< 20 February	22 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 snow close. Kashima himself wants the article gone and at present I can find nothing to show that he would pass notability guidelines as a whole. I have no problems re-opening this if anyone wants it to run for a few days more, but the consensus seems to be solidly for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yamato Kashima[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject of the article blanked the article with the edit summary I am Yamato Kashima and I want this information off of wikipedia. In addition to nomination by procedure, I would also like to nominate this because I do not believe the subject satisfies WP:NSPORTS. Mz7 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As of now, I have not restored the blanked content to the article, because none of the content is sourced with an inline citation, which is especially important since this article falls under WP:BLP. The original text can still be read by accessing the history. I will leave the restoring to the next editor. Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if the request is as credible as I'd like, but the person is of doubtful notability. I don't see anything worthwhile on Google News, and a standard Google search results in mostly social networking sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the original author. He (Yamato) was originally excited to have the article, but if he wants it removed we should honor his request. Mikepellerin^talk 01:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mention [1]. Maybe he would be mentioned in a Personal Life section in the article of his more notable brother Sho Kashima (who has [2]), but I don't see separate notability for a separate article for Yamato as of now. That was not yet considering the removal request. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Examiner.com sources blocked.[reply]
Delete - Google search reveals no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I suspect the topic of the article is of questionable notability. If Kashima himself requests the article be deleted, I see no problem in respecting his wishes. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem El-Nashar[edit]

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

Not notable. Career is not yet very important--still a junior official. All the refs are to his own work, or are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found to demonstrate notability or support the creation of an article. Fails general notability and fails notability for politicians. Article was created by subject. JBH (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find any evidence to indicate that the article passes WP:GNG of WP:NPOLITICIAN. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be created by the subject, or someone close to him, given the username involved. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is an effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. The subject is a well known diplomat in Cairo, like many other distinguished Egyptian diplomats.

It does not make any sense to accept articles on Wikipedia about some names of Miss Egypt pageant, who did not win any prizes for the country; and on the other hand delete articles of people who have –and still continue- to contribute with their work for the benefit of their country and community. If Miss Egypt is on Wikipedia because she has represented Egypt in a beauty contest, the diplomats have represented the country for many years. Politicians are known by their contributions in the political arena, locally, regionally and internationally. Like other articles, this one allows unregistered users to contribute by improving the work itself and tracking the progress as it is developed. The criteria must be applied for all. I would like to invite you (only 5 minutes of your time) to have a look on articles done under Category:Egyptian diplomats on Wikipedia. The only articles to pass with clear evidence are those belonging to the Ministers, UN members and holders of international or regional offices; many articles do not fall under the notability criterias (as ambassadorships are not considered international offices according to WP) WP:NPOLITICIAN. La petite chouchou (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Obvious Double standard with similar articles and job description on Wikipedia. No evidence to indicate that the other articles passes too.. Sens Salsero (talk)24 February 2015. — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy based reason for keeping an article. Oh! Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on your very first edit! JBH (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too junior for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor diplomat - sources don't show how he otherwise meets WP:GNG. Refs #1-7 are listings. Refs #8-15 are works he personally wrote. Ref #16 is a routine mention. Haven't found anything useful from searching. Fuebaey (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom, ceradon, and Fuebaey; article currently does not have reliable, independent sources that establish notability for WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN and I was unable to locate any such sources. Shanata (talk) 15:42, 28 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 as WP:A7 (No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and as potential hoax per the spelling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheContemplater.com[edit]

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

Not enough WP:RS to assert WP:NOTABLE. m'encarta (t) 23:26, 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 speedy delete - deleted by Jimfbleak as G12 (copyvio). Closure justified by WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mumonkan MMA[edit]

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

Not enough WP:RS for notability eligibility. m'encarta (t) 23:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to find any significant coverage that leads me to believe it passes WP:GNG. I can't find any guideline for the notability of MMA fighting styles or the like. (WP:NMMA only covers people related to MMA.) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article has no sources so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. It also has no indication of notability and nothing to show it is a notable martial art. Much of the article is on the founder and there is no supporting evidence to show that he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Concur - the Speedy was declined but it clearly did not indicate notability and was blatant advertisement.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 22 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 01:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese historical people in popular culture[edit]

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

This looks like someone's collection of "movie references to historical figures". I am placing this under WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:OR. If the culture is notable enough, then it should be included in the articles. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nom hits it on the head. Many of the people listed are notable in their own right, but this list consists of unsourced trivia consisting of appearances and not encyclopaedic information. Any information that can be sourced would be better served on the existing articles to place it in the proper context. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that the content is unsourced trivia. But the fact is that this stuff is often added to the "In popular culture" sections of main articles. This article was created by the late Dg2, as a destination for trivia in articles like Oda Nobunaga and Takeda Shingen. That material has since been moved to People of the Sengoku period in popular culture, although editors keep adding more to the main articles. They are also adding trivia to articles like Himiko. I think this article should be kept as a move destination for trivia (mainly games) in main articles about figures from Japanese history. I am definitely opposed to moving it back into the main articles. As to how much of it can be sourced, none of it. But that's not going to stop editors from adding it again. If we have this article, at least it can be kept out of the main articles. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious counter is that if it's not wanted in the main articles, why should it be wanted in an article with obvious issues that you agree exist. Keeping it simply to keep the information out of other articles doesn't sounds like a good reason to keep it and actually says to me that we should delete the article because it's a dumping ground of unwanted information. Some of the information is relevant to those articles, the issue is largely about presentation and sourcing. I would argue that historical figures being the subject of contemporary media to be of encyclopaedic interest on those articles, If anything it serves to illustrate why those figures are still of note in a modern context. Perhaps the issue is having people familiar with both the actual person as well as the fictional versions of them, but that's an issue for those pages and not the existence of this page. I would also strongly disagree that "none of it" can be sourced, much of it can't but certainly there is information that can. SephyTheThird (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are saying that this article is a triva dumping ground for all of the stuff that editors don't want to appear in articles. The notable information that appears in popular can be sourced and including it in the articles can help give them GA status as outside third party information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry, I don't want to be dismissive of manga or gaming culture, but for example this, from the Himiko article: "A clone of Himiko is a character in the manga series Afterschool Charisma, where she follows in her progenitor's footsteps as a shaman by leading a cult that worships the spirit of Dolly the clone sheep." That's actually typical. Himiko is popular as an empress about whom so little is known that popular authors can give free rein to their imagination. I suppose this could be sourced, but only if we were willing to settle for manga itself. Per WP:"In popular culture" content, I think this entire list of manga and game stuff should be spun off into a separate article, like this one. I'm not saying that it's not encyclopedic, only that it doesn't improve the main article, which should be about the historical person. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree when you say articles should be just about the historical person, it is always good to include a legacy like section with in popular culture if it be by notable books or whatnot. Notability is the key word here, if editors want to build a trivial list of who's who that appears where then there is wikia for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (OK, I am an inclusionist, but not a keepist) Perhaps the title should be changed to "List of...", and the entries should be trimmed. I see the "trivia" problem with the content, but sometimes lists are really useful sources of overview information, which cannot easily be obtained by searching individual articles. So deleting it does not seem constructive to me. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the nomination: This looks like someone's collection of "movie references to historical figures". It doesn't look to me like that. Where are the (non-animation) movie portrayals (let alone "references")? Are movies no longer regarded as popular culture? As a ferinstance, Utamaro and His Five Women purports to be about (and doesn't just refer to) Utamaro. No mention of it, or anything like it. What do I misunderstand? -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, this ("serious"!) film is not in the list, because of the "fancruft" tendency. But I think the answer to this problem is not to (try to) remove anything with a whiff of fancruft, but rather to fill out the list with good stuff like Mizoguchi's film. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes. But then this would be enormous. Still, I suppose that it could thereupon spin off sub-articles. -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable indiscriminate info (the only inclusion criteria is a self-evident primary source), whether as a list or article (as a list it would likely fail WP:LISTN). There are also subjectivity issues involved in what equals historic. Every culture has historical figures, real or fictional, that re-occur in various media (think Abraham Lincoln, Blackbeard, Johnny Appleseed, Moses...). There is no indication that historical Japanese figures being referenced in modern culture is by itself a notable entity per WP:GNG, it just happens. If there are no significant reliable sources that discuss what it means to have Minamoto no Yoshitsune in a video game, then this is fancruft and/or WP:OR. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But... jeez some editors put an awful lot of work into this. In fact that guy who started it is dead. You hate to toss all that away. Especially if, per Margin1522, it's just gonna get created again... I don't know if there's any force on earth that can stop people from writing about Japanese cartoons, so maybe per Margin1522 we should channel it into this article... Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC) And the person who made the article, Fg2, was a Ph.D. and was fluent in Japanese and English and looks to have been a pretty smart cookie and well-regarded generally. I'm not really inclined to second-guess him that much. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My condolences to the author but as it stands you have not provided reasoning that trumps the policy concerns raised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Knowledgekid that this article is essentially a dumping ground for unwanted pop culture trivia. This is sadly not a coherent article about Japanese historical people in pop culture, and there is no way to write a generalized article about all the different Japanese people spanning the length of Japanese history (unlike Joan of Arc in popular culture). As such, it cannot be more than a list, and most of it is unsourced anyways so why not just nuke it. About the "people will just add it back" point, we have a similar problem for articles about the Three Kingdoms period of China; how we deal with it is to try and keep the sourced and significant pop culture information in the main article and present it in prose form while removing the rest. The solution is maintenance, not trying to sweep it under the carpet creating a giant unwanted mothball. _dk (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly an indiscriminate list, as the definition of "historical" is entirely subjective. Popular culture references or appearances can easily be added to the relevant biography articles, but there is no need to make an infinitely long list here. --DAJF (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Underbar dk – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:43, 27 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. Closing somewhat early as both editors have improved the article alot - All now pass GNG, (Thanks Tokyogirl79 + Wizardman) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Reds[edit]

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

Uses largely primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially I was going to suggest merging this into the main article for the Reds, but a search did bring up evidence of notability. It looks like they were recently given an exhibit at the CR Hall of Fame, which is a pretty big sign of notability, and I've found where they're mentioned in a few books as well and they've had a ton of local coverage. I know that local sources are depreciated by most editors, but they've gotten heavy and consistent coverage each year by Cincinnati Magazine, beyond the level that just anyone would get for a normal business or event. (In other words, it's not just routine coverage of local stuff.) I'm still digging for sources, but so far they do appear to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask for the applicable WikiProjects to help dig for sources as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the time of the nomination the article did not show notability through GNG, but that has since been resolved, and Tokyogirl's edits have fixed the issues with the article that were noted above. Wizardman 01:34, 23 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macky 2[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician - fails WP:MUSICBIO. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I admit that initially I was a bit skeptical, but it looks like he's notable for his time on BBA and for his music career. He's received a Zambian Music Award, which seems to be relatively major in that country. I'm not entirely happy with the sourcing, but there seems to be just enough to where he'd squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a high profiled musician in Zambia. He's received a Zambian Music Award, which seems to be relatively major in that country. We have put enough soucers to prove that he is an icon in Zambian music — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:CFF5:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously meets or exceeds several WP:NMUSIC criteria for notability. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 12:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on on coverage and award. --Michig (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG--significant coverage in independent sources and won Album of the Year in Zambia for 2013, see [3]. Shanata (talk) 15:22, 28 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 procedural close. Drafts should be considered at WP:MfD, but since you created this one yourself I'll tag it for G7. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of major crimes in the United States[edit]

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

The list is a subjective manner of summarizing major crimes in US. The crimes mentioned in the article are incomparable to each other and indeed are not all related to US. Perhaps individually they deserve some form of attention, but clustering them in this list was not a good idea. Verbal.noun (talk) 20:04, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Septemism[edit]

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

Article discusses the ideas exposed in a single book, Reclaim - The Septemist Manifesto, for which I haven't been able to find any sources that were not book sellers or self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to a seminar on this today at my university. It seems this article was written just after that. Of course that seminar is not online. However, I haven't heard of the subject before. I got home and googled it. Found this page. So, according to me the article shouldn't be deleted. It is probably a quite small subject, but it is still relevant. Me and some other students at least found the seminar quite interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundance7 (talk • contribs)

Sundance7, I find this potentially interesting too, which is why I went looking for sources at all. But all articles on Wikipedia need reliable, third-party sources, and if those are not available, we can't have an article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I checked out the sources of the book previously mentioned, and thus I could add a few sources apparently used in the book. However, I am new to Wikipedia. So I have to excuse myself id I edited the article in ways which are not standard. In any case, I tried my best. As I said, just found this interesting so wanted to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundance7 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit, because it added an original synthesis to the article. The point is not that the book described in the article is not properly sourced or wrong or whatever — it's that no third-party sources critically can be found that assess "Septemism" so that we can write an encyclopedic overview that is not just a book summary. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there is a notable movement or ideology here that can justify the article title. I am not seeing hits for it in Google News, Books or Scholar apart from a tiny bit of noise (including an Islamic astrological cult of the same name). The book would be a possible alternative subject but I don't see hits for that either. I'd expect to see reviews and the like from RS sources but I don't. Add to that the massive conflict of interests and I see no hope for the article although I do sympathise with Sundance7. You can't blame students for thinking that their University would give them seminars on notable topics. I wonder whether one of the profs has been a bit naughty and is promoting their own pet theory. OTOH, maybe this is a new and genuinely emerging subject that will become more notable later. If so, the article can be remade when that happens, without the COI problems. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: I would expect universities to present new and exciting ideas as well as the ones we consider "notable" on WP (but I've seen my share of professors' pet theories :). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. While universities can (and should) present all manner of new ideas, the lagging notability indicator of Wikipedia means we should not have an encyclopedia article on those ideas until they meet the WP:GNG, at the risk of unduly promoting or elevating a WP:FRINGE subject that is of interest to an extreme minority. Septemism might eventually become an established theory (I'm still not quite sure what it is), or be laughed out of existence, or forever be the pet theory of a Mr. Carl Grip. Since we can't cite lecture notes, delete for now, with no prejudice towards recreation should multiple secondary sources arise. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:21, 23 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. Michig (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of... Live[edit]

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

Searched and does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 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, does not appear to be notable. Nakon 03:41, 21 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 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. This article is not even an article—it's just a track listing. Information about this album could just be placed on the main Iggy Pop page, because it clearly doesn't warrant its own article. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 22 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 Iggy Pop discography. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin 91[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) 03:24, 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]

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) 06:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iggy Pop discography per nom. Earflaps (talk) 19:37, 16 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 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not reach WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iggy Pop discography- plausible search term as a release by a notable artist. No coverage found to warrant standalone article. Gongshow talk 03:53, 24 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandgi Ram Real Estate Consultants Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Other than existing and performing their function I'm not clear on what is notable or significant about this company; also seems mildly promotional. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is brand new, give it a chance to develop. It is tiring to see an article we know nothing about being nominated for deletion the same day it is created. It is a company that may have much more notability but is highly unlikely any research was done before nominating to delete. It is not some trivial pop culture article. So for being nominated out ignorance I say Keep. 172.56.7.197 (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit confl) The sources offered are just press release-style entries and profiles(including the company's own profile). If you can explain what is notable or significant about this company other than its existence(even without yet putting it in the article) I will withdraw this request. I think it merited speedy deletion but you removed it. You also don't know what I did and didn't do so please don't assume. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to primary sources consisting largely of a flow of PRspeak windiness: "found himself amidst a land filled with promises of a future that could only be described by the dreams waiting to be realized on it ... the aim of turning dreams into reality ... transparent and result oriented ... a synonym of trust and a one stop solution". Such prose comes close to CSD G11. That could be fixed by article surgery but my searches are not showing evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a non-notable estate agents full of flowery PR rhetoric, most of which is wholly promotional and plagiarised from somewhere like this. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Promotional, no reliable sources does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly promo, Yellow Pages (or the equivalent there) is thataway →. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above--this is clearly a promotional article. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article Fails WP:CORP. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:48, 25 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Tuckman[edit]

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

Non-notable surfer. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no different from any other surfer in the UK, –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication anything about her surfing makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 23 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 (G3) by Jimfbleak –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolite[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. The year of founding is inconsistent: the infobox says it was founded in 1998, but the article claims it was founded in 2015. A search mainly results in false positives for a completely unrelated stroller called the MetroLite. Possible COI issues as well, as the article's creator appears to be the company's founder. Ineligible for G11 because it's not promotional, and ineligible for A7 since there are some references in the article; however, said references are all affiliated (press releases or otherwise non-third party). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely a hoax, whatwith 1000+ employees in several countries and big revenues for a company less than two months old. Elsewhere company founder tells he is a famous actor by hijacking the identity of a real actor, Hrithik Roshan. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the article is a copy of Directi. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:58, 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 both. Michig (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groove synthesis[edit]

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

Nominating these two articles, groove synthesis and groove halogenization, because I'm unable to substantiate the use of these names for the chemical reaction the articles describe. The reaction itself is real, but neither term has any relevant Google hits (nor does the more standard "halogenation"). I did find some hits for "Groove's process", but almost exclusively on Indian (mostly IIT-related) homework-help sites, with a couple of hits from Indian chemistry textbooks where the Google Books preview doesn't explicitly define the term (e.g. here). No similar term is mentioned in fairly comprehensive basic organic synthesis references like Carey and Sundberg.

We already have the reaction documented at Haloalkane#From_alcohols. I would support a redirect to that target with some evidence that these are common names, but what I can find in English is so sparse that making the connection would essentially be original research. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the two articles appear to be the same topic as each other, so at least a merge/redirect of one to the other, assuming the topic itself is found to suffice for an article here. DMacks (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this Wikiproject Chemistry discussion - that's two of us who can't find anything for this. Yes, these two articles are duplicates, and if any title merits a redirect it would be Groove's process, not either of the current two. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. While the chemical reaction described is certainly known (and already appropriately mentioned at Haloalkane#From_alcohols, as mentioned above) I am also unable to verify in any reliable source these names for the reactions. If none of the professional chemists here can verify it, it is either made up or extremely obscure and therefore not notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Ed. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:21, 26 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. (WP:NPASR). Discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on an article talk page (e.g. Talk:Tube Bar prank calls), if desired. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful[edit]

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

Also Nominating

Tavern Tour

Tube Bar Collector's Edition

Tube Bar Prank Calls 35th Anniversary Complete Collection

Tube Bar Red's Bootleg Tape (Remastered)

A group of albums that collect a series of prank calls. Whilst the Tube Bar prank calls may be (barely) notable that does not extend to these albums. All are not notable. There is a lack of coverage about these releases. No reviews, charting, awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The albums are all part of the "Tube Bar" series and all contain Tube Bar calls. All albums have valid references such as billboard, Artist Direct, MTV etc. Tube Calls are notable as have been proven many times. Saying they are NOT notable is simply an opinion that is not proven.Tyros1972 Talk 03:57, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing merging all of the albums into a single article since they all relate to the Tube Bar. You can find that on any of the pages for these. I believe they are notable by all means and should not be deleted. I am not sure as to keeping them like this though. Tyros1972 Talk 20:38, 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, Nakon 05:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Tube Bar prank calls. You've heard one, you heard them all. Pax 02:43, 27 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. Michig (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benz Patent dilemma[edit]

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

A cursory Google search doesn't pull up anything relevant. Can find no evidence of notability or even verifiability. Article is unsourced. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A story told by a youtube commentator is not article-worthy. jps (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced neologism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:25, 24 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 21:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Economy Coalition[edit]

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

I am not convinced that anything here actually shows notability: it's jut a list of conferences--they don;t even publish their proceedings. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In 2013, a lot of the work of the former E F Schumacher Society was spun off to a new entity. It has done much work since 1981. The new New Economic Coalition does indeed host conferences among other things. An organization may become notable for its publications, but lack of publications does not mean it is not notable. Also note that there are publications of members listed on the website. Additionally, the conferences have been attended by notable organizations.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Having notable members or hosting notable people at a conference does not make the organization notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a lot of self-published sources and articles that don't mention the group by name in the article. I having trouble seeing the RS coverage that confers notability, although it may exist (a preliminary search turned up some possibilities, but nothing slam-dunk). Where are the reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover it in depth? Undecided on notability at this time. Pinging @Rcsprinter123: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation was renamed and split into two around 2012, searching the new name alone won't give you a true result that includes the organization's heritage. Maybe the article should be merged into the Schumacher Center for New Economics article? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is much better than when it was accepted from AfC in 2012, but I can see it shouldn'tve been and there are few proper, independent sources to show that the organisation is notable. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) @ 20:37, 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) 07:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence organization meets notability requirements. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirolovesswords: Did you look for evidence or only go on the article as it stands? Note, since 1980 the organisation has gone under the names E.F. Schumacher Society and New Economics Institute. Additionally, note that publishing conference proceedings isn't the only way to achieve notability - as implied by the AfD. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns: I looked for sources, could not find any. If you believe that this group is notable, please provide some evidence (i.e. significant coverage of the group in reliable sources). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sgriff06 and Kurilis: - I've expanded the history and added some 'reliable' sources. Maybe New Economy Coalition and Schumacher Center for a New Economics should be merged? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After doing more research I believe the New Economy Coalition (NEC) project was set up by the Schumacher Society for a New Economics (SSNE) (and the New Economics Foundation) rather than the other way around. This means much of the history should be moved to the SSNE page - ref Job add including NEC history. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:44, 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, Nakon 04:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article improvements by Jonpatterns have proven notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 24 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Childbirth in India[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NGO. Apart from own website and [www.schoolofmaternalpublichealth.com this] website, this NGO is not widely covered. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 14 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 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 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, Nakon 03:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - no independent verification of notability. Samsara 14:10, 27 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 Snow Keep WP:NAC. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish atheism[edit]

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

This article (Jewish atheism) is submitted for deletion because:

1- The article does not provide (verifiability) (WP:V) 2- The article provides new original thought (WP:NOT) 3- The article provides an argument rather than verifiability (WP:NOT) 4- The article uses the "Talk" item for argumentative and imaginative sillyness again this is not what Wikipedia is for.

Mabidex (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are not reasons for deletion. The topic is certainly notable enough to have an article, as the references show. InverseHypercube (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above points. Room for improvement, but not reasons to delete. Orbst (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable topic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging only by the title of this article, I'd argue for a snowball keep. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, encyclopedic topic. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mabidex you need to fix your AfD submission. It is missing most of the crucial parts. See other AfDs for examples, or go back to the WP:AFD process and see which steps you missed. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. This describes a rather sizeable portion of Jews. Would need fixing though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Adar 5775 13:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep, tag, and fix. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Ample reliable sources are cited and easily findable to establish that this is a distinct subject about which plenty can be written. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:55, 25 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. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHTY[edit]

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

Wikipedia's notability rules for media do not confer an automatic presumption of notability on unlicensed community television stations. Neither CRTC licensing records nor the Canadian Communications Foundation contain any documented evidence of this station's existence, thus raising the distinct possibility that this might be an outright hoax, and there's not a shred of reliable source coverage locatable to disprove that. Further, the article was created by User:CHTYTV, making this a conflict of interest even if it was a real television station. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA. Per nominator, if this article is not a hoax, it is clearly promotional and not notable in the least. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No information about this defunct station on the net, and little prospect of finding any at this late date. According to the article, it was a community access station serving the area around Caledon, which is far too small and sparsely populated to qualify under WP:BROADCAST. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:49, 28 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elementers[edit]

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

Non-notable group of YouTubers, article created by one of group. CSDs removed repeatedly by author and IP. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; appears to be a group seeking publicity/free webhosting, not someone who's here to create an encyclopedia at all. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability found, does not belong in an encyclopedia (WP:WEB, and also it should have been marked as speedy but was removed by user) ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 03:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great page that has a lot of heart put into it, i say do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmorrissey121 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Nmorrissey121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, purely promotional. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete childish groupie nonesense. Non-notable and purely promotional. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional article created by a single-purpose user. Article is completely unsourced and makes no claim for notability. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:55, 22 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 deletion (G12). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhada[edit]

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

Did a cursory search for notability and found nothing. There is no claim of notability in the article nor are there any citations. Transcendence (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD G12: Flagged WP:COPYVIO of this. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 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 21:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo W. Elder[edit]

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

Elder's highest claim to notability is having served as mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. Hoboken is neither large enough nor regionally significant enough for such a position to confirm notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. The population size has nothing to do with notability. The biographical entry in an encyclopedia and two obituaries in journals, determine notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ... (drumroll) Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. I don't see any particularly notable accomplishment in his one-paragraph entry in The Physicians and Surgeons of the United States (last reference in the article). He gets mentioned as "a well-known physician of Hoboken, of most excellent repute" in a lawsuit over a will,[4] but that hardly helps. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources adequate for one who died in 1892. Notable as local politician. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, drawing a disproportionate level of coverage from New York City and New Jersey newspapers, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. He does not meet notability as a physician by extension from wp:prof. As a politician, he seems to be lacking independent coverage of his political importance (as required by wp:NPOL #3 for local politicians) as shown by the fact that the only verifiable references to him are from journals for physicians, which tend to inflate the importance of physicians. As @user:alansohn argues, hoboken punches above its weight in importance to NYC and new jersey press, so if the subject were important as a politician there should be more mention of him in that roll. BakerStMD T|C 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. I think that being a mayor and brigade surgeon, and being responsible for the establishment of a county health board, and so forth, is sufficient for a person who died in 1892. I suspect that BIO was written with BLPs in mind, so I doubt its relevance. Physicians are not academics, so I don't see PROF as relevant. I think that a journal for physicians is a perfectly satisfactory source, and in any event, not all of the sources are such journals, as, for example, one seems to be a biographical dictionary, and another a history book. (Both available to read in Archive.org, so they are verifiable). James500 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While user:James500 is right that physicians are not always academics, we don't have a policy on the notability of physicians because physicians are generally not notable unless they are academics or hold some other notable roll. In the case of the subject of this AFD, he might be notable for his military roll (as a brigade surgeon) rather than as an academic, but wp:SOLDIER makes it clear that he does not rise to that standard either. BakerStMD T|C 15:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the principle thrust of my argument (apart from GNG) is that these SNG are obviously innappropriate for historical figures. If we were to go back to the time of the Roman Empire, for example, even a slave would likely be notable if we had substantial information about him, due to the relative paucity of information from that period. Historical importance increases with time. It is not just a question of setting a single bar for politicians etc of all periods. They can't be judged by the same standards. James500 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@user:James500, thats a fair point. Is there a set of guidelines for addressing this issue? I'm sure some wise users have explored this before us. I would agree that a physician in the Roman Empire would be notable if we had enough information about him or her, but the same probably is not true for a physician practicing during the Bush administration. BakerStMD T|C 14:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Whether or not mayors of Hoboken are inherently notable as mayors of regionally significant cities, Elder has been the subject of significant coverage such as [5] and [6]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:04, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Apples, meet oranges. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:03, 22 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 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Perry[edit]

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

Perry's only claim to fame was serving as mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. No evidence that this isa city either regionally significant enough or populous enough for such a position to confir notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. I'm not seeing much other than a short New York Times announcement of his suicide. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nominator is also voting to delete one or more mayors of Bossier City, Louisiana, on grounds that the city, which is larger than Hoboken, is too small to have notable mayors. "Local politicians" have their place on Wikipedia if there is adequate coverage, whether local sources or not. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including an obituary in a national paper of record and coverage in contemporaneous encylopedic sources. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, drawing a disproportionate level of coverage from New York City and New Jersey newspapers, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hazen Kimball[edit]

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

Kimball's claim to notability seems to be having been mayor of Hoboken. This is a city that is neither large enough or regionally important enough for being mayor of it to justify having an article for that fact alone. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. All mayors should be redirected and never deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment claiming this article reaches GNG makes no sense. There is one mention in an obiturary in a local paper, and a possibly even just one line mention in a local history. Nothing that would reach the General Notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of souring within articles. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. The New York Times is NOT a "local paper", but it listed him with several others in its "obituary notes" and couldn't be bothered to ascertain his age ("between fifty-five and sixty"), so it wasn't a full-blown obituary. Fails GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT was not nearly as important a paper in 1890 as it would later become.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though there is not a lot here. I think all mayors are notable under "local politicians" section of the guideline and that is regardless of the population of the city. The rules do not mention mayor or populations. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to have played a role in Hoboken's decision not to consolidate with Jersey City. Added refs: Richardson Dilworth (2005). The Urban Origins of Suburban Autonomy. Harvard University Press. p. 120. ISBN 9780674015319. quoting "Council Proceedings". Hoboken Standard. May 8, 1869.. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including an obituary in a national paper of record and coverage in contemporaneous encylopedic sources. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. The NYT obituary is sufficient. I also think that being mayor and president of a bank, taken together, is sufficient for a person who died in 1890. I suspect that BIO was framed with BLPs in mind, and doubt that it is relevant. James500 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of notable sources and per Andrew Davidson. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:24, 24 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 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cooke (mayor)[edit]

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

Cooke's only claim to notability is serving as mayor of Hoboken. This is a city that is neither of regional significance or significant enough population to justify being mayor of it grounds for establishing an individual's notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOL, regional politicians rarely meet notability criteria. I don't see any evidence that this one does; only sources are obit and small mention in a news article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. An obituary on the New York Times connotes notability not the office held. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, drawing a disproportionate level of coverage from New York City and New Jersey newspapers, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. Hoboken and its docks / railyards / location across the Hudson River from Manhattan makes its politics draw greater attention to this day. Other New Jersey cities that are of the same size or smaller -- such as Atlantic City and Asbury Park -- merit notability for their elected officials regardless of their size. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the reliable and verifiable sources as required by WP:BEFORE. The further failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect to Mayors of Hobokon Hobokon is more important than its size suggests, because of its proximity to New York. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Weak, reluctant keep IF The New York Times published a full obituary (I'm not paying to find out). It's the only substantial reference, and I couldn't find anything better. Otherwise Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. I've checked The New York Times archives and couldn't find much. One obituary, even in the Times, and a close encounter of the worst kind with a falling "heavy bar" aren't enough, seeing as it's about a local. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable local politician. More info would be desirable for the article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in the NYT is conclusive proof of notability. James500 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Ely[edit]

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

The closest Ely comes to notablity is serving as mayor of South Norwalk, Connecticut. This is a defunct city, which in an of itself does not prevent notability, but it was not a city of enough significance to confer autormatic notability on the mayor. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to List of mayors of Norwalk, Connecticut (there's a section for South Norwalk). As the first mayor, there is more coverage about him than later ones. The most significant coverage going to meet WP:BASIC may be this entry in Illustrated Popular Biography of Connecticut (1891). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- I took a lot of time and effort doing research to cover what I feel is my area of responsibility (i.e. the history of Norwalk, Connecticut). The city of Norwalk is of a sufficient size that its mayors would qualify as notable. The city of South Norwalk was merged with the city of Norwalk, and as such the history of that area *is* the history of the current city of Norwalk. Is it the intention of this proposer to also propose all the numerous others? That is a lot of time and effort wasted, and history lost for a fairly substantially sized city. I was a significant contributor for many years, but I really am very discouraged by what Wikipedia has become. Greg Bard 205.172.173.250 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most records are in the Historicial Society, but Norwalk After Two Hundred & Fifty Years contains several mentions and confirms the terms and the role of President of the bank for decades. Local and state importance from over 120+ years ago will be resigned mostly to non-internet sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local politician with importance as mayor of a smaller city. Wikipedia rules say nothing about mayors or the population of their cities. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city that only has a population of 87,000 now (which is far from being big enough to make its mayor inherently notable), let alone when he was mayor. No sources beyond the basics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter C. Quintard[edit]

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

Quintard's only claim to fame is having served as mayor of South Norwalk, Connecticut. This is a defunct city, which does not preclude notability of its mayor's, but the city is not of such significance its mayors are default notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- I took a lot of time and effort doing research to cover what I feel is my area of responsibility (i.e. the history of Norwalk, Connecticut). The city of Norwalk is of a sufficient size that its mayors would qualify as notable. The city of South Norwalk was merged with the city of Norwalk, and as such the history of that area *is* the history of the current city of Norwalk. Is it the intention of this proposer to also propose all the numerous others? That is a lot of time and effort wasted, and history lost for a fairly substantially sized city. I was a significant contributor for many years, but I really am very discouraged by what Wikipedia has become. Greg Bard 205.172.173.250 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that local politicians are notable with sufficient coverage. This article, however, needs a lot of additional material to make it worthwhile. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city that only has a population of 87,000 now (which is far from being big enough to make its mayor inherently notable), let alone when he was mayor. No sources beyond the basics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. Discussion regarding a potential merge, redirect, etc. can continue on the article's talk page if desired. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O. H. Adsit[edit]

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

Neither being mayor of Juneau nor being party to a case heard by the US supreme court are enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find substantial sourcing. Also, in 1910, Juneau had a population of 1,600,[7] so he was not the mayor of a significant place. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It did, however, have bunting [8] All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Keep or redirect to Juneau, Alaska. There is never a reason to delete a mayor of city when they can be redirected to the main article. This could have been handled on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable local politician. There is nothing in the rules about size of cities and mayors. The article, however, needs work. The material about the court case needs clarification. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Mayors of Jeneau or List of mayors of Jeneau. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
Delete There is not any substantive sourcing for the article. There is not a presumption of notability, per WP:POLOUTCOMES for mayors of small towns, and our usual cutoff for mayors is between 100,000 and 50,000 when the official is independently elected as mayor. Any information about the subjects role as in Malony v. Adsit should be added to the page about the case. --Enos733 (talk) 05:34, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current content looks ok and there seems to be more out there in sources such as Biographies of Alaska-Yukon Pioneers, 1850-1950. The worst case would be merger into List of mayors of Juneau, Alaska and so, per WP:ATD, there's no reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable local politician. Ism schism (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I can gather from snippets, some additional coverage is available in newspaper archives of the Daily Record Miner, which was based in Juneau during Adsit's mayorality. (See GeneologyBank, or the library of Juneau has microfilm archives.) I'm less optimistic about whether copies/records of the Juneau Journal from 1902 remain, but that's not impossible either. I beleive the presence of two newspapers based in Juneau at the time are indicative of a Juneau being a regional center whose in-town population size doesn't represent its importance (or available coverage) well--it became Alaska's capital only four years later. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:42, 28 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 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne M. Keller[edit]

AfDs for this article::

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

Keller was interviewed in one or two national media outlets and on the Daily Show when Sarah Palin was a candidate for vice president. However, all the actual coverage of Keller's role comes from local newspapers. None of this seems to rise to the level of coverage suggested for local politicans in the notability guidelines for politicians. Past debates have had many people claiming Keller meets the notability requirements for such, but few explaining why. Being interviewed on the Daily Show does not make a person notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, or redirect The coverage is from Anchorage Daily News, not a hyperlocal free paper. Being interviewed on the Daily Show DOES count toward notability. Why would it not? However I vote delete on the 4th nomination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Wasila, Alaska if you must. Completely non-notable mayor of a tiny town, whose only coverage came from her being the successor to Sarah Palin. Notability is not inherited. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with reliable sources. 1st & 2nd AfDs were Keep! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:20, 20 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There must be more suitable for such a short stub. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. Please listen. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verne E. Rupright[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is a mayor of a city of less than 8,000 people. All the coverage iseither extremely trivial, local, or often both. That publications with connections to where he is from publish one line articles on him does not demonstate he is notable. The article was also previously deleted. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable mayor from a small town. Comes under Local Politicians with local media coverage. However, it is unclear if he is still mayor or is being term-limited this year. That should be clarified. The article can be strengthened in other ways too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Special national interest given one particular former mayor of that town. Elected official. Article is sourced out to provide verifiability. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable public figure. More than enough attention given by reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Wasila, Alaska if you must. Non-notable mayor of a tiny town; all coverage is totally local and of interest only to the residents of this town of less than 10,000. This person doesn't even have the benefit of the WP:INHERITED coverage given to John Stein (above) by virtue of his interaction with Sarah Palin. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 20 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is more WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. In all these cases, there's an obvious alternative to deletion of merger to the mayor's locality. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Stein (mayor)[edit]

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

Stein is a local politican, with most of the coverage being local. The rest of the coverage is not about him, but about the political career of Sarah Palin. Anything that needs to be said about him can be said in the article on Sarah Palin. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on, or redirect you never have to delete a mayor article, a redirect is always preferred. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Special national interest in this governmental position due to one previous occupant of the post. Elected official. Article is sourced out to provide verifiability and meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wasilla, Alaska. Non-notable mayor of a tiny town, whose only claim to fame is the nasty things that were said about him by his notable opponent. (BTW she was his successor, not a "previous occupant of the post".) The article is mostly about her political attacks; it's almost a BLP violation as it stands. BTW it is not true that "you never have to delete a mayor article"; we do it all the time if they are not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep Notable with reliable sources to back it up. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a mayor of a city does not make a person notable, as WP:POLOUTCOMES notes. Much of Stein's notability seems to be because Sarah Palin ran against him for mayor. I don't see much coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 21 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. There is a place for local politicians with adequate coverage. It says so in the rules. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's argument is more WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. In all these cases, there's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger to the mayor's locality. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 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. Michig (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel DuRose[edit]

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

Okay have tried to wikify this the best I can. But, her most notable role is...Tooth Fairy 2 (which I added her to the cast thinking that maybe there might be more for her). But considering that's her most known film, too soon for now. She might get more known someday. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - roles to date (WP:ENT) and significant coverage (WP:GNG) fall short of the respective guidelines. Gongshow talk 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENT and the content of the article is just a copy-paste of IMDB's automatically generated minibio Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:16, 26 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 Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. The arguments here (as opposed to simple votes) are for deletion (nom and Natg 19), redirect, and keep/merge. There is also one opinion in favour of keeping. None of the arguments for deletion deal with the possibility of redirecting to an article where the subject is already covered. Given that the majority of the content is already at the article on the mayor role, a redirect seems a reasonable outcome - should there be anything considered worth merging it's there in the article history. Michig (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Johnston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John R. Johnston

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

His highest office was serving as mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. This is not a position of either enough importance or a city of enough size to justify inclusion merely for that fact. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep and expand --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 17 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) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. Minor local politician with no obvious notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The nomination's argument is more WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. In all these cases, there's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger to the mayor's locality. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:41, 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 Redirect to Balkan Mathematical Olympiad. Michig (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is just a list of competitors and results for an under 15 competition. No third party sources LibStar (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Mathematical Olympiad might be a good redirect target...if that topic is notable, otherwise it should be bundled with this AFD as well. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 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) 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (though I have no objection to a redirect if desired); just not notable. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There are a few Google news hits for "Junior Balkan mathematics olympiad", suggesting notability. But there isn't really enough there for a standalone article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 25 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 Oulu. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Festival of Oulu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG . Created by a single purpose editor and looks like an advert. The Finnish version of this article is poorly sourced too. The only coverage I could find is event listings but nothing indepth LibStar (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Oulu. There was some routine coverage of concerts in the local Kaleva (newspaper), but the articles were few and short. Not enough for a separate article. Apparently it is one of several music festivals in the city, so a paragraph or so could be merged. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:21, 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) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing notability here; festival is young (five years old). I would not object to a merge/redirect, as above. Neutrality^talk 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Margin. Reh man 03:09, 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 Wrong venue. AfD is not the place to propose mergers. Michig (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Surprises/Running from Demons[edit]

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

I suggest this is merged into No Surprises. Lachlan Foley (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:20, 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) 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place Nom is suggesting a merge only and has not provided any rationale for complete deletion. Discussion should happen at Talk:No Surprises and not AfD. Please read Wikipedia:Merging for the guidelines on how to carry out a merge. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close Agree. This is a merger request not a deletion request. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would not be appropriate here. There is a "No Surprises" song and "No Surprises" EP, two separate entities. Mistakenformatt (talk) 06:14, 28 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michela Balducci[edit]

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

The only reference is a bio link on what appears to be a user-entered page Walkabout14 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a professional cyclist on the UCI team S.C. Michela Fanini Rox. The UCI Women's Teams are the top-level teams of female cycling. She rode in the 2014 Giro d'Italia Femminile ("the only remaining women's Grand Tour and the most prestigious stage race on the 2014 women's road cycling calendar)". Pro Cycling Stats shows several other races she's competed in and I suspect there's plenty of coverage here if that's not enough (IE WP:BEFORE). And to be pedantic, all sports result sites are "user-entered page(s)". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't grasp why she is notable. I am new to Wiki but the news links seem to be in languages other than English and I thought that English sources were required for English Wikipedia. Finally, aren't all the user-entered sport sites equivalent to IMDB for movies? I understand that IMDB is not an acceptable reference either. Walkabout14 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, sources in any language are acceptable as soon as they are reliable. English sources are not required.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having found WP:NCYCLING, I believe that the guidance there would indicate that this rider, along with many others on wikipedia, does not meet notability standards. Basically, cyclists should win or make the podium in an UCI event. Walkabout14 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG beats WP:NCYC. She's taken part in several top-level UCI events. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really do understand this nomination. This is a boarderline women cyclist case, and to dat if she is notable enough you need to know a bit more about Women's road Cycling, with the question arising is it about media coverage or about importantce within the sport. I'll explain this. For men cyclists it is notable enough to have an own article when a cyclist had competed in the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia or the Vuelta as being the most important stage races. The only equivalent for women is as mentioned by Lugnuts the Giro d'Italia Femminile, the Women's version of the Giro d'Italia. The main difference is that it receives much less media attention, as is the case with Women's Cycling in general, which in my opinion is not fair. But Women's Cycling is beloning much more an more popular every year. So my point is, for Women's Cycling she is important enough to have an own article altough she hasn't been me mentioned much in the media. There are more examples of cyclists who has its own article with even less media coverage but are notable because they competed at the UCI Road World Championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the points raised above by Sanderl, lower threshold of requirement for notability due to less coverage, fewer races etc. XyZAn (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NCYCLING nor WP:GNG. Sources above are only mentions. The sources cited above such as this list of links here -- none points to in-depth treatment of Michela Balducci (but rather to other Michelas). My sweeps of Italy-related news, sports-related news, international news, did not find in-depth independent reliable sources which talked about why this person is notable. Another search is using her name combined with this cycling news site and only turned up mentions, like she came in 36th in such and such a race. That there are other cyclists with less coverage who have articles in Wikipedia is not a reason to include this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Changing to Weak delete based on new reference added here by Ymblanter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, here is the source.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 17 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) 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Want to look again? She already meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - The Notability Guidelines for Cyclists are about/requested to be updated: see here. If accepted Michela Balducci is within these guidelines. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be agreed in the next week or so. Worst case is this is closed as delete, the guidance updated, and I recreate the article about 1 second after the guidance is updated. Walkabout14 - would you be happy to withdraw this on the as the guidance is being updated, with no issue of it being re-nominated if there is no consensus to publish it to WP:NCYC? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to withdraw @Lugnuts: If the cycling community is going to re-write the notability guidelines, then I'll wait for the outcome of the discussion. But if all you can write about an individual is their birthdate and the fact they are on a racing team, it sounds like a list item, not an encyclopedia entry. I understand Sander.v.Ginkel's points on the relative lack of coverage for female cyclists but that still doesn't mean that individuals that haven't had a podium finish are notable, whether they are male or female. Walkabout14 (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:32, 27 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Stanton[edit]

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

Screenwriter with just one credit. Not like he was nominated for any type of award for either (if he was nominated for an Oscar or a Cannes then I would leave this alone) but since that is it-a redirect. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established from the one credit associated with this person. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 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) 00:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One credit for a flop isn't going to cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unable to find any information beyond the one film credit. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:18, 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. — 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 redirect to The_Brian_Jonestown_Massacre_discography#EPs. Nakon 21:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like Kicking Jesus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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) 19:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 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 I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to reach WP:GNG. There's only the Allmusic review but that alone is not enough. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO, it's passable as CSD/Speedy deletion.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. There isn't a speedy deletion criterion that applies here. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Brian Jonestown Massacre discography#EPs. It's likely that there is coverage out there beyond the Allmusic review, but for now a redirect will suffice. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 28 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Tripathy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Already deleted 6 times and this version of the article doesn't seem to address the issues that led to it being deleted at AfD. There are a few news sources that mention her in relation to criminal cases but I found nothing that would establish notability. Unless notability can be established this needs to be deleted and salted. Michig (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Mentions on IMDB or YouTube do not count. At best, the subject is known only for a WP:1E single event, which is not generally considered sufficient here on WP to justify a separate article. Msnicki (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:NACTOR. Delete as per nomination Athachil (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -There are 7,410 hit for subject in the Indian newspapers. I've removed all unreliable sources and contents based on the same and added multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources that have subject's decent coverage (Diff.). Subject doesn't fall under BLP1E guideline as they have received coverage outside the alleged involvement in a controversy (see article for refs). She is an Oriya actress who has played lead roles in (at least) one Tollywood and Bollywood movie (not sure about their work in Oriya language. However, almost all sources refer subject as Oriya actress). --Subject meets GNG standard for having substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has acted in various movies in Oriya and is also known for her criminal connection with Raja Acharya who murdered Biranchi Das, coach of child marathoner Budhia Singh. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:48, 17 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) 00:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has many reliable sources, I've added another one. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pretty poor sources in the article, and the others don't address the reason the article was deleted before. --Michig (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Features in the Hindu and Times surely count as 'reliable' sources?Jonpatterns (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both reliable sources, but news items mentioning her in relation to a murder case are not 'features'. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are more than passing mentions though, and they are numberous.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she was somehow involved in a murder case does not in any way make her a notable actor. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't she is notable for both acting and the murder though? http://www.breakingnewsonline.in/entertainment/858-leslie-tripathy-fights-back-with-w Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 28 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Family Music discography[edit]

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

Uneeded discography with an amazing zero albums so far! Wgolf (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unneccessary discography of redlinks. If albums are actually released anytime soon, the parent article is a good place for that. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Family Music, with United Family Music discography redirecting to a subsection. Earflaps (talk) 18:34, 16 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) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - [WP:NOTPROMOTION]]. . –Davey2010^Talk 04:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing to write about yet. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:07, 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.