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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University's Central Gymnasium[edit]

Simon Fraser University's Central Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's at least one architecturally significant structure at SFU (the academic quadrangle, used in Battlestar Galactica and at least one SF movie that I vaguely remember) - this isn't anywhere close. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally I would call for a merge/redirect to the university, but I don't see any usefulness to this as a redirect term and there is no information worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 6 March 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University's West Gymnasium[edit]

Simon Fraser University's West Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally I would call for a merge/redirect to the university, but I don't see any usefulness to this as a redirect term and the article has no information or history worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 6 March 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Siddiq[edit]

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

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

I don't think Tulip Siddiq is notable, as she is just a candidate for election - holding no office and having no media coverage except by virtue of being a candidate for office. That contradicts this policy: [[1]]. Right now it just looks like a puff piece to promote her campaign. Feel free to correct me about what the rules are, but nobody replied to me on the talk page. Leviathant11 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Delete I tried to find something here worth keeping, but there are only a few wedding announcements, some stuff from primary sources/promo material. There are a few things mentioned that might be notable, but the references don't check out. For example, a claim that she is the first Bengali woman in Camden Council links to a citation that says nothing of the sort (currently reference 12). --Gaff (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The profile here also states that she is the first Bengali woman in Camden Council. I will look out for a better source. WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaff: This Telegraph article addresses the point as well. I will add it to the article. Does that affect your view? WJBscribe (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to neutral. My concerns about the reliability/integrity of sources cited remains, because I simply do not have any time to commit to reviewing this article further. My gestalt is that is might slide by as a keep, but a very weak one, for a nn politician who has made it in the news a bit because of powerful family connections. However, I need to move on, so defer to community for consensus. --Gaff (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Past practice has been that neither councillors nor PPCs are generally considered to be notable. However in this case she has also (possibly because of her family) also generated media interest in local and national press to meet GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, indeed she is the subject of international press attention (including in India as well as Bangladesh), which makes this rather different from the average discussion of a councillor or candidate for Parliament (PPC). The media coverage is about her, not just her candidacy, and there is coverage that pre-dates her candidacy (e.g. the Evening Standard profile). We shouldn't lose sight of the general criteria for inclusion. We would not include her as a PPC or a councillor alone (although she did hold a cabinet level council position), or due to her notable relatives, but cannot ignore the fact that she is the subject of significant third party attention. It is the coverage itself (not just her status as a counsillor/PPC) that passes our inclusion criteria. WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 4 March 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 per WP:SNOW, as the issues brought up in the discussion have been addressed, and there is nobody that wanted to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 21:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Penn Quakers football team[edit]

2015 Penn Quakers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's too soon to make this page without any special information right now. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the de facto "one-year-rule" compromise used by the Wikipedia sports projects. In the future, however, it might be a good idea to wait until the team's schedule is officially released before creating any more of these type of articles. But, bottom line, this is a current season that is definitely going to happen, and deletion here would be basically pointless. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the games have not started yet, but there is information to be entered: coaches, recruiting, schedule, location, etc. It is common to begin team articles now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nominator, Paul, if you go to the Penn athletics website (1), it's still showing last year's schedule, obviously this year's hasn't been released yet. As I suggested above, for this type of article, it's probably a good idea to wait until we at least have some kind of a schedule before beginning the article. With that said, the schedule here probably will be released within the next couple of weeks, so deletion here would serve no real purpose. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's a good faith nomination, and it probably is a good idea to wait. I wouldn't create the article just yet. But that does not mean that someone else couldn't or shouldn't.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, just like that, hey, presto (1)! Let's get it in the article, get this thing closed, and move on to other, more productive things. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 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. No arguments have been made showing how this list meets our requirements, per policy, for inclusion. Therefore, this list's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Supersoldiers in fiction[edit]

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

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

This was nominated late last year. That discussion ended with no consensus. What did seem to be agreed upon was that only entrieds that are properly verified by reliable sources should be listed. After the AFD closed I removed all entries that were not verified and this is what we wound up with. One single entry. Not a list at all. The problem would seem to be that there re not many sources that actually use the term "supersoldier" and terefore, despite what our own observations may tell us, Captain America is the only supersoldier in fiction. One entry is simply not enough for a list article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. During the first AfD discussion, I noted that "Defining who qualifies for this list has been done almost without sources, and I find it difficult to imagine how one could ever find reliable sources for such claims." Now that the unsourced material has been removed, there's almost nothing left. Even that entry is debateable, since the term "supersoldier" is ill-defined. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep was able to restore a couple of entries without too much effort, will look at doing the same for more over the weekend. Artw (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are several superhero lists better suited to any worthwhile material that might be here, and Captain America will already be on them. Pax 09:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As demonstrated in the article, it's possible to find scattered trivial mentions of fictional supersoldiers in questionable sources, but the vast majority of sources discuss Captain America, as expected. If there's anything to say that doesn't involve Captain America, it can be added to Supersoldier. If someone can demonstrate notability for the list, the article can be recreated, but it will take better than what's there currently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 5 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen P. Gunn[edit]

Eileen P. Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Writer, has published one book that was mentioned in Newsday; does not appear notable. Trivialist (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:author. I added a couple of links to some articles she has written, but lots of authors write articles. What is important in terms on notability is if anything of substance is written about the author. In this case, doesn't appear so... --Gaff (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG + WP:Author. –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• undecided at this point. This woman has has a career as a working journalist, specializing in personal finance and writing for a lot of major publications. Then she wrote a book. Now she has founded a business. It seems highly probable that there are profiles or interviews out there in reliable places. However, because of the number of publications she wrote for and the non -uniqueness of "Eileen" and "Gunn", searching out stories that are about her rather than by her will take a little time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability. Respectable career [2] just nothing notable about it: Book not particularly notable, journalism won no prizes. has held no intrinsically notable jobs. Can't find that anyone has profiled or written about her or her small start-up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:01, 6 March 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 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Girl (Rabindranath Tagore)[edit]

Dancing Girl (Rabindranath Tagore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While I'm loathe to reduce Tagore's profile on the encyclopedia, this article presently seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY. While searches via various engines and archives turned up hundreds of false positives in which Tagore's name intersects with the phrase "dancing girl", I was unable to find so much as a single source which speaks to the significance of this particular painting, nor indeed one that even references it in passing. The breadth of Tagore's fame means that I may well have missed a significant source in one of the languages I did not search in, but the fact remains that this article has been up since 2009 without a single source being added to it to establish notability or elucidate on the topic beyond the simple 8-word statement that makes up the entirety of its text. I hope I'm surprised and this discussion turns up something, but at present it seems the correct course of action is to delete. Snow talk 06:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 06:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 06:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 06:53, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I spent now quite some time and I was not able to find anything about the painting.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched many combinations of translations of his name and the title, as well as searching directly by image. I found

• a mirror of an RS which doesn't mention the painting;
• a WP mirror;
• a blog post about his putative colorblindness whose complete coverage of the painting is, "A painting by Tagore displayed here, named "Dancing Girl" will tell you how unusual the colors are";
• a blog which uses the painting as illustration that he painted; a blog hagiography where it's labeled "painting by Poet";

etc. No evidence of its appearing in an RS or getting anything like significant coverage. I sympathize with the desire to look out for a worthy WP:Systemic bias sufferer, but this article does nothing the commons entry doesn't and isn't likely to be able to. The language barrier is a good point, but Bengali Wikipedia doesn't use it for anything but "he painted, see?" either. FourViolas (talk) 05:56, 4 March 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 Dhaka. Nakon 20:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkona[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG, but perhaps it's clearer with access to Asian languages? Creator was banned for creating 'nonsense articles.' This has been tagged for notability for six and a half years, so time for a discussion. I could find no good merge or redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- as confirmed by following the geo-coordinates: a non-notable neighborhood or development in Dhaka. —Noah 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete does not meet WP:NPLACE. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPLACE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is unquestionably a neighborhood of Dhaka LINK, so there should be no worries about a hoax. I leave it to others to determine whether this meets Keep criteria for an inhabited place. I found the number of Google hits impressive. Carrite (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dhaka without prejudice to future recreation should sources emerge is the smart play, I think. Carrite (talk) 13:33, 6 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Sport Challenges Association[edit]

Extreme Sport Challenges Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this for deletion before. It closed as no consensus. I have nothing to add to my original statement, other than this also fails WP:CORP. ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Previous discussion was here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Extreme Sport Challenges Association (when it had a "The" in the title). --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only mentions of the team seem to be inconsequential. No significant reliable sources discuss the team and its history in detail. --Jayron32 03:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability guidelines ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 2 March 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. Per Hisashiyarouin comment. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Hurts[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no references and no chart positions to assert notability. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close Creator has turned article into redirect to Gravity Hurts (song), which is also in AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity Hurts (song). If that is deleted then this redirect can be speedily deleted by WP:G8. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:34, 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 Speedily Deleted per previous deletion discussion and WP:CRYSTAL. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S6[edit]

Samsung Galaxy S6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. As of right now this device is nothing but a rumour and this year Samsung has revealed no device name or other details. Will probably need recreating in a week but It is all speculation now, though I have removed the worst of it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Excuse my language but why the bloody hell was this recreated? .... Clearly still fails WP:CRYSTAL. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Starting a few hours back there is a surge of rumor of leaked photos of this new phone, including some of the (seemingly, to my uninitiated eyes) bigger outlets. Main point "rumor" and "leaked", so I wouldn't count them reliable as of yet. Less WP:CRYSTAL than last time at September 2014, but still quite so. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 20:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lau (Chiropractor)[edit]

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

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

A promotional article based entirely upon self-published or unreliable sources, including the altmed conspiracy site NaturalNews. I did not find any independent reliable sources. Relevant WP:DEL-REASONs are #4, #7, and #8. Manul ~ talk 17:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, so delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• He wrote a book! He wrote three theses! Nobody noticed... Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete created by a single purpose editor. Obvious self promotion. LibStar (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:Fringe booster article of non-notable quack. Pax 11:19, 2 March 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 Moving to MfD. Moving to MfD (non-admin closure) Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sachin G Lokapure[edit]

Draft:Sachin G Lokapure (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Sachin G Lokapure|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible Copyright Problems. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:45, 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. The article is found to be promotional material and to have no potential to be notable for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vizion Interactive[edit]

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

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

Article is essentially an advertisement. Current sources (as of Feb 11 2015) do not meet reliability criteria and consist of press releases, links to articles written by employees, conference listings. What is needed is in-depth, independent write-ups by secondary sources in reliable publications explaining why this company is notable, what it is about, etc. Right now all the article says is that the company has principals who speak at various conferences. Possibility that this contributor is an employee of the firm which would constitute a conflict of interest. My sweeps of national publications, Texas-based news, computer-related media did not find anything indicating notability. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tom, I appreciate you flagging this since when it got approved I was surprised since I’ve been trying to get some better content and sources added. I was waiting on confirmation on some other pieces we had been mentioned in, AdAge being one. I had a feeling this might happen, but thought I’d keep doing some more research to add to it since it was already live. As regards to the points you made, if we need more information than just speaking at conferences I’ll work on getting that (hoping this can get set back to draft instead of being deleted outright). The publications that were linked were all included at the top of Ad Age’s Power 150 (see spots 10, 11, 12 when it was around. Since the notability I was looking for was industry based I hadn’t asked about any particular national publications that may have been included. I’m not sure how computer related media fits in; I think marketing or internet marketing would be a better fit. And lastly I wasn’t aware being an employee was something that would be a hindrance and after submitting it the first time and getting it kicked back this wasn’t brought up as a potential issue. I know there have been other company pages created by their own employees though they probably used a screen name that wasn’t their actual name, I didn’t see a point in trying to hide it. I understand if it can’t be placed back into draft, just thought I’d ask. (Joshuatitsworth (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)) comment added by Joshuatitsworth (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you can find several in-depth sources I'll rescind the nomination. Generally Wikipedia discourages situations in which people directly connected with a subject, such as an employee of an organization, writes about the organization, or when subjects of biographical articles write about themselves; please see these guidelines. The basic issue as you probably know is that it is hard for people to be objective about themselves or their own companies. About possible sources, possibly include this one if it is not there already. I assume you understand SEO, and that you know how Wikipedia, being a motherlode of eyeball traffic, is a tempting target for all kinds of SEO-oriented activities. Every day there are thousands upon thousands of people trying to promote products and services here. If your purpose here at Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia, great, but writing about Innovadex, a company that you used to work for, or inserting references into the article Search engine optimization which point to articles published by your colleagues at Vizion Interactive, such as this insertion pointing to this article by Vizion associate Josh McCoy, can you see how your history of contributions suggests your main purpose is advancing the interests of specific firms? In the larger picture, we all benefit when we have an encyclopedia that is impartial, neutral, non-spammy, like when you, yourself, use Wikipedia to hunt for facts about things, don't you appreciate not having to wade through swamps and swamps of spam.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to Draft - the page was accepted by a user now banned from AfC and blocked from Wikipedia for abusing the system. Unless Tomwsulcer objects, I will "speedy" return this to draft and close the AfD.

The author himself admits the page wasn't ready to be published, and I see no reason not to give him another shot. The current sources certainly does not work - all the articles are either written by Vizion people or have only a quote by a Vizion person. None describe the company at all. The only valid source is the Bloomberg profile, which alone is not enough to establish any notability. Incidentally, I would think a SEO company would be smart enough to realize adding links to Wikipedia does zip for SEO since all our links are "nofollow". --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there does not seem any prospect of a draft eventually leading to a wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added what secondary articles I was able to find recently and removed the old "references" that were there. There really is no SEO implementation here other than branding, but I understand what's being said and will gladly accept whatever the outcome is.Joshuatitsworth (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to draft for potential further improvement. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to Draft as per circumstances outlined by ThaddeusB. There appears to be an editor, Joshuatitsworth, interested in improving this so it should not be deleted yet. ~KvnG 04:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor in question has also repeatedly attempted to add a reference link to Vizion on the Search engine optimization page. They have also done extensive work on the equally spammy KonyOne Platform, which I have just nominated for deletion here. I have some doubt whether their further work on this article will actually be an improvement. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)`[reply]

WP:AGF is the better path for me here. ~KvnG 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG. I have yet to see a CORP article containing the phrase "...one of the (umpitty) fastest growing (whatevers)..." which ever had a prayer of being anything more than WP:ADMASQ. Pax 11:26, 2 March 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) 00:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrum Cricket Club[edit]

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

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

I do not see any notability. The article lacks reliable sources, and I could not find any. Looks like run-of-the-mill sports club. Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, local social cricket clubs are rarely notable, and this one doesn't have any references or indication that it might be an exception. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources in the article or found through searching online. No reason to think this club is exceptionally notable. Relentlessly (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot Cake Murder: A Hannah Swensen Mystery[edit]

Carrot Cake Murder: A Hannah Swensen Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG andy (talk) 15:29, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only source I can open is a glorified blog review, the others are either dead links or behind paywalls. No external evidence of notability, this seems to be one of a formula series via what looks like a budget or vanity publisher, and it's not even notable enough to be linked from the article of its (borderline WP:N failing) author. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NB, any info worthy of salvaging could be incorporated into author article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
  1. From Publishers Weekly:

     Filled with juicy scandal, delightfully eccentric characters and 21 tempting recipes from Cream Cheese Frosting to Lemon Fluff Jell-O, bestseller Fluke's 10th Hannah Swenson mystery (after 2007's Key Lime Pie Murder) centers on a family reunion that turns deadly. Hannah's friend Marge Beeseman is thrilled when her brother, Gus Klein, who disappeared from Lake Eden, Minn., more than 30 years earlier, unexpectedly arrives. At the big family party, everyone wonders how the elegant, well-dressed Gus heard about the reunion and why he came back. When Gus fails to show up for the group photo the next morning, Hannah finds his body on a pavilion floor—with ants crawling around pieces of her carrot cake nearby. Hannah's malcontented cat, Moishe, and flickers of romance with her devoted dentist and the no-less attentive local police chief add spice to the subsequent murder investigation. The ending will leave cozy fans gasping for breath. (Mar.)

  2. From Booklist:

     Daily life’s many preoccupations engage Hannah Swensen’s attention. And life in Lake Eden, Minnesota, fairly brims with church activities, cooking, family gatherings, and the demands of a mischievous cat. Moreover, Hannah runs a bakery, and her carrot cake is famed across the region. A piece of that cake shows up one day beside the corpse of her business partner’s uncle Gus. It’s up to Hannah to find out who did him in, and her sleuthing techniques are tested to the limit as she discovers many potential killers who each had good reason to want Gus out of the way. Recipes appear throughout the text, tied to plot developments. There’s even a culinary mystery: What’s the secret sauce on those tasty salmon cakes? The popularity of Fluke’s earlier food-focused mysteries will undoubtedly raise demand for this newest title even beyond its expected audience in the Upper Midwest. --Mark Knoblauch

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carrot Cake Murder: A Hannah Swensen Mystery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is another review:
  1. Sweeney, James (2008-05-07). "How to judge a book by its cover". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2015-02-26. Retrieved 2015-02-26.

     The review notes:

     "Carrot Cake Murder" by Joanne Fluke

     The Genre: Cozy mystery.

     The Premise: In little Lake Eden, Minn., amateur sleuth Hannah Swensen, owner of The Cookie Jar bakery, finds a dead body, an ice pick and two pieces of her "infamous" (that's from the jacket flap) carrot cake nearby. Hannah is on the case!

     The Clues: The cover is shiny as a glazed doughnut, the drawing of the carrot cake is cute, and the single line at the bottom, "A Hannah Swensen Mystery with Recipes," practically reaches out and pinches the reader's cheek.

     The Buy: There's something reassuring in the notion that even if the plot doesn't hold together, the casserole recipe on Page 190 probably will.

  Cunard (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BKCRIT criteria #1 per the reviews above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Joanne_Fluke#Hannah_Swensen_series. These books are not notable outside of their long-running series (fourteen at last count), currently defaulting to the author. Closer should deal similarly with Devils Food Cake Murder, of the same series and which has sat unimproved for over two years. (boldly redirected myself) Side-note: my eyes go all squinty at the coincidence of the word "cozy" showing up in two different boilerplate reviews from different publishers. I can almost see the brown paper bags of money sliding under the table... Pax 11:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose a redirect. The article currently contains two sections: "plot summary" and "reception". A merge/redirect would be unable to preserve this information without being undue weight in Joanne Fluke's article. Because this book passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, it should be kept as a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability established as per comments above (squinty eyes aside, but I hope you do feel better PAX). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 01:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're all alike: "cozy" mysteries...with recipes. It's a nifty little niche market the author has carved out, but I think it's a stretch to assume that any particular novel is a stand-out. (I would guess that all of the books have similar reviews, etc., but I think having an article for each one would be a poor idea given the sheer number of them and their inherent similarity. We don't even have an article for the series yet.)

Comment I see your point. But is anyone writing an article on the series? Ironically, the originating author seems to have worked on AfD's but is now "retired". HullIntegrity^\ talk / 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I categorized the series on the author's article page the other day (before !voting redirect), with said author's page being almost empty aside from book lists. IOW, there's not enough material here to warrant separate articles, and I believe it an example of mismatched emphasis to assume more notability upon a generic series entrant that for the the author themselves. A case could be made if Carrot Cake were a widely raved-about piece of literature taking the world by storm, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. It's just a run-of-the-mill entry. Pax 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia grows in weird ways. Sometimes, we just have to let it grow and see where it goes. (That sounded really Hippy, but I worked in the alliteration and assonance). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 00:15, 4 March 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 20:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nimer 'Neem' Basha[edit]

Nimer 'Neem' Basha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1.Self Promotion / Advert 2.Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline 3.Indepent reliable sources missing One life to live (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree he does not appear to be notable (yet), as there is not very much reliable source coverage of him or his works. Everymorning talk 16:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found exactly one thing on PR web. I'd be milling to change my mind if somebody can find better sources under another name, somewhere. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThis is about an early-career person, WP:TOOSOON The link to Vissitudes magazine, a non-blue linked online fashion site that Basha writes for is written by him, not written about him . Willing to reconsider if sources (articles about the man, not articles/ videos created by the man) can be produced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 5 March 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 Brown dwarf#History. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planetar (astronomy)[edit]

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

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

The term "planetar" is invented. It does not appear in the scientific literature, although there are several real terms for substellar planetary-mass objects. As something that sounds plausible but is wrong, this is one of the more harmful kinds of bad article on Wikipedia. Xerxes (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Brown dwarf#History, where the term is mentioned. This is of course a real term in astronomy, as evidenced by this Nature news artcle.. But according to this book, the term never caught on to the same extent as "brown dwarf". As a consequence, I've been unable to find multiple in depth reliable sources discussing a planetar as a separate thing from a brown dwarf. Given the RS establishing the link, it seems reasonable to redirect this article to Brown dwarf#History, where the term is mentioned with the minimal due weight. --Mark viking (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature blog is an interesting link; however, that's just a blog attributing a quote to individuals. Even those attributed individuals never use the term in the peer-reviewed literature. If we redirect, then I think substellar object is more appropriate. (That article has similar issues with the prominence of the coinage "substar", which is scant but present in the literature.) -- Xerxes (talk)

• Redirect to ... um, well, somewhere. Quoting from this 2012 Springer-published book: "Synonyms for free-floating planets include – Inter-stellar planet, Inter-stellar comet, Isolated Planetary Mass Object (IPMO), Orphan planet, Planemo, Planetar, Rogue planet, and Sub-brown dwarf." (p. 11). Which is, you know, good times and all, since several of those terms are not strictly synonymous in actual literature (planemo, rogue planet, and sub-brown dwarf are not freely interchangeable). Maybe rogue planet is the best target, adding "planetar" to the hodgepodge list of equivalent terms already present? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 13 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 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Button (unit)[edit]

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

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

Even though I've just spent some time trying to develop this from its previous state, I don't think there's anything reliable to verify its existence. (Cardarelli, he of the Stupping ton, is dubious for reliability). Not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 15:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a reliable source saying what this putative unit of measrement was used for.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This really is quite absurd, just a bunch of conflicting ideas about a supposed unit, where the more reliable the source, the less it has to say. There is a WP:SLOGAN about "No information better than bad information", which seems to apply here. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is either a mistake or a very non-notable unit. There is no encyclopedic information available beyond a dictionary definition (1 button = half an inch) in one dubious source. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think there is some confusion here. The ligne is a traditional unit of measure (about 1/40 of an inch) for buttons, and in that sense is a button measure. But I don't think there has ever been an actual unit called the button, only ligne in Germany and UK, which morphed into line in the US. The unit ligne itself seems notable, with button measurement charts from Britex and Natural Buttons still using this unit. --Mark viking (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yay! More Cardarelli units to kill! Delete, for the same reasons as the dozens we have already nuked. Non notable. PianoDan (talk) 20:21, 4 March 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) 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lundeberg/Eyeliner[edit]

Helen Lundeberg/Eyeliner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 02:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Could be redirected to Rather Ripped if not. Relentlessly (talk) 21:51, 6 March 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 Sonic Youth discography#Official bootlegs. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Me Donna Majick Momma[edit]

Stick Me Donna Majick Momma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Searched and haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge per WP:NSONG. Notability is not inherited from the artist and this seems to be a particularly obscure "release" with no independent notability asserted in the article. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sonic Youth discography#Official bootlegs. This received some press coverage when it was released, but the current content can be summed up in the discography. Quite frankly, why wouldn't you want this to at least redirect to the discography? --Michig (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that makes more sense. Changing my !vote above in favour of this option. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 11:51, 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 withdrawn by nominator. There is lots of coverage, and I see no need to let this continue at the moment. It could be renominated later if someone thinks its necessary. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteandgold[edit]

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

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

Flash-in-the-pan meme, very interesting but I would say WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Is a meme, correct, but seems to be getting a huge amount of press, more so than many of the memes with current articles ever did. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Too early to say for sure whether it's notable or not. Better to nominate this for deletion in a week or two once the frenzy has died down a bit.Chessrat (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is about a topic that has significant reliable secondary sourcing I don't see why it should be deleted. This article is not written in the style of a news article nor does it do any original research; I can't see any reason WP:NOTNEWS would apply here. WP:RECENTISM is about the proper way to write an article to achieve balance. While the article probably doesn't achieve the right balance that is a reason for better and more careful writing not for deletion.meitme (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now (page creator): I agree with all these listed points, it's a little premature, but there's no telling that this is going to end up alongside those sharks from the halftime show on a "best memes of 2015" post by some news organization about 10 months from now. This did get press coverage and some rather interesting theories (p.s. I'm on the black and blue side mainly because that's what it is, and it's just a badly taken image.) ViperSnake151  Talk  16:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 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. Rlendog (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Xavier[edit]

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

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

Actor who clearly does not yet meet WP:NACTOR since he has had minor parts in two films, one of which has not yet been released. Also doesn't meet WP:GNG. He might become notable, but it is too soon for an article now. bonadea contributions talk 13:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Whats sources exist are unreliable or self-generated. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google search did not yield any positive results and IMDb page does not credit any movies.

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, no secondary sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO .–Davey2010^Talk 04:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per SK1 & all that fun stuff. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Loup[edit]

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

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

Does not meet notability criteria per geographic places. Unlikely that this article can develop beyond Fairy Loup is a waterfall in Scotland. Note: per multiple delete process this is initial "test" Afd. Please consider Category:Waterfalls of Scotland. Of the 277 articles in this category, and its sub-categories, I can only identify 19 which could be considered notable. --Haruth (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Withdrawn by nominator Squeamish Ossifrage's edits has clearly shown that Fairy Loup can probably be brought up to notability standards, and that there may be life in some of the other articles yet. --Haruth (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:GEOLAND is fairly permissive here: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." I've done what I could to expand the article accordingly. It's still very much a stub, but it is perhaps a bit more substantive of a stub now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 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 speedy deleted per CSD G12, unambiguous copyright infringement. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syra arts[edit]

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

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

Not notable, promotional. No sources, and an online search doesn't come up with any.  DiscantX 12:40, 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. Rlendog (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Law colleges in kakinada[edit]

Law colleges in kakinada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deprodded article. Simply lists the two (and only) law colleges in Kakinada, none of which have an article themselves. I see no prospects of this turning into an article about these two law colleges. Delete. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overly small, useless list. Though I believe any verifiable law school would merit an article based on prevailing consensus (and redlinks are not prohibited in lists), the topic is already fully indexed at List of law schools in India, and as we only have two articles on law schools in the entire state where Kakinada is (Category:Law schools in Andhra Pradesh), there's obviously no reason to create lists for even smaller locales than that (barring someone producing proof that Kakinda has far more than two law schools). postdlf (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Both of these colleges requires their own articles and I hope that the basic intention of Wikipedia is to give information to general public. --Intlawind (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A two-item list isn't a very good way of doing that, and we already have a list for all law schools in India. We'd subdivide that by state long before we would by city. Maybe a broader list of all colleges/universities in the city? Or all educational institutions? postdlf (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to List of law schools in India#Andhra Pradesh. Relentlessly (talk) 21:54, 6 March 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 My Chemical Romance. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bryar[edit]

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

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

Primary reason for nominating this: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." -- Wikipedia:Notability (music). Simply turning the article into a redirect just doesn't work because someone will come along and recreate the article, as you can see from the article's history. So I'm nominating it here for some closure on whether this article should exist or not. Bob Bryar was a drummer in MCR, he was not one of the founding members, he was not a part of the final line-up, he has not been a part of any other notable projects. And besides that the article is prone to WP:BLP violations because the fans who edit it seem to have no knowledge of what reliable sources (or proper grammar) are and why we have to use them. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I agree that, as often with drummers, this article is not notable. I do not see a redirect as being controversial and is solves the search issues that might motive some to recreate the article. Maybe start a section on the Talk page about the redirect to reach consensus. Karst (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to My Chemical Romance. That is the proper procedure and no compelling arguments against a redirect have been made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bryar has plenty of sources and has been covered by the media on multiple occasions after My Chem and is still notible in the music industry today. PacoDaKing14Sportz (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were a couple (literally, two) news articles posted very recently about him because he had tweeted about being depressed because of getting kicked out of MCR. Before that, the most recent news articles are from 2010 and those articles are about him leaving MCR. He doesn't have notability (notability as it's defined here on Wikipedia) outside of the band, which is why this article shouldn't exist, according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PacoDaKing14Sportz's reasons BcBryar (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Insufficient independent coverage for a separate page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The sources give us no biographical content such as information about his family, where he was raised, his musical background and training, his musical career (early bands he was in), etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Basicly he was the whole reason that they broke up, so not a founding member, but still an important member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FakeYourDeath (talk • contribs) 07:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FakeYourDeath (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Cullen, who presents what seems to be a correct policy-based rationale. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 6 March 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Financial Therapy[edit]

Journal of Financial Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded wiht reason: Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. De-PRODded by IP without specific reason stated. PROD reasons still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A check of SCOPUS (which, being a paywalled resource, unfortunately I can't link to here) shows that a dozen articles from the journal are cited in journal articles indexed there, one of which was cited 6 times in the last 4 years, a performance that to me is sufficiently impressive for a five year old journal that publishes semi-annually. I recognize that the standards for academic journals are a bit strict—too strict, in my personal opinion, as an academic librarian who works with open access journals on a daily basis—but I think this one is clearly distinct from the pay-to-play vanity stuff that I'd agree would clog the encyclopedia if it was all allowed in. Notability is hard to gauge and has always been controversial here, as evidenced in part by the fact that the Academic Journals link you posted remains an "essay" and not an official "guideline" despite being around here for years, and I think the inclusionists are right to argue that, in a case like this, we lean towards keeping. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Scopus journal list is freely available here and this journal is not covered. A smattering of citations is to be expected for any journal, but this amount of citations would not even make a single researcher notable, let alone a whole journal. Scopus is getting less and less selective, and not even Scopus covers it, let alone more selective databases. Even predatory journals will get this much citations. Notability is not that difficult to gauge, we have WP:NJournals for that (a guideline that is very lenient on journals). This journal is relatively new, we still have to wait and see whether it will even survive, let alone whether it will become notable. Article creation simply is way too soon in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do see your point -- it's possible my leanings (forged about a decade ago, and unlikely to change much, at this point) are more Inclusionist than is now fashionable at Wikipedia. To me, the article adds value, the journal is clearly getting use in its niche community, and its affiliation with a professional organization both suggests its long-term survival and reassures us that it is not predatory. But I recognize that it's a borderline case, and appreciate your considering my opinion. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The association itself is still new and appears to be a rather small community of researchers who are citing each other. Worthy project but still too soon. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this publication, nor does the article list any independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 1 March 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 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom National Universities Pipe Band[edit]

United Kingdom National Universities Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Group of non-notable articles. Ostrichyearning (talk) 16:10, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Links are dead (not in Wayback Machine), very sparse coverage on Google. Appears to be a project that never really got going. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:44, 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. Nakon 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Universities Pipe Band International[edit]

National Universities Pipe Band International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Group of non-notable articles. Ostrichyearning (talk) 16:10, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Like the others, links are dead (not in Wayback Machine), very sparse coverage on Google. Appears to be a project that never really got going. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:47, 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. Nakon 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Universities Pipe Band[edit]

National Universities Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Group of non-notable articles. Ostrichyearning (talk) 16:10, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Links are dead (not in Wayback Machine), very sparse coverage on Google. Appears to be a project that never really got going. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:48, 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. Nakon 20:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1Click Games[edit]

1Click Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a company that apparently issues a lot of press releases but lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 13:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing but own sites and press release. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Refs are all press releases or incidental mentions. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons, this entry seems to serve only to increase the subject's alleged notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPTI (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 March 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped Under Ice (band)[edit]

Trapped Under Ice (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This band fails WP:BAND, esp. point 5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". This band has released only two albums, on a label that doesn't (yet) have its own article, hence not meeting this requirement. The current article shows the band existed, but doesn't really offer any WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like it meets wp:band fine to me, at least. Two albums is plenty, and the label doesn't need a Wikipedia page to be notable (looks like Reaper has released a number of notable albums and signed a number of notable bands). About coverage, Punknews.org is a decent source when it's an editor review (reviews listed here), and Alternative Press (here) is also a decent source. I also saw about five or six independent looking reviews in small magazines, but didn't list them because I'm not familiar with the publications. Earflaps (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Super7 (band). SALTing redirect as well to prevent recreation. Nakon 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Fazzill Alditto[edit]

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

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

Unotable celeb from what I can tell with non notable sources Wgolf (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I just noticed RIGHT after I posted this that it has a link to a wiki in Indonesian. Wgolf (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without redirect per nomination. He's a member of the band Super7 (band) with no notability outside of his temporary membership of this boy band. This would normally mean a redirect, but this article is the product of several sockpuppets (and IP sockpuppets) of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Natly 88, so keeping the redirect will mean more work for the editors who've been spending a lot of time lately chasing down her persistent efforts to re-create this (and many others) as an unreferenced BLP. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - even if he sang once with that boy band, our readers might be looking of the band under the member's name; it is a valid search term. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Super7 (band). IMO this person is probably notable in Indonesia, so a wholesale delete is IMO over-zealous. Closer could salt the redirect if irrationally exuberant sock activity is an ongoing problem. Pax 02:09, 4 March 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 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Read[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual. WP:NOTNEWS. This "biography" reads like a slow news day's "...and finally" section. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does have significant coverage: this story has gone round the world - there is also "Former janitor who lived modestly leaves millions in surprise donations", News.com.au, 6 February 2015; "Former janitor leaves $6 million to local hospital and library in Vermont", Daily Telegraph, 5 February 2015; and others. This is a life story, not one event: Noyster (talk), 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A story that's "gone round the world" in the day of the internet. Well blow me down. This is obviously WP:ROUTINE and not-notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Not enough for notability. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above, interesting but not notable.Mighty Antar (talk) 02:18, 6 March 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 01:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santeria (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

I originally WP:PRODed this page as an unnecessary disambiguation page (per WP:2DABS). User:Bkonrad declined it by saying that there is "at least one other song with the title." I would like to dispute that claim, however. There is only one (notable) song by that title: the one by Sublime. The Aimee Allen song is actually just a cover version of the Sublime song. If you look at Santeria (song)#Covers, one of those listed is Aimee Allen's. The article on her cover doesn't exist; the only information on it comes a listing on Santeria (song) and on her A Little Happiness album. Tavix |  Talk  02:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  02:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only other "Santeria" I found (not on WP) was an invalid genus of parasitic worms (i.e. a scientist named a new species Santeria rubalo, which was later found to belong to a previously named genus, Aphallus, rendering Santeria obsolete. Something like this would be the only impetus for keeping the dab, e.g. "Santeria, a synonym of the genus Aphallus", which is technically true but of negligible use. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I had checked Allmusic and most of the other cover versions were credited to the group or to all the members. The Aimee Allen was credited only to one and I didn't recognize the name and mistook it for a different song. If no other uses are found, this could be deleted. 12:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as unnecessary, per the (unsigned) comment by Animalparty above. Relentlessly (talk) 22:14, 6 March 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. After two relists I think we have heard all the points there are likely to be raised. The argument for deletion is weak and the consensus does appear to be Keep. The question of a move or rename of the article can be handled elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of force doctrine in Missouri[edit]

Use of force doctrine in Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see how this is notable at all. I could see how Use of force doctrine in the United States might be notable, but not an article at the state level. In any case, there seems to be very little Missouri-specific material here. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (push) @ 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No opinion, at least as yet, on the merits, but this was kept at a previous AFD under a slightly different title (before a page move) – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Use of Force Doctrine in Missouri. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons given in the last AfD and more. This topic satisfies WP:GNG and WP:LGNC. There is Missouri-specific material that isn't present in the article but could be added. To argue that Missouri law is inherently non-notable because it is state law is nonsense because of (a) the large number of publications specifically about Missouri law, including what look like massive encyclopaedias of Missouri law (Missouri Practice Series and Vernon's Annotated Missouri Statutes); and (b) the size (in terms of population) of Missouri and the degree of autonomy it has to make its own laws. In any event articles of this type never get deleted on grounds of notability because there is always a suitable target for merger and redirection, so this nomination is effectively a merger proposal. James500 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the target? Use of force doctrine in the United States? I could see the possibility of a page move there. As for coverage, the only reference I could see in Google Books was this one. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious target for merger would be Use of force or a broader article on Missouri law. This article does contain material relevant to, but not present in, Use of force, which should preclude deletion altogether, this being a plausible redirect. Alternatively, the move you proposed would be a possibility. In addition to the sources mentioned in the article and during the last AfD, searches for extracts of section 563, for example, bring up many results in GNews and quite a few in GScholar and GBooks. In GBooks, for example, you missed Vernon's Annotated Missouri Statutes. I appreciate that Google has difficulty sorting the wheat from the chaff, but the sources are there. James500 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The suggestion that state-level law is not at all notable is odd. The law on use-of-force in the United States is highly heterogeneous across states, as are nearly all subsets of the law. There may be a handful of states with insufficiently developed use-of-force law to fill an article. And there may be states with no noteworthy instances of police use-of-force. Missouri does not fall into either of these categories, given directly relevant statutory law and the notorious Shooting of Michael Brown. The article certainly needs revised to include a discussion of state-specific law and perhaps removal of the general federal law. But deleting the article entirely on the grounds that state law is not noteworthy would be foolish. Osuadh (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do not understand why the original name of the article (Use of force law in Missouri) wasn't changed to Use-of-force law in Missouri since:

1. For grammatical correctness, it is the compound adjective "Use-of-force" that modifies the noun "law".

2. The article pertains to use-of-force law in Missouri in general, not limited to only legal doctrine/common law.

Can anyone shed some light on this issue? Djbaniel (talk) 14:09, 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 delete. Nakon 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Order Zombie[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG with no strong secondary sources. The "award-winning" nature of the podcast comes from an award given out by The Podcast Podcast, which does not seem significant. It was nominated for (but did not win) some other redlink awards, and all the other sources are blogs. McGeddon (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a trivial mention in this article at Dread Central, but that's about the best I can find. Nothing at Fangoria or Bloody Disgusting, where one would expect to find coverage of horror-themed web content. Awards don't look significant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 5 March 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 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krista White (matchmaker)[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail to meet the notability criteria for authors. Her two books appear to be self published or vanity press, and I can't find any non-trivial coverage beyond a small amount of paid material. Bilby (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm unsure about this one. She advertizes in those glossy airline magazines, so her name is known, but I'm not sure she really notable. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ADMASQy, fails WP:AUTHOR and all provided sources are WP:DOGBITESMAN trivial fluff. Pax 02:55, 4 March 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 Nikhil Advani. Nakon 01:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmay Entertainment & Motion Pictures LLP[edit]

Emmay Entertainment & Motion Pictures LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company, sources are unreliable, or do not support the statements made in the article. Same article was deleted yesterday under A7, created by another user (obvious sock) User:Rupali Lohiya. Maybe someone with more knowledge of WP:INDAFD can better establish notability? Brining to AfD because author repeatedly deleted speedy tag. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page shouldn't be deleted because it doesn’t contain any misleading information or any promotional content. The data is very factual and the references have been taken from the reliable sites. All the references can be found easily on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TirthaV (talk • contribs) 09:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — TirthaV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy delete. Previous versions of articles on this entirely non-notable (1 film released to date) company were rightly speedied.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Modified search parameters

WP:INDAFD: Emmay Entertainment Private Limited Emmay Entertainment Emmay Entertainment & Motion Pictures LLP

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

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

• Redirect for now to sourcable founder Nikhil Advani where it can be written of and easily sourced (just had to use a little search). The company itself, while verifiable, does not have enough coverage to meet WP:CORP. They've produced a few films and including information on it is not a policy violation, so really no need to speedy. If or when the company's notability is established the redirect can be undone and the article expanded and sourced accordingly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Schmidt. Pax 02:57, 4 March 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 06:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vydox[edit]

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

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

Non-notable product. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No assertion of notability so far, but it's a new editor and article. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure WP:PROMO. Not notable. I looked for sources and found nothing useful. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like spam from a paid account / COI with no refs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Vydox is yet another "male enhancement" scam pill. Also note that the corporate name of "Premium Nutraceuticals" is curiously similar to "Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals" of Enzyte infamy. So, let's do our civic duty and not give these crooks any free advertizing. Pax 03:07, 4 March 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 List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters:_A. Nakon 20:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angar the Screamer[edit]

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

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

Subject has no independent notability as proven by a quick search in Google News and Google Archives. No WP:RS can thus WP:V verify the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT notability of this Marvel character. Suggest merging and redirection to a list of Marvel characters. AadaamS (talk) 04:22, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. per nom.

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 March 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EPLAR[edit]

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

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

• There is no source supporting the actual subject of the article, which is "EPLAR – the echocardiographic Pulmonary to Left Atrial Ratio"
• The three sources used only support work on doppler echocardiography and cardiac shunts not EPLAR
• The only source for the subject is an unpublished lecture by the person who coined the term.

Comprehensively Fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 02:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources don't support the subject of "ePLAR", and all I can find searching is this article and a couple of mirrors. The article even says ePLAR was only "conceptualized" as recently as September 2014, and apart from the single unpublished lecture given by one of the main authors of the article (or maybe two of them - blocked as alleged socks), the other refs predate that by years. So, there's not a single valid source that I can find, and unless someone with access to medical sources can find something then this really does not appear to be notable. Squinge (talk) 14:22, 4 March 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) Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GO Science Ltd[edit]

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

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

They have not yet produced a marketable project-- purely speculative article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]