< 11 January	13 January >

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. KTC (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Erden[edit]

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

No indication of notability. All referenced sources seem to be essentially only to document mere existence or truthfulness rather than notability. (I do not dispute the truthfulness of the article.) The basis of a claim to notability would seem to be as an academic; however, there seems to be no indication of meeting any WP:PROF criteria. The article seems to have been created and maintained essentially by only one editor, Uoi.chi (Talk), who seems to have never edited anything else on Wikipedia until my PROD of the article a few days ago (except to link the birthday of the article's subject to the article – a change which has since been reverted). The only articles currently linked to this one on Wikipedia are the List of people sharing the name "Fatih", the List of Bosniaks, and a new one about a professor, Weng Cho Chew, that was just created by that same user and is tagged for copyright problems. In the latter of these, the subject appears only in a list of people who have worked with the person who is the subject of the article. Megalibgwilia (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megalibgwilia (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asst prof having impact commensurate with career stage. WoS show h-index of 3 with top paper (for which the subject is not the corresponding author) having 13 citations. Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 120.23.85.91 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His name is common enough to make searches confusing, but he has a Google scholar profile here. It shows that WP:PROF#C1 is highly unlikely, and there is no evidence for other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate depth of coverage, references to reliable sources for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:59, 20 January 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. KTC (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani[edit]

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

Fails general notability, WP:JOURNALIST. Sources do not convincingly indicate significance. Please be aware the article was created by possible Huffington Post staff to "refine wikipedia pages pertaining to HuffPost Live content and personnel".[1] Blackguard 22:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources I'm finding linked to that name are her taking about things, or her employers describing their contributors, not third-party sources talking about her. As such, I'm not finding a general notability --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -- aside from her brief bio by Huffington Post itself, the "references" are pieces authored by her, not reliable third party coverage. Not to mention the creator is a blocked single-purpose account claiming to be part of Huffington Post Live. Piboy51 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the creator was blocked for operating a group account, not for any kind of disruptive action. SpinningSpark 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. Sources all appear to be by subject, not about. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:54, 20 January 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. KTC (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Gorin[edit]

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

The article is constructed exclusively out of YouTube videos, primary sources from the company website and original research. Probably related to the ongoing COI problems at Ugo Colombo, who apparently co-owns the car dealership COLLECTION with Ken. Primary claim to notability seems to be being the President of COLLECTION, which as far as I can tell has 2 locations. If a couple more sources like this one could be found, it's possible he could squeek by with a well-sourced article, but practically speaking even if he did qualify for notability, it would be better to start from scratch as not a sufficient amount of the content here is worth keeping and much of it is unsourced BLP content. CorporateM (Talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 22:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG BlueSalix (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage, and the article is primarily one big advertisement to boot. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. Sources appear to be youtube or the collection only. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep, can be expanded (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 12:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cold start (automotive)[edit]

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

This article was created in November 2012, and immediately tagged for lacking/unreliable sources and for proposed deletion. It was rewritten by an anonymous user in January 2014, unfortunately without any sources. There's already an article at Block heater and another at Ignition system. Neither of those articles are obvious merge targets, but either could work. I can't see how this article can be much more than a 'how-to' guide, which is forbidden by WP:NOT. The best solution may be just to delete it. Rezin (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per nom. Don't see how this could turn into a substantial article, it's somewhat akin to having an article about flat tires, another article tagged with "how to" (BTW, I came up with the flat tire analogy before I realized there actually was an article about it, but decided the analogy was still relevant given that the article was tagged). In light of comments from Oakshade I am changing my vote to keep, in retrospect there is plenty that can be added to this article, especially the environmental affects of cold starts. War wizard90 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - The topic is notable, much in the same way jump start (vehicle) is as it's an extremely common condition worldwide throughout the entire history of automobiles and includes a lot of background and science and has been a consideration for anyone who has operated automotive vehicles. Plenty of reliable sources deal in-depth with this, like from Gawker Media/Jalopnik [2], The Chronicle Herald [3], the editorial section of cars.com[4] and even Forbes [5]. And a lot of historical coverage like these articles from Popular Mechanics in 1964 and 1985 respectively. [6][7], There also should be information of the necessity of "warming" a car after a cold start has changed over the years as well as the impact cold starts have on the environment as indicated by reliable sources in very in-depth studies by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport on cold starts impact on energy consumption published in 1981 [8], and others by the Argonne National Laboratory published in 2012, way beyond the scope of "how to." [9][10]--Oakshade (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Expand per Oakshade - The topic is well known and is a common occurrence with most vehicles. –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 15 January 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. KTC (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centrepointe hockey league[edit]

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

This seems to be a non existent hockey league. PROD was removed by article creator so I brought it here. So it is either non notable or non existent (and never did exist). Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything contributed by this editor seems to be either made up or self-promotional. A block may be in order too. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be the next step, nothing he or she has done has shown he/her are here to build an encyclopaedia, oh and also removed the AFD tag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention in reliable sources, which isn't surprising for a club league featuring all of two teams, and which quickly folded. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for a league you made up with some buddies over some beers. Centrepointe Park is an Ottawa Park with an outdoor community rink. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to exist. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:49, 20 January 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 04:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi murdianto[edit]

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

Havent played in any professional league. Failed WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in any WP:FPL or FIFA tier 1 matches, and nothing else referenced meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:06, 14 January 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 04:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Kwan Adsit[edit]

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

Havent played in any professional league. Failed WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While presently signed to a club in a WP:FPL, he does not yet have a match to his credit. When that happens, the article can be recreated. This is WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, WP:TOOSOON for them to be notable, if they ever will be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 16 January 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 04:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muchlis Hadi Ning Syaifulloh[edit]

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

Havent played in any professional league. Failed WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be recreated if in the future plays for profestional club. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL for now.Inter&anthro (talk) 07:24, 17 January 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 04:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putu Gede Juni Antara[edit]

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

Havent played in any professional league. Failed WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:05, 14 January 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. KTC (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance Camera Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2013, sources do not appear to have been improved, he fails WP:GNG and WP:RS]] see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveillance Camera Man for previous afd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet GNG. Should perhaps be speedied as an unimproved recreation. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only third party source is a local news site. Article readily fails WP:RS and seems thoroughly un-notable. Piboy51 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:45, 20 January 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 06:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Don Reeder[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, college student who wants to be an astronaut. Didn't we all? Will maybe meet WP:BIO if he's selected and if MarsOne ever amounts to anything; both prospects seem very unlikely. —Cryptic 22:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see that any notability exists here under WP:BIO or WP:GNG and certainly none has been established in this article. The information listed in the awards section does not appear to particularly distinguish this individual, such as being part of a team that finished seventh in an event aimed at helping young people develop. Sources listed here include a press release for the FFA convention which appears to list everyone who participated in the competition. I also see the is a significant question around whether the editor who created the article, and has been main contributor, has Conflicts of Interest to declare. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~See Talk:Cody Don Reeder for unusual message from WP:SPA creator which led me to strongly suspect WP:COI, Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)~~ Creator is part of team promoting Reeder, see Talk:Cody Don Reeder. Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A person's Facebook/YouTube/community.mars-one.com accounts are not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Piboy51 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article on college students with YouTube videos as sources. Agricola44 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This student wants to be an astronaut, and is taking large steps to achieve his goal. Although there have been many throughout history who have wanted to be an astronaut, the opportunity to go to the planet Mars was unavailable until the summer of 2013. This was available to anyone, so Cody took advantage of this opportunity. If there was anyone else really who wanted to be an astronaut, they were welcome to apply. Mars One is a legitimate organization and definitely will amount to something great. The Mars One organization has received millions of dollars in funding from multiple organizations in the world, and will launch a manned mission to Mars in 2024. Since this is one of the greatest advancements in the history of human achievements, it is a very interesting topic. Cody is a semi-finalist in the astronaut selection, and receives many more questions in a day than he can answer because of this topic, which is why a Wikipedia page has been created to refer people to so they can find the answer to their questions. I do have a COI to declare, which I plan to do as soon as possible. Because Mars One is a legitimate organization, it is a reliable source. Since Cody has given information about himself in his YouTube videos, and YouTube is a legitimate website, it is a reliable source. At least, it is the most reliable source available because it comes directly from Cody don Reeder. If you have any reason to mistrust Cody's words about himself, or believe that there is any false information on the websites, these sources will be removed and marked as unreliable. Until then, the sources will continue to be used and the page will stand to answer questions for those who would like to learn more about him and his mission. Abe0821 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think most of your comments are answered by WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Both youtube videos by Reeder and MarsOne's own info are primary sources, and we need independent verification of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. If Reeder needs to make information available about himself, he can do this by setting up a personal website. If MarsOne is a success and if Reeder is selected, then he would certainly meet the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines - but those are two big ifs, and it is WP:TOOSOON to know the answers. MarsOne itself is notable and has an article; Reeder himself does not yet meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Boleyn (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Deflate all the Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and you have a college student with high hopes and a YouTube channel — should be WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but at this point we can let the AfD run. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 18 January 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. Deor (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces[edit]

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

Non-notable album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an example of (if not the very first) classical music compilation album of many (120) "great masterpieces". The advert is also considered notable and has been posted on YouTube (twice) with over 30,000 views. As it is not a recording of a performance, and dates to the 1970s it is unreasonable to expect critical reviews on the web. However, it was an important source to show what orchestral pieces were considered popular (or the "greatest") and even today the track list is a useful source of information about what can be considered popular. Where else can you find such information!

This delete proposal may be in error, and it is also being proposes that the companion 30 Great Piano Classics album be merged with this article. It seems to me that this delete proposal is just a ploy to force a compromise, whereas I feel that if the albums have different numbers, covers, subject matter and titles, then they are different. SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The album's importance should be demonstrated in reliable secondary sources, not original research. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there were plenty of orchestral classical music compilations released over time, both before and after this; most are not notable. The quality of the individual pieces does not provide notability to the whole. WP:NOTINHERIT. I found no mention of this compilation in the couple of classical music magazines from 1978 that I looked at. Fails to have significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NALBUM. --Bejnar (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' SurreyJohn, you seem to be confused and that is partially my fault. The merge discussion reached no consensus, so I referred it to AfD, but forgot to remove the merge tag too. It also seems that the nominator in this AfD had no involvement in that merge discussion, and I, who started the merge discussion, have had no involvement in this article's AfD. To conclude, you have no reason to assume bad faith here, there are no ploys. I believe you are aware that the other article is at AfD and have already commented there. Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see evidence here that this album is considered notable under WP:NALBUMS. Of the three sources cited, one is a discography page at the Discogs.com database, one is a TV commercial for the album, and the third is about a different classical compilation mentioned in the article. No sources have been provided to describe the album's notability in terms of sales or critical response (favorable or unfavorable). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator and Metropolitan90. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not the album which is notable. There is no new recording, no credited orchestra or conductor. The albums comprise small ~1 min clips so there is no performance to review. Also as mail-order there are no sales ranking. What is important about this article is the listing of 150 great (and notable) works of classical music, and the obvious educational content. Anyone wanting to discover classical music could use this list as a starting point. There is so special claims about the music here, so nothing here which isn't verifiable. We cant simply write an article listing what is great (as that bias), so instead we need to rely on purely factual articles such as this SurreyJohn (Talk) 18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc." –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a mail-order album is eligible to be certified gold or platinum if its sales so warrant; the RIAA certification rules specifically say that "Product shipped to retail, mail order, record clubs, TV marketing and other ancillary markets are combined toward certified sales." [11] That said, recordings will only be certified if the record company pays the fee to have the recording's sales audited by the RIAA, and I can understand why a small record company might decline to do so for a compilation album with no principal conductor whose reputation could be boosted by receiving a gold record. Second, I don't think we can say that the track listing is useful because it identifies 150 great and notable classical compositions; the problem is that the list comes from no particular authority. We don't know who chose the 120 or 150 recordings for this album, but it probably was not a prominent figure in the classical music world or they would have been identified on the album and in marketing. For comparison, see List of important operas#Lists consulted; nine publications were used by Wikipedians to select the "important" operas in the opera corpus, but those lists were "created by recognized authorities in the field of opera", not compiled by some unidentified person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont forget about the notability of the TV advertising: "Outside his film career, Williams gained fame as the star of a television commercial for 120 Music Masterpieces, a four-LP set of classical music excerpts from Columbia Records. This became the longest-running nationally seen commercial in U.S. television history, for 13 years from 1971 to 1984. It began, "I'm sure you recognise this lovely melody as 'Stranger in Paradise.' But did you know that the original theme is from the Polovetsian Dance No. 2 by Borodin?. So many of the tunes of our well-known popular songs were actually written by the great masters--like these familiar themes... " see [12]. The commercial was so familiar in the US that it was spoofed by Charles Rocket on Saturday Night Live. Surely this album should be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, even if it doesn't 'fit' as a notable Classical or Pop album, its notable in other ways! SurreyJohn (Talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I believe that it may be possible to establish this album as notable (based on sales and/or attention paid to its commercial), although I don't think the current article does enough to do that. Perhaps the page should be userfied so the article creator can work on it some more. There are still some basic facts in doubt, such as whether the original title of this album was 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces or 120 Music Masterpieces, and whether the original record label was Columbia or Dacrop. (It might have been released by different labels over the years under different titles.) Furthermore, the article says the album was released in 1978, but the quote above says the TV commercial began airing in 1971. These facts should be established with reference to reliable sources. Also, I am not sure why there is a quote from Worldheritage.org above; that's just a mirror of Wikipedia, and the same content appears here on Wikipedia in our John Williams (actor) article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Note. I just closed the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30 Great Piano Classics, as delete, but with an offer to draftify if somebody wants to work on continuing to research sources. Should this get closed as delete, I suggest the same offer to draftify be made here (but I'm not actually offering any opinion on which way the close should go). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten This article has now been rewritten to include the U.S. album release, so now covering 14 years, 4 albums, the notable TV commercial and John Williams. Others are welcome to contribute. I believe this now deserves a re-vote! SurreyJohn (Talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence that this compilation album meets notability. It is not demonstrated by any of the references in the article, nor could I find any evidence in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Unfortunately some important detail recently got deleted. I have restored the information about longest running TV advert (with a better source) and also added a reference to the spoof "Steve Martin's Best Show Ever (1981)". The fact the TV ad (for the albums) was spoofed on network TV also shows notoriety! SurreyJohn (Talk) 12:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fail to see any sort of important detail there. The longest running TV ad isn't an aeertion of notability, and is sourced to the trivia section of IMDB which is an unreliable source. The assertion that the Steve Martin sketch is a spoof of the commercial is quite a stretch, and providing the original source really strays into original research as it really represent your interpretation of the material -- Whpq (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is certainly not the "very first" such compilation: this one predates it by ten years. The Great Musicians series was published by Fabbri and Partners in the late 1960s (1966 in Italy, 1969 in London). Popularizing compilations of classical music aren't unusual. This is no special case, and I think we should apply the standard criteria for such compilations. The sourcing is poor. All the Google hits are sales pages except the duckduckgo one, which is a copy of part of this Wikipedia article. The "electronically rechannelled for stereo" statement fails verification in FN1 and FN2. It's in FN3, actually, but it was SurreyJohn who put it there, so self-published. So it was advertised by John Williams and that's on YouTube, as is a "spoof" (if it is a spoof; all I get is a short quote of an observation that is anyway made quite often, and much mockery of Bartok. Isn't it WP:OR to call this a spoof of the ad?) I'm not seeing anything notable here. --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources that provide evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. all except Ontario Rugby Union which is keep. SpinningSpark 21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Rugby League Competition[edit]

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

Also included in this discussion;

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or any claim of significance, with no references. Google only brings up First party links and listings. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough coverage to show notability to this league. The following related pages should be bundled for deletion (I'm not sure if protocol allows someone other than the original nominator to bundle them): 2010 Ontario Rugby League season, 2011 Ontario Rugby League season, 2014 Ontario Rugby League season, Niagara Bobcats, and Toronto City Saints. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the other articles for inclusion in this discussion.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of rugby union-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Ontario Rugby Union should be its own AfD. The other articles all relate to the ORLC and make sense to be bundled, but Rugby Union and Rugby League are two distinct sports. I'm fine with deleting the Rugby League articles, however I oppose the deletion of the ORU article, as it's the top-level governing body of the sport in Ontario. While you're correct that searching "Ontario Rugby Union" verbatim does not produce much, searching the championship name, and trophy name, shows wide coverage:

Grande (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this should be listed in its own AfD. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on the Ontario Rugby Union. As a sub-union of Rugby Canada, it is considered part of a 'High Performance Rugby Union' as referenced in Wikipedia:NRU . While that guideline refers to sports persons, it stands to reason that if a person is considered notable, the provincial governing body of the sport itself is notable. Google brings up a great deal more information if you search by the more commonly used name of the ORU: 'Rugby Ontario' https://www.google.ca/#tbm=nws&q=%22Rugby+Ontario%22 SkyGuy747 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Keep) — per reasons given by Grande and SkyGuy. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Rugby league is a very low level amateur game in Canada. any competition also has that status. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; delete the rugby league articles, but keep the rugby union one, Ontario Rugby Union. They shouldn't have been included in the same AfD. Grande (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ontario Rugby Union, delete the rest. That is not even the same sport as the rest.-MacRùsgail (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is on rugby league which is not the same sport as rugby union. I am therefore removing it from the rugby union deletion listing and replacing it with rugby league. -MacRùsgail (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC) [edit to add - No I'm not - I see the nominator has listed an RU article amongst the RL ones. NOT THE SAME SPORT!!!][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of rugby league-related deletion discussions

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 20:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Pastor[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage of Pastor or her business except for her murder and ensuing conspiracy theories. Star Garnet (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obituaries in two leading London newspapers, The Times and The Daily Telegraph, which called her "Monaco’s richest woman ... the senior surviving member of what is, in effect, Monaco’s second dynasty after the ruling Grimaldis". Notable for much more than just her death. Edwardx (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless you contend that being the oldest member of either gender/financial manager in one of a couple thousand families worldwide, even a person with virtually no public profile or presence, is inherently notable, I don't see how this isn't WP:MASK/WP:PUFF, etc. Star Garnet (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please don't be so obtuse - that is obviously not my contention. Instead, why not try to explain how someone with no connection to the UK can have obituaries in two leading London newspapers, The Times and The Daily Telegraph and yet not be notable? Edwardx (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because 'Mafia makes attempt on life of billionaire [insert name]' and 'Son-in-law may have commissioned hit on billionaire' are juicy headlines. For the Telegraph, they'd published two articles about the attempt, so they were already following the saga, and they've published four since then. Same goes for The Times. A slight hint of interest may stem from her father, brother and son all being prominent businessmen (the family seems to live up to gender stereotypes). Apart from her murder, the only news coverage that she received other than passing reference to her family was her taking sick leave as principal of a private school. Star Garnet (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Philafrenzy (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO as the obituaries satisfy WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes BIO and it is covered by sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-sourced entry. Seems to have been a relevant member of an influential family. jxm (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edwardx, well sourced biography of a significant Monegasque figure. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:10, 19 January 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 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer. SpinningSpark 22:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer team[edit]

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

Complete season results and stats for an NCAA Division III women's soccer team. WP:NOTABILITY for collegiate teams says season articles for lower-level teams only might be notable in the case of a national championship. This fails to even meet this standard, as the team failed to win its conference title, let alone the national title. Skudrafan1 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I've added the following:

2007 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007, 2008 and 2010 teams won conference championships, but that in and of itself is still not enough to make these articles notable. Skudrafan1 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer. A lot of work went into these articles and it's a shame to delete them, but according to WP:NSEASONS it has to be a national championship season or a national-level elite program, which this is not. And even then the article should not consist mainly of stats (WP:NOTDIR). I think the best thing to do would be to merge them all into one article with prose descriptions of each season. As a model, perhaps something like Albany Great Danes men's basketball, which the article creator has also worked on. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However, Albany Great Danes men's basketball is a marquee sport at the highest level of college sports, NCAA Division I. No matter how much work has been put these articles, we're talking about a low-exposure sport at one of the lowest levels of college sports, NCAA Division III. Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – OK, but just to clarify, in AfD discussions I try to say something nice about the article before !voting to delete it. Just to say that we do appreciate the effort that went into creating it. It's not a !vote to keep it because of that. Sorry if that caused any confusion. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - in AfD discussions I try to say something nice about the article before !voting to delete it. – thank you. This needs to be said more. Too many editors are dismissive of other editors' hard work and behave rudely and callously in mocking their work. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – None of these articles meet WP:NSEASONS, and they also violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I'm not even sure the team itself meets WP:NCORP, thus I cannot support merging these statistics into the only other article where they could be placed, especially since the pertinent information already exists in the article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Oh, IC, you mean it exists in Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer. Yes, that's a good merge destination. Unlike Albany Great Danes men's basketball, it currently lacks a History section, so the descriptions of the seasons could be merged into that. As prose, without the stats. About notability, in terms of participants soccer is now the major sport in women's athletics, the counterpart to men's football. A college should be able to have an article on its major program for women. This would be up to the sports projects, but if they don't have a rule like that they should. Of course coverage is important, but it's decisions like this that result in gender bias. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You raise a valid point about association football being the predominant women's sport in the United States. That was in the back of my mind when I posted above, but I wasn't quite sure how to articulate it. Cheers! — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm inclined to agree ("A college should be able to have an article on its major program for women.") but not in this case. This is a very small college that plays at the lowest level of NCAA sports. College football (your male equivalent) doesn't even have season-by-season details for teams below the Division I level. And there are plenty of season articles for Division I women's basketball teams — which media coverage would dictate is the true major program for women. Skudrafan1 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-notable, and I see nothing worth merging. Giant Snowman 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer (with the history preserved under the redirect).
Redirects are cheap.
AfD is ill-suited to determine whether material should be merged or not. The history should be preserved because even if not used in a merge, the rosters of athletes and might be useful to the creator, Seane588 (talk · contribs), and other editors in expanding Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer. One possibility: The rosters for each season contain the athletes' names. The names can be used in source searches to find more information about the team's history to add to the team's article. Since the content does not violate BLP or NPOV, it is harmless to retain it.
As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link).
Cunard (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NSEASON as they do not play at the top collegiate level. Tavix | Talk 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I agree that the subjects fail WP:NSEASON, so would support a redirect with no merge to Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer so the history is still available to the creator and any editor who will work on the Oneonta State Red Dragons women's soccer article. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 22 January 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) Ethically^Yours! 12:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley D. King[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no in-depth secondary sources; King is merely namechecked as the director of a film in a quoted press release, and listed as such on IMDB. McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The creator mentioned on the Talk page that he could include panel discussion sources. I think those would count as secondary sources, since they are a feature of film festivals and are critics discussing the film and probably the director. There are also a good number of interviews of King and Cooper about the film, for example: [13] [14] [15]. Plus the awards, which are pretty impressive. I don't think they are major festivals, but some of them do have articles on WP, and just the number of awards. Too many, in fact. If the article survives, the list should be shortened to just the more important ones and converted to prose. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above mentioned interviews by Margin1522, I found numerous positive reviews. I added a few quotes from some of the reviews to the article. This article passes WP:GNG in my view. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 13 January 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) Ethically^Yours! 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BP Cooper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no in-depth secondary sources, just articles which either fail to mention Cooper by name, or mention his name only in passing in a list of credits. McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are the same interviews that I mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley D. King: [16] [17] [18], plus others. And the awards for the film. I don't know how notable the commercials are, but if the article survives they could be mentioned. I would like to see more about the person -- birth date, film school, etc. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with people are primary sources and cannot be used as a foundation for articles about them. Do awards given to a film automatically confer notability on that film's screenwriter and producer?--McGeddon (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. What they show is that King and Cooper were out on the indie film circuit and succeeded in getting their film noticed. Per Wikipedia:Interviews, we can't use interviews for content that would require a secondary source, but they can be used to establish notability, in that someone thought they were notable enough to interview. I think it would be fine to use a couple of quotes from the interviews about themselves or what they were trying to accomplish. The King article now has a link to a nice long review of the film, so it could be based mainly on that. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article passes WP:GNG in my view considering the interview articles mentioned above by Margin1522 WordSeventeen (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree is WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 January 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. KTC (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Chiriță[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as there is no evidence that he played any match in a fully pro league. This source indeed lists one match for Petrolul, but it was in a Cup match against a third league team (only Liga I is fully pro in Romania). It's also far from passing WP:GNG. The fact that he is the son of a notable footballer doesn't make him notable, either. - Andrei (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above. --Winter^eu (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. His one cup appearance was does not confer notability as it was against a non-fully-pro league club. I should also point out that since most of transfermarkt's content is user-generated, the source in the nomination is not reliable. His soccerway profile confirms the same info. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league or match between two teams from a fully professional leagues, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:05, 14 January 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. KTC (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YTS.re[edit]

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

Non-notable website - only claim to notoriety is being blocked in the UK. Sources do not establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple more sources to the article. I would also point out the USTR consider it a notorious market - doesn't that add to its notability? :) Deku-shrub (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. That just means there's a lot of pirated stuff being traded. Pretty common theme to the entire Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources about the UK clampdown mention it in passing, along with others. The company that made it has taken the corpse of Popcorn Time, but does not inherit the notability it had while alive. Even if it did, that'd have no bearing on the notability of this product, which doesn't seem to do anything special. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:20, 20 January 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 and rename to List of natural phenomena. Any concerns related to the content or to criteria for the list can be addressed on the talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natural phenomenon[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be really notable. While many individual individual phenomena are clearly notable, the topic as a whole has nearly no mention in reliable sources. If you search for "natural phenomenon", you will find many lists of cool ones, as well as articles about specific phenomena, but little about the subject itself. Ypnypn (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did TAFI happen to help this article? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything that happens in Nature is a "natural phenomenon." It's impossible and pointless to list them all. -- 120.23.85.91 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. I don't know how to improve it but yet I know it still looks bad. How should we improve that article? I have no idea how to improve. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evad37, NickPenguin, should we archive this article Natural phenomenon? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should, and we should have a copy of Natural phenomenon to spare and we still haven't completed the other table. And plus, once this article is deleted every hyperlink of this would be red. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. Remember that arguments for and against deletion should make reference to implicit reasons that the article should exist on it's own. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that if this article is deleted, then how are we going to show the "TAFI accomplishment" of that article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that article for deletion nomination was not deleted in 2006 or so, or even 4 months from the making of the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not been through the 700,000 google results for "Natural phenomenon" to see how many mentions there are in reliable sources, but User:Ypnypn says he has found nearly no mentions, which at least implies he has found some. It seems to have about 200 views per day, which I expect is irrelevant, is not just a list and has a broad range of good images to illustrate the topic (several of which I added from commons, so I may have a COI in wanting to preserve the work). I have not read up the relevant guidelines yet.SovalValtos (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SovalValtos: To clarify my comment in the nomination, there are indeed many mentions of natural phenomena, but few or none are about "the topic as a whole". -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to mostly be useful as a navigational hub for specific types of natural phenomena, which is fine. I'm not quite sure how the non-list items were randomly collected or arranged by an expert as a comprehensive list, though, so clarifying the limitations of the topic might help. Earflaps (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ~~List of natural phenomenon~~(see below). This article is really a list article and renaming it would make that very clear. As a list, it certainly would have its place in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this ends up being consensus, the target page should be List of natural phenomena for grammar. Deadbeef 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are correct. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect and rename as per User:Whpq. 222.155.220.142 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with User:120.23.85.91 that "It's impossible and pointless to list them all" so I am against renaming it List of natural phenomena which could become indigestible. It is better showing some broad categories illustrated by select examples and as a navigation hub.SovalValtos (talk) 04:48, 20 January 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NextRow Inc[edit]

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

article is created by the company's founder Kges1901 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Vrac (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company may become notable in the future, but the current version of the article reads like a company FAQ. Dynamite at best. Andrew³²⁷ 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doesn't meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt "NextRow Inc" and "NextRow": This article is just a list of services that the firm provide, rather than any encyclopaedic assessment; multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turn up no evidence that the firm is notable. The WP:SPA article creator has created this multiple times in the past fortnight, and it has been speedy-deleted ([19], [20]), which led to a temporary block ([21]) and now the article is back, so I am suggesting WP:SALT as an associated outcome for this AfD. AllyD (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt - As noted above the creator's more concerned about promoting his company than abiding by our policies, If he wants to promote there's always the Yellow Pages(or similar)!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Salt per above. War wizard90 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 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 with the acceptance that article needs more improvement. It has good coverage and passes WP:GNG in general. (non-admin closure) A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Africa[edit]

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

A non-notable company WP:COMPANY Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG, there is a Bloomberg article, and a ton of local and regional coverage [22]. Vrac (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a not very good stub but if the airline has managed to fly a scheduled service it is notable, just needs more work rather than a delete. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out above, there is quite a bit of African media coverage. For example, [23], and [24] are substantial articles with the airline as the primary topic. -- Whpq (talk) 01:49, 19 January 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. SpinningSpark 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Kolkata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Content fork of List of bus lines in Kolkata and overly detailed. The Banner talk 09:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep Content forks are not resolved by deletion - please see WP:AFD, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination has nothing to do with clean up. The Banner talk 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Banner - Andrew doesn't have any reason to keep hence him just citing any random policy under the sun, All those cited are invalid and are of no relation to the AFD whatsoever. –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson, please re-read Wikipedia:Speedy keep. You're fond of participating in RfA and are perhaps thinking of running one day; you are completely off base here, unless you wish to say something untoward about the nominator, which I am sure you don't want to do. Davey2010, please keep it neutral: this is verging on a personal attack. Andrew is wrong but this is not the place, and those are not the right words, for setting him straight. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - My understanding of the relevant policies and procedures seems quite accurate and so my position is unchanged. WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." WP:SK states "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". If others think there's something wrong with this logic, they should please explain their counter-arguments in detail. Andrew D. (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. You may think the nominator has a bad argument, but it's still an argument. And the plethora of "deletes" suggests that others think it's actually a decent argument. I think you should consider the tonal qualities of saying "speedy keep", which typically amount to something like "you're stupid", and this admin, for instance, takes what he considers to be misapplications of policy seriously. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The nominator has an excellent argument for merger but this is Articles for Deletion and so he should instead be following the process described in WP:CFORK and WP:MERGE. This is a simple procedural point and I fail to see the problem with its "tonal qualities". Is Drmies suggesting that every time someone nominates something for speedy deletion, they are chanting "you're stupid" at the author? Drmies should please explain the difference in tone. Andrew D. (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies: - I believe everyone on here's entitled to an opinion (although this is becoming a rare thing on here these days!)... Anyway I don't see any personal attack in what I said (I apologize Andrew Davidson if you perhaps thought it was), Anyway to keep everyone happy I've struck it .... –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, that Andrew would just cite any random policy, that's just not fair. (I do agree that he's wrong, haha!) I appreciate your note and strike-through, User:Davey2010. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I honestly can't see any offence to it but if you or others saw it different then I sincerely apologize - You know me Doc I never try to offend anyone , You're welcome and I guess thanks for making me see sense :) –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vrac (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This never should have been created following AfD #1, as nothing has changed since then. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we're not a directory!, Bus operators provide a timetable and or map for a reason. –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ Merge Per Andrew D. There are countless other bus systems documented on Wikipedia, I've written a few articles on them myself. Why the prejudice toward the third largest metropolitan area in the second most populous country on earth? Yeah, its important, particularly if you are one of the 14.5 million people in Kolkata. Yes, it can be improved upon. Most transit system articles can be improved upon but its a start and it deserves to be here equitable with the List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes in the third largest metropolitan area in the (much smaller) United States. Trackinfo (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the nomination? The Banner talk 21:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, I'm used to irrational nominations for deletion. A merger between these two articles is certainly in order. That is a lot of detailed work someone will need to follow through on to make sure proper information is not lost in the process. The grounds cited by the previous three delete "votes" are not reflective of the duplication of content between these two articles. Trackinfo (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trackinfo, you also, please keep it neutral. "Prejudice" is already suggestive enough; irrational is not OK. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreation of deleted material (G4) - nothing has changed since my AFD nomination in September 2013 (WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and no secondary sources) or since it was speedily deleted in May 2014 per G4. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively) and delete and salt title - unilateral over-turning of a previous AFD result, to create a copyvio article that shouldn't be split from article referenced above in the first place. The merger suggestion is a sensible one but any attempt to overturn AFD and recreate this split (again) should be subject to community consensus at WP:DRV. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do we waste the resources of Wikipedia to keep the bus routes of every city. This is absolute nonsense. Please delete. Athachil (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we might write about a notable transit system itself but policy suggests we don't create lists of routes that change regularly. Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and please salt all the various titles this has been at. Presumably there's no bot-assisted talk page notice of the previous deletion discussion because it was re-created at a different title? If there'd been one, I'd have tagged this as G4 when I came to it to look at the copyvio.The Chicago one seems a candidate for deletion too, for all the WP:NOT reasons cited above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Yes, Unecyclopedic. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bus timetable. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 12:09, 20 January 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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 12:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Samii[edit]

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

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

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

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

Deletion requested by articel subject via OTRS (ticket #2015010810009152). Subject does not want this information on Wikipedia (no policy-based reasons offered for deletion). I am filing this AFD at her request, and offer no opinion of my own for or against deletion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject meets WP:BASIC. Sam ^Sing! 11:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - English language coverage for the subject is extremely limited. That combined with the subject's desire to be deleted should probably be enough for a delete. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poor English language coverage is not a deletion argument. Neither is subject's desire not to be included. Sam ^Sing! 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - English language sources are preferable to foreign language sources. NickCT (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly notable, Die Welt and Deutsche Welle are standards for German RS. I don't see a policy-based reason to remove it. Vrac (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - subject meets the definition of a low-profile individual and per policy she may request deletion of the article about herself - she does not need to give a reason. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does an agent for Bundesliga (Germany's top-level league) football players qualify as a low-profile individual? Given the amount of coverage on her and the nature of her profession, I don't see how she can be construed as low-profile. Vrac (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply either as she certainly is not a low-profile individual, please read Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Sam ^Sing! 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's make a few things clear. (1) There is no requirement whatsoever that an article subject have extensive coverage in English. (2) This person can hardly be considered "low profile" as the only female player agent in the major German football league, and a simple glance here demonstrates that in no way could she be described as a "person who does not actively seek out media attention." Indeed, she has wide coverage in very reliable sources in Germany, e.g. whole articles devoted to her in Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, and Deutsche Welle to name a few, and she is the subject of a radio program and accompanying article on WDR. Having said that, I would not be sorry to see this article go. After dealing with the mess there this week that led to semi-protection, my impression is that the primary reason the subject wants it deleted is that she wants complete control over the contents. Thus, keeping it will result in nothing but a time-sink for the editors having to deal with it and for very little return. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely disagree. In a nutshell, a high-profile individual is one who actively promotes themselves through regular and sustained pattern of activity. It is a separate concept from notability - she is probably notable, but beside the point. There is no indication here that Samii promotes herself more actively or successfully than any person engaged in her line of work - she promotes her clients as an agent, but that does not make her high-profile, per the essay. As such, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. I'm sorry, but an image search for an attractive woman who was once involved in a scandal is extremely poor evidence of profile. Ivanvector (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of those are recent images from her regular column which she writes for a German football magazine, and from interviews which she has given to the press about herself—not the players she manages. Those are not the activities of a "low profile" person. Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current sources in article sufficient to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC

Keep - meets inclusion criteria (rather easily) and isn't a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE opportunity. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (earlier !vote struck) - I still wasn't convinced about her profile, but then I went and had a look at her webpage, which has a media contact page detailing interviews she's given about herself (as Voceditenore also noted) and indeed that is not the activity of a low-profile individual. She has posted on the front page of her website that Wikipedia has published information about her that is wrong and that we are spreading untruths (Google translated, I don't read German) and based on recent comments on my talk page and on the article's talk page, there appears to be a SPA campaign (her fans, undoubtedly) to have this information scrubbed. I don't know what the untruths are, but I assume this is related to her short marriage to Mehdi Mahdavikia, which is properly reliably sourced and should not be removed. Without a good policy-based reason given for deletion, the request indeed runs into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also suggest that long-term pending changes protection be implemented here as it seems this isn't likely to go away. Ivanvector (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep. not for any one thing but seems enough there for notability. Lack of non-English sources is not a problem, no more than offline sources which are even harder to check. German is hardly an obscure language so they should be easily checked at some point (if not already).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the sources the English source is enough for general notability, far more so than many other articles that end up kept. So weak keep -> keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Delete - Wrong personal information, like birthday, residence and don't care about her privacy. These subject's are enough for a delete. JasminCT (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, they aren't. These are all problems that can be fixed. If information is wrong, give us a source that says so and it will be fixed. Privacy is irrelevant - everything on Wikipedia is based on information freely available elsewhere. We don't make things up, the article is protected to prevent that. Ivanvector (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
~~Speedy-Delete~~ - 100% Wrong---- In Germany every person has right on her personal information which you can not public it without permition. She is a Public figure. several times I tried to help the user of Wikipedia which their sources are just false newspaper but no ones care.... Wrong personal information, her birthday, her residence and don't care about her privacy. You can also find an other picture of Samira Samii (Single) not with Fadi Merza... What is going wrong??? Someone wanna brake her reputation??? These subject's are enough for a delete. JasminCT (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

~~Speedy-Delete~~ - 100% Wrong---- In Germany every person has right on her personal information which you can not public it without permition. She is a Public figure. several times I tried to help the user of Wikipedia which their sources are just false newspaper but no ones care.... Wrong personal information, her birthday, her residence and don't care about her privacy. You can also find an other picture of Samira Samii (Single) not with Fadi Merza... What is going wrong??? Someone wanna brake her reputation??? These subject's are enough for a delete. JasminCT (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin-Shams (aka "JasminCT"), I have struck the "Speedy delete". You may only !vote once in a deletion discussion. Any further comments should be preceded by Comment. Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources which Jasmin-Shams has provided at Talk:Samira Samii and which she suggested we use because they contain "true information", i.e. this one actually give the 1977 birth date which she now claims is wrong, and the name of Samii's former husband (Mehdi Mahdavikia). Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) state that she lives in Augsburg and has an office by Lake Starnberg, both of which are in Germany. Like Ivanvector, I strongly suggest that long-term pending changes protection be implemented if this article is kept. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Comment The sources which VOCEDITENORE has provided at Talk:Samira Samii and which he suggested are not "true information", just some of them this one actually give the 1977 birth date which she now claims is wrong, which the newspaper could make also mistake and the name of Samii's former husband (Mehdi Mahdavikia) but never they wrote more. Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) but not about her private life. state that she definitely not lives in Augsburg and never lived there... just The media is Ausgburg like other Media interviewed her a lot. But its not mean she is living there. She has an office by Lake Starnberg is true!!!. User:Jasmin-Shams, I strongly suggest that delete are wrong information. Actually in her Home-Page her lawyer and Management warning her fans and Business-Partners regarding WIKIPEDIA Jasmin-Shams (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.88.10 (talk) [reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Comment The sources which VOCEDITENORE has provided at Talk:Samira Samii and which he suggested are not "true information", just some of them this one actually give the 1977 birth date which she now claims is wrong, which the newspaper could make also mistake and the name of Samii's former husband (Mehdi Mahdavikia) but never they wrote more. Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) but not about her private life. state that she definitely not lives in Augsburg and never lived there... just The media is Ausgburg like other Media interviewed her a lot. But its not mean she is living there. She has an office by Lake Starnberg is true!!!. User:Jasmin-Shams, I strongly suggest that delete are wrong information. Actually in her Home-Page her lawyer and Management warning her fans and Business-Partners regarding WIKIPEDIA Jasmin-Shams (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.88.10 (talk) [reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Speedy-Delete - 100% Wrong INFORMATION---- I am the dame opinion like Jasmin because I know all the problem which the y can come..... the user try to think just about their self not about someone want to have her relax and her privacy!!! I don't know why nobody wanna correct and add the true information. THANKS JUSMIN!!!! MAXCT (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] ~~-Delete~~ all articles about Mahdavikai and her residence all pur vandalism... MAXCT (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Speedy-Delete - 100% Wrong INFORMATION---- I am the dame opinion like Jasmin because I know all the problem which the y can come..... the user try to think just about their self not about someone want to have her relax and her privacy!!! I don't know why nobody wanna correct and add the true information. THANKS JUSMIN!!!! MAXCT (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~-Delete~~ all articles about Mahdavikai and her residence all pur vandalism... MAXCT (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

MaxXXX-max (aka "MAXCT"), I have struck your latest "Delete". You may only !vote once in a deletion discussion. Sam ^Sing! 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxXXX-max. you are free to continue to comment, but in that case use Comment. Do not repeat your "Delete" !vote. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Comment The sources which Sam-Sailer and voceditenore has provided at Talk:Samira Samii are not "true information", i.e. this one is true. Abend Zeitung- Official newspaper in Germany that she never lived in Augsburg is living in Monte Carlo. Like MAX-XXX, I strongly suggest to delete all or correct the information. Jasmin (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rightfully that belongs on the article talk page, but since you bring it up here, no, the article from 2008 says she lives in Nürnberg, which is still Germany. Sam ^Sing! 18:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppets.
Comment Thanks for delete her residence but its not all!!!The sources you have provided at Talk:Samira Samii means articles about Mahdavikia are not "true information", i.e. [ https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B9%DB%8C this one] in WIKIPEDIA FARSI wrote Mahdavikia must to apologizes Samira Samii. Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) in Frankfurter Rundschau interview she said: "Nein, privat ist privat, und ich trenne immer mein Privatleben von meinen Geschäften". (Means: Private is private and I always separate my private-life and my Business-Life). Like Jasmin, I strongly suggest that delete the Mahdavikia´s Articels. Jasmin (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment The picture you have provided at Talk:Samira Samii is"not really fit on the page", i.e. this one is fit to Wikipedia-Page. it is an single Photo free of charge and free of rights. I strongly suggest to delete the old picture and add a new one. Thanks for your attention!!!MAX-XXX (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppets.

Comment Thanks for delete her residence but its not all!!!The sources you have provided at Talk:Samira Samii means articles about Mahdavikia are not "true information", i.e. [ https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B9%DB%8C this one] in WIKIPEDIA FARSI wrote Mahdavikia must to apologizes Samira Samii. Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) in Frankfurter Rundschau interview she said: "Nein, privat ist privat, und ich trenne immer mein Privatleben von meinen Geschäften". (Means: Private is private and I always separate my private-life and my Business-Life). Like Jasmin, I strongly suggest that delete the Mahdavikia´s Articels. Jasmin (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture you have provided at Talk:Samira Samii is"not really fit on the page", i.e. this one is fit to Wikipedia-Page. it is an single Photo free of charge and free of rights. I strongly suggest to delete the old picture and add a new one. Thanks for your attention!!!MAX-XXX (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxXXX-max and Jasmin-Shams, this discussion solely about whether the entire article should be deleted. Please raise issues about changes to the article at Talk:Samira Samii—not here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Voceditenore this is a discussion page for samira samii site to deletion. why I can not say my opinion about deletion of some article or picture. Are u a boos here. who control all these information. It is a time to delete this page in WIKIPEDIA. all the time you try to order what we have to do... MAX (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAX, Voceditenore is absolutely right. Issues of content (including images) should be raised on the article talk page. I would strongly suggest you do so because this is highly unlikely to be deleted and so you should turn your attention to the long-term management of the article (which isn't a matter for this discussion). Voceditenore is not the "boos" here and nothing about his actions suggest he is trying to be. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Speedy-Delete - what's going on here????---- I request to delete samira samii Wikipedia as soon as possible!!! I am absolutely agree with Jasmin & Max. This site must to delete immediately. 1. Wrong articles 2. Wrong information 3. The picture is not Fit to her Profile. 4. Old and false information about her past 5. Samira Samii coming from noble and Royal Family which nobody mentioned it. 6. Wikipedia is the site to find out about the person completely not partly. 7. Samira Samii doesn't talk about her private life in any interview. 8. She is a prominent person nota normal agent 9. She is a sport-manager not a Sport Agent. 10. The sources of newspapers are not a fact. What's a shame how someone can make some page about a famous person like Samira Samii in this way !!!! MarcoR_1_silarCT (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — MarcoR 1 Silar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Speedy-Delete - what's going on here????---- I request to delete samira samii Wikipedia as soon as possible!!! I am absolutely agree with Jasmin & Max. This site must to delete immediately. 1. Wrong articles 2. Wrong information 3. The picture is not Fit to her Profile. 4. Old and false information about her past 5. Samira Samii coming from noble and Royal Family which nobody mentioned it. 6. Wikipedia is the site to find out about the person completely not partly. 7. Samira Samii doesn't talk about her private life in any interview. 8. She is a prominent person nota normal agent 9. She is a sport-manager not a Sport Agent. 10. The sources of newspapers are not a fact. What's a shame how someone can make some page about a famous person like Samira Samii in this way !!!! MarcoR_1_silarCT (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — MarcoR 1 Silar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't seem to understand that by arguing she is famous ("notable") you're actually arguing that the article should not be deleted. The things you are asking for can be resolved by regular editing and won't be solved by deletion. By her own actions, she has caused an article to be written about her. Now that it contains verified assertions with which she disagrees, she wants to article deleted. She doesn't own the article, you don't own the article and I don't own the article. None of your 10 dot points are valid reasons for deletion here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppets.
Comment I am agree with MarcoR. All points are fact for deleting this page and in many points I have a same opinion. specially many user can not understand German and the translate the articles in google and editing some wrong information and the don't know about Media-Rights and about Samira Samii as a prominent person. They just wanna have their fun and this is not serious for WIKIPEDIA!!!! The deletion request is absolutely correct in this case and administrator must to know his work was not serious. On the other side his work was for nothing. Many sources about past are not existed in internet anymore. Samira Samii MANAGEMENT also warning her fans and Business-Partner Jasmin-ShamsCT (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am also agree with MarcoR & Jasmin. Its so funny!!! All pages actually delete from internet and these users and administrator doesn't care about anything. For me its unprofessional JOB. Normally Wikipedia must to show a reaction and delete this page. Why its take to long this process... MaxXXX-max (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppets.

Comment I am agree with MarcoR. All points are fact for deleting this page and in many points I have a same opinion. specially many user can not understand German and the translate the articles in google and editing some wrong information and the don't know about Media-Rights and about Samira Samii as a prominent person. They just wanna have their fun and this is not serious for WIKIPEDIA!!!! The deletion request is absolutely correct in this case and administrator must to know his work was not serious. On the other side his work was for nothing. Many sources about past are not existed in internet anymore. Samira Samii MANAGEMENT also warning her fans and Business-Partner Jasmin-ShamsCT (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also agree with MarcoR & Jasmin. Its so funny!!! All pages actually delete from internet and these users and administrator doesn't care about anything. For me its unprofessional JOB. Normally Wikipedia must to show a reaction and delete this page. Why its take to long this process... MaxXXX-max (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually make a lot of sense, but please read all comments that aren't from the small group of brand new single-purpose accounts who don't seem to understand the purpose of this discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having lots of people register new accounts (or the same person multiple times) so that they can "vote" here won't make a difference. The results of these discussions are determined by the strength of policy-based arguments, not by the number of voters (it's not a vote). Given those arguing for deletion haven't put forward a single policy-based reason for deletion, the closing administrator's job is going to be very easy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Comment What are you writing here.. vote or not vote... all sources about her past is already deleted in internet. If someone has really interest to Samira Samii person that should be serious and search professional and edit right and professional articles. In GERMANY she is a prominent person and everyone knows her. She has an official page which you can not to make find lots of information. She is almost in every newspaper and TV Chanel. What are you saying? Is that hobby of users to make wrong pages???Marco ^Sing! 13:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Comment What are you writing here.. vote or not vote... all sources about her past is already deleted in internet. If someone has really interest to Samira Samii person that should be serious and search professional and edit right and professional articles. In GERMANY she is a prominent person and everyone knows her. She has an official page which you can not to make find lots of information. She is almost in every newspaper and TV Chanel. What are you saying? Is that hobby of users to make wrong pages???Marco ^Sing! 13:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is a "prominent person and everyone knows her" which is why the article won't be deleted as you have suggested. ~~Vandalising my talk page with personal attacks and profanity won't change that.~~ St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out those personal attacks (blended with your own messages) were from a different sock-puppet from a different AFD. Speaking of popularity... St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Subject easily passes the inclusion guidelines to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:GNG, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - Complaints about the content, which have all been adressed on the article talk page, preceded this request. Notable subject, not low-profile, neutral decent article. As such no reason to delete. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Anna Frodesiak per speedy deletion criteria A7, G11, G12. Source URL: mobigator.com/pages/index.asp?pg=compan NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobigator[edit]

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

G11. Unfortunately, CSD was removed by a non-article creator (IP), so I can't reinstate it. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Or maybe I can, and this is a G12 and this AfD is wasting people's time)... (Or this AfD is insurance against more removal of speedy deletion templates...) — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, G11, G12. You can reinstate it, that's a WP:PROD thing that anyone can stop a prod tag from staying up. IP is a WP:DUCK anyways. Retagged for speedy. Deadbeef 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and then redirected to Lovelyz. KTC (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Yein[edit]

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

Jeong Yein has no individual notability outside the girl group she is a member of, and most of the information in this article is copied from Lovelyz. Article was dePRODed by the creator without addressing these issues. Random86 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Asdklf; (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated, there is nothing in this article other than a couple of sentences copied from another article. Person is not notable. Article has no secondary sources at all. Shinyang-i (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:15, 20 January 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 Andy Hill (American composer). (non-admin closure) - The Herald (here I am) 16:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hill (film music supervisor)[edit]

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

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

This article is very different from article A.W. Hill, but are they about the same man? If so, text-merge them, and under what name? Or has one of the articles got an image of the wrong man? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename - Clearly the same person. The image is of the same guy, both articles point to awhill.net in the external links. Ghostrider51 is the creator of A.W. Hill. Derwydd23, whom I very strongly suspect of being a secondary account of Ghostrider51's is the creator of the duplicate article. Ghostrider51 calls this image a self-portrait. If Derwydd23 is, in fact, a secondary account, it would be somewhat certain that he is continuing his self-promotion through the creation of the Andy Hill (film music supervisor). One of the obvious indications that these are the same editors, is this edit where Ghostrider51 changes the signature belonging to Derwydd23, with no clear explanation. Further evidence that the article subjects are the same person:

1) "Andy Hill was born in Chicago", "A.W. Hill ... grew up in the Midwest". Chicago is a major Midwestern US city.

2) While I would never propose LinkedIn as a reliable source for inclusion in an article, I think it's sound for getting our ducks in a row. I found this LinkedIn profile which mentions both his Elmo in Grouchland Grammy, as well as his novel writing as A.W. Hill. (See Publications section) This might just be mirroring Wikipedia content without attribution, so I wouldn't use it as a source, but if it is unique content, it seems to reflect that the guy wears mutiple hats.

3) A.W. Hill's Twitter account says that he's a composer and author.

4) Ghostrider added this author's profile to A.W. Hill in these edits, which states, "A.W. Hill is the author of previous Stephan Raszer novels ... He is a Grammy Award-winning music supervisor for films".

I don't think there's any question it's the same dude, although it would be nice if Ghostrider51 (aka Mr. Hill) would just clarify this already, since it's only causing confusion that is on the cusp of disruptive. We have many subjects that wear different hats. George Carlin is a legendary comedian who also wrote numerous books. We don't have unique articles for George Carlin (comedian) and George Carlin (author) or for Leonardo da Vinci (inventor) and Leonardo da Vinci (painter). Considering Andy Hill is most notable for his Grammy award for music production, I think the main article should be Andy Hill (American music producer) and his literary works should be secondary to that article. It should also be noted that A.W. Hill has recently been edited by Ghostrider51 to include a lot of unsourced fluff, and I think there's a strong conflict of interest situation happening here, which needs monitoring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This complicates matters. File:Andy Hill, Music Supervisor 2014.jpg is A.W.Hill alias Andy Hill. And Ghostrider51 calls it a self-portrait. It was uploaded to Wikipedia at 17:57, 15 January 2014‎ by Ghostrider51. So, one of these may have happened:-
(1) Andy Hill made a self-portrait (selfie), which Ghostrider51 get hold of somehow and uploaded (with what permission?); where "self" in the image's licence means Andy Hill and not Ghostrider51.

(2) Andy Hill is Ghostrider51???
- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm wrong about the self-portrait thing. I've stricken it out. If the user is claiming to be the copyright holder of a selfie, that would suggest one of two most likely things: he is the subject of the photo/article, or the uploader filled out the fields incorrectly while uploading the photo. The latter is likely. It's not the most significant part of my argument, anyway. And we've finally gotten to the bottom of whether or not A.W. Hill and Andy Hill are the same person in the comments below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles for Deletion: Andy Hill[edit]

Jeez. I suppose I should be flattered by all the attention you're giving this, but where do you find the time? ;D I'm no longer sure of exactly whom I'm communicating with, so I'll just hope that this reaches all concerned with the case. First, with respect to the user ID, I will happily delete the secondary account for Derwydd23 if Wikipedia will cut me a little slack and desist with the ad hominem characterizations and some of the "in-group" value judgement. I can see that this is not going to go away, as you clearly have me in your sights, so let's figure out a way to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Secondly, reference was made to "fluff" added to the A.W. Hill article, but this material was added expressly in response to your requirement for citations. The Judith Freeman and Ian Rankin quotes are a matter of public record, and both people are the subject of their own Wikipedia articles. Finally, with respect to your characterization of the article as "self-promotion," this is also a value judgement. I can certainly understand that you don't want Wikipedia used as a billboard or advertising platform, but if the professional accomplishments of the subject meet your notability requirements and the article is formatted properly, does it truly matter if a living person gains some "promotional" value from a listing on your site? God knows this is a terrible time to be a writer of new fiction, and the very first thing that editors (which is what I am) and publishers recommend is a Wikipedia listing. So tell me what I need to do to pass muster with all of you. All the best. Ghostrider51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostrider51 I'm not sure which ad hominem characterizations you are referring to. Toward Andy Hill? Or toward you? I don't think the latter has occurred, unless you are referring to my use of "self-promotion", which at this point seems inaccurate if the correct noun is "promotion". Skipping past that, if you have a conflict of interest, you are highly discouraged from editing this article yourself. As for "in-group value judgement", this is a global encyclopedia run by a community of editors—"in-group value judgement" is going to happen as we evaluate the worth of the content being included. This is another reason why people with a close association to the subject shouldn't edit the subject's article—it can be painful and insulting. They don't mention that in WP:COI, though. So shall we assume that A.W. Hill and Andy Hill are the same person? Do you have any arguments to make for why we would need multiple articles for the same guy? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Deletion Discussion: Andy Hill (Music Supervisor) and A.W. Hill (Author)[edit]

Just to clarify the situation (though it seems you have it pretty well sussed out, yes, Andy Hill, the Grammy-winning film music supervisor/producer and music educator, and A.W. Hill, the American novelist, are the same human being. However, they operate in two entirely different cultural and professional spheres, A.W. Hill is a pen name (like Anne Rice's A.N. Roquelaire), and A.W. Hill the author strongly prefers that coverage of his writing endeavors be treated "as if" he were, in fact, a different person. This is certainly not unheard of in the arts world. There are painters who paint under one name and dance under another, and such has been the case going back to the Renaissance. So please let me know if there is a "legitimate" way that the bios can be kept distinct. If not, I will composer a new article about A.W. Hill alone, and we will allow deletion of the Andy Hill article to stand. Thank you. Derwydd23 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. For the record: A. N. Roquelaure is a redirect to Ann Rice, not a unique article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Derwydd23 is a confirmed sock of Ghostrider51. Mike V • Talk 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It is the same person, and neither article is anywhere near the point that its so long it needs to be split off. Go with the WP:COMMONNAME as the article title, and use the other name as a redirect. Identify both in bold in the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Sergecross73. My one note is that Andy Hill is a disambiguation page, and there are a few other Andy Hills. Hence my suggestion that we find a way to disambiguate him: Andy Hill (American music producer) or (American composer) or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine, I agree with that point too. I just meant have it either be based on the music or writer aspect based on which one he was most known for. Something like "American music producer" would be a better, and more commonly phrased, disambiguation. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator comment. This is clearly going to be closed merge. Please propose a definite merge title so the close can be carried. SpinningSpark 02:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has a Grammy for music production, which makes him more notable for that than his books. I propose Andy Hill (American music producer) because there is already an article about a British subject, Andy Hill (composer), which could be confusing without national disambiguation being provided along with a disambiguation in notability. Our Andy Hill is also a composer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:31, 24 January 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vj chithu[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed. Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:ENT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete -Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MILLS. Athachil (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Also user login credentials of SuperWiki2015 MIGHT be used by more than one Individual. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 13 January 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yagoona Lions FC[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG for a sporting club. despite its 40 year history could only find listings in primary sources. nothing in Australian search engine trove. they also play in a very low amateur league. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Amateur club which fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amateur club that has not participated in a national competition. Fails WP:FOOTYN also no indication of any other achievements generating sufficient significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:03, 14 January 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Food Process API[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic WP:ESSAY without a clear subject. Blackguard 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite evidently a copy-pasted paper. Subject is entirely OR, it seems. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Entirely WP:OR. No claim to notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research / essay. -- Whpq (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 16:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tomkins[edit]

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

There's no debating he's a writer, but he is simply not notable. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, certainly not eligible for WP:SPORT, and the sole source is far from WP:RELIABLE since it is a WP:SELFSOURCE. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the appeal of the vast majority of his work seems to be restricted to fans of Liverpool FC. As such, appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Giant Snowman 21:04, 14 January 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. —Cryptic 22:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Do Kai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable martial art with no independent sources. I don't know how this article has survived two previous deletion discussions.Jakejr (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks like it survived as Could Be Improved and No Consensus, on the basis of Keep !votes with some rather weak reasons. One !voter commented that (Australian Google) returns more hits, which was true. They seem to be mainly blog-like sites. A couple of the hits might count as RS, like [25] and [26]. The 2nd one was Australia's largest martial arts magazine, which had a paywalled profile of Bob Jones. This is some confirmation of a comment by another !voter, who said that he had seen it mentioned often in martial arts print media. In general, online sources and the sources in the article now seem to be pretty poor. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. At best this art gets a passing mention. I also don't see anything to show it's a notable martial art based on the criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous deletion discussions did not address the shameful state of the article, which does no service to readers looking for information on this subject. Shii (tock) 18:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG since there's no significant independent coverage of this style. Also doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IP User:59.101.70.154 redirected the page to Richard Norton (actor). ansh666 08:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it back while AfD ongoing - this particular Redirect would be incorrect (backwards).Peter Rehse (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting that Norton's article doesn't even mention Zen Do Kai. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keepTake a look at the australia google results. [27] It shows a lot of notable sources from which are available for the article.CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I see are a lot of hits from related dojos. I don't see the significant independent coverage of the martial art itself that would be necessary to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 15 January 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. The two sources in question were (1) a piece by the subject, and (2) a passing mention in an interview. czar ⨹ 16:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Angier[edit]

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

No claims of notability that would meet the martial arts notability criteria and the article's only sources are primary.Jakejr (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit this is a tough call but Angier is quite unique. He stands out from all the US's (ok the world's) self declared Soke in having a verifiable and traceable lineage. There are one or two others but I think he was the first. I removed the bugei.com reference since that was in effect a copy of the article in Journal of Combative Sport which itself is a copy of the Aikido Journal but both those latter are reliable publications. A search pulls quite a few hits on Black Belt magazine which in my mind is less reliable than the first two but considered acceptable by many.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call an article that starts "I was born ..." not a primary source? His claim that he learned an unknown martial art from its sole surviving master, who also was a local handyman, seems like bullshido to me.Jakejr (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are right - it was written by Don (I remembered it as an interview). Still the two Journals are credible sources.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the interview I was thinking of, also found on Aikido Journal, and not with Don. It supports statements made in the primary source and the stub. There is definate room for expansion and further supporting refs.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned in one paragraph. I don't think either of the article's sources meet the requirements of GNG.Jakejr (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it's currently written, the article does not meet WP:GNG, nor do I believe it meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists.Mdtemp (talk) 21:00, 13 January 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. with WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Eugenia Cárdenas Santa María[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. And ambassadors are not inherently notable. All the coverage merely confirms that she is ambassador often at the start of her appointment but nothing indepth like achievements or career. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider that the holders of notable posts such as ambassadorships, from and to major countries at least, are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of ambassadors even if they are assigned to major countries. LibStar (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 12 January 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 Buffalo Public Schools#Primary Schools --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Park Academy[edit]

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

This is an elementary school of no particular notability, only trivial local coverage. Jacona (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 21:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to Buffalo Public Schools#Primary Schools It's one of about 15 elementary schools in Buffalo linked from navigation template ((Buffalo Public Schools)). Template and at least some of articles developed by User:D-Day, no doubt with good intentions and belief these were fine. Per wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, probably the elementary school articles mostly do not meet current Wikipedia standards, unless the school building is historically or otherwise significant individually. There was already Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterfront Elementary School which concluded with redirect to Buffalo Public Schools article (note a more specific redirect within that article would be nicer, too). Could a bigger cleanup campaign be coordinated with D-Day, checking about saving any others, and having D-Day make some redirects perhaps, without running a bunch more unnecessary AFDs? AFDs are hurtful. --do ncr am 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools#Primary Schools per standard procedure as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools#Primary Schools per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools#Primary Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ƬheStrike Σagle 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 16:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moment.js[edit]

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

Fails wp:GNG. Nor reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Vanjagenije:: What about this? Or this? ----Mr. Guye (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 21:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I don't think that tutorials qualify as establishing notability. WP:NSOFT says that software may be notable if it "is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". Tutorials do not make any claims about the software's significance. ~ Boomur [☎] 05:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete – not enough for general notability; unless anyone can find some coverage but there's nothing that I can find better than what's in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:38, 16 January 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 Women in Ancient Egypt. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sobekneferou and Her Legacy[edit]

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

PROD contested by creator. Repeating what I said in that PROD:

Article seems to consist mostly of synthesis / original research. Cf. WP:NOTESSAY. Author should perhaps look into alternative outlets.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename and restructure~~ -- Many articles have an element of synthesis. It cannot stay with its present title, but something like The position of women in Ancient Egypt would cover what it has to say, unless we already have an article on that to which it should be merged or redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Women in Ancient Egypt. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Kitfoxxe has found the article that I was suggesting as a merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 17 January 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 Jenna's American Sex Star. czar ⨹ 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brea Bennett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Pornbio notability requirements. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jenna's American Sex Star. The subject fails PORNBIO and there isn't enough independebt, reliable coverage to support a BLP, but practice (eg, WP:Articles for deletion/Isabella Soprano (2nd nomination)) calls for a redirect to the reality show she had a prominently featured role on. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per HW's argument above. Finnegas (talk) 23:56, 18 January 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. —Cryptic 22:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Rubin[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of her Emmy wins, and as a BLP article they should cited. If they are removed, she fails GNG as simply being another TV journalist. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this. I'm not sure if "three regional Emmys, awards from the Associated Press, the Missouri Broadcaster's Association and Gannett" are enough to get her over the notability threshold but evidence was easy enough to find. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had found those sources before I made the AfD, and maybe I'm being too picky, but anyone can claim to have won an Emmy. Besides, the KTVU article is almost a primary source since it is not independent of the subject. I suppose I was looking for a source that says in what categories she specifically won the Emmys. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And such a source may not exist. I think those (especially the independent stltoday source) are enough as "evidence" (per WP:V) but they don't do much in terms of WP:N. You were right to bring it here, I think, I just thought that was worth clearing up. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think regional Emmys establish WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an archive of the 2004 Emmy cited (dead link) in the article. The Emmy archives site is here, but seems to be under construction. I think we should just assume that she did actually win those awards, and then if the article survives someone can check that page, when it's finished. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete General-assignment TV reporter; no evidence of notability. About the claimed Emmy awards: assuming they are real, local awards don't do much for notability. And in any case, without a citation we can't tell if the awards went to her as an individual, or to a team she was part of. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, even assuming local emmy win. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:07, 20 January 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart McLean (executive)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are mostly very brief statements by the individual. The body of work is not substantial. No secondary references. reddogsix (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 14:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 14:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like spam and appears to have been created to promote its subject, who I agree doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Content & Company, which appears to have been his only notable venture. --MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fairly blatant spam. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 15 January 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 Main Street (novel series). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Book Club[edit]

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

Unsourced plot summary of book that appears to fail WP:NBOOK, tagged with notability and reference issue since 2010. Vrac (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Main Street (novel series) or to the author's page. I'd lean towards the series page since there are bound to be sources somewhere to justify the series having a page, but I'd also support a redirect to the author's page. I'll try to get around to doing a search for sources for the series and if I can't find anything then I'll redirect the series page to the author's page and change my "vote" here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Main Street (novel series). I also feel all of the books within that series should merge into that page because they're all currently stubs or lack references, so it'd be nice to have all the plots put together. Bananasoldier (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it looks like Redirect is the appropriate call here. Just for AfD documentation purposes, Ann M. Martin is the founding author of the The Baby-Sitters Club multi-million copy tween girl hit, stocked at literally thousands of libraries and often placed in the featured bookshelf and/or "frequently checked out" section of said libraries. I'm including this information on this AfD merely discourage any delete votes and/or massive article wiping based on somebody thinking this article is WP:PROMO. Redirect is the good formal call, and nice work, as usual, to the researching editor. -Augustabreeze (talk) 09:12, 12 January 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.