album[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS unreleased material, generally, should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Or maybe just a redirect until the album is actually released. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is stretching WP:CRYSTAL to unheard-of limits. Create the article when the album has a name and at least minimal coverage to meet WP:NALBUM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An actual album title would be a nice start. —Noah 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and incubate until at least album title is confirmed. The coverage is not bad for a yet unnamed album. No objection to delete now and no prejudice of recreation. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:36, 15 February 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.