< 13 January 15 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Ryan Stradal[edit]

J. Ryan Stradal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Limited evidence of notability. Article seems to have been created to support launch of a book. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:02, 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 speedy keep. Article has been improved above my expectations (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Vincent[edit]

Sonny Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First off, fails WP:BLP for lack of sources. Second, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO (again, mainly due to lack of sources). Third, article is written like a biography instead of an encyclopedia entry. It will be easier to start from a blank slate rather than hack and slash what's currently there to shoehorn it into conforming to Wikipedia's standards. In other words, BLOWITUP. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this might be a sockpuppet or possibly a meatpuppet. No contributions except to this question. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be no lack of sources. There are multiple citations throughout the entry. All sources meet Wikipedia's criteria as acceptable for citation. In addition to 25 other citation sources, the subject is being used as a self-published source, meaning specifically the subject's personal website is a credible source for citation. The self-published website meets Wikipedia's criteria for acceptability because it is not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity, and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) the Wikipedia entry does not rely on it as a primary source.

Also, as to the claim of Conflict of Interest, this entry does not promote self interest; there are no sales links or tour dates. The entry accurately and dispassionately outlines the artist's life and work. The POV is neutral, the information contained in the entry is verifiable, and original research is not presented or cited. It appears the burden of evidence has been met by the editors of this entry.

As to the claim of this entry reading like a biography, here is a clip from Wikipedia's entry on that topic: "a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." This entry does not present the subject's life story and there are no intimate details or discussion of personality. The entry in question reads more like a CV and contains only verifiable information regarding the artist's professional work. In fact, I would offer that most encyclopedia entries contain much more personal information (i.e. early life, marriage, children, controversy, etc) than the one we are debating here. Furthermore, biographies of living persons are acceptable entries. Wikipedia's guidelines dictate biographies need to be written in a conservative and respectful manner with consideration of the subject's privacy. This entry does not include contentious material and makes no specious claims. The subject's privacy is not violated.

If additional citations are suggested, please respond with specific content. It is easy to make claims more citations are needed and simple to cite an entire wikipedia guideline page as support, however, based on the seriousness of the suggestions to delete the page, it seems actual examples with specific support are called for here. Thank you. Silverline72 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)silverline72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverline72: Please read the Articles for Deletion process. The "calls to delete" that you request be stopped do not exist. This is a single discussion that will last for at least 7 days. At the end of the 7 days an administrator will determine if a consensus has been reached, and either keep or delete the article based on the consensus of editors. If the administrator does not feel a consensus is reached they will let the discussion continue until such time as a clear consensus exists and then action will be taken. No amount of insisting that the process stop will be successful. Once an AfD has been started, it will be allowed to reach its conclusion based strictly on the policy. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wtwilson3: Hi Bill. Thank you for the advice. I have stated my objection. Do i understand correctly that I also need to remove a deletion tag? If so, would you explain how to do that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
No, as stated in the deletion tag, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". Once a decision is reached, if the result is "keep" then the tag may be removed. But not before. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly needs some improvement in the writing and format, but putting it up for deletion based on a lack of verifiable sources doesn't seem to hold any merit. There are bountiful references, many of which do seem to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Keep improving it and keep it up. W.A.A.S. (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeAreAllStars (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus (although not unanimous) that the office of public safety commissioner is not in itself sufficient to push its holders past the notability bar. Downs might also potentially be notable through the WP:GNG, but among those that commented on the sources in the discussion, the feeling seems to be that the references are not substantial enough or reliable enough to pass muster. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Earl Downs[edit]

J. Earl Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A well-written article; the problem is that there is nothing inherently notable about being elected to public safety commissioner for a medium-sized city. Further fails to meet WP:NPOL as there is no significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions. Afd was disputed by creator. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Jones_(Louisiana_politician). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, none of those positions are likely to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Mayors are not inherently notable (even if we consider the position to be equivalent), CEOs/Directors of regional authorities or agencies are not inherently notable, city-wide administrators are not inherently notable (even for major cities). Subjects do not inherit notability from notable family members (even if that were established). What we need is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. St★lwart111 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is participating in the discussion. Some five days have passed since the article was challenged, but there have been no participants.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Four people have commented here. The arguments you've put forward aren't at all based on policy and while you're entitled to your personal opinions, such things are likely to be disregarded by a closing admin. There's not much point discussing those ideas further. Without better quality sourcing to consider, there isn't much more to discuss. St★lwart111 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see three names in opposition to the article and none in five days.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean no participants, or no participants supporting your POV? I'm not trying to be facetious. The discussion will be re-listed if an admin reviews this discussion with a view to closing it and determines there hasn't been adequate participation. But the consensus among everyone but the article creator (you) seems fairly clear at this point. St★lwart111 06:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be confusion over what a public safety commissioner is (or in most cases, was), as the office has fallen out of favor with the decline of city commission governments. He was elected citywide (never by district), co-equal to the mayor in that both had equal votes on the legislative city council. In some cities the mayor WAS also the public safety commissioner. In others, the mayor was "commissioner of administration". Here is a public safety commissioner from Birmingham, Alabama, with his own Wikipedia article; his notability went beyond being public safety commissioner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor One should not confuse public safety commissioner with public service commissioner, an office still functioning in many states and one that regulates public utilitities and/or oil and natural gas. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:00, 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 Speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Action Technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Real Time Action Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Manross[edit]

George Manross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources are cited. Article thus fails WP:V. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR as cited books appear to be trivial works with no indication of widespread use. Subject also appears to fail WP:PROF. The article is highly promotional in tone. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv Brik[edit]

Yaniv Brik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias_disorder[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bias_disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bias disorder was considered to be included in DSM-IV, but it was left out. Now, the DSM-V has been published, still with no reference to or consideration of Bias Disorder. It has been a full six years since the article was last rejected for deletion. In the time since, no notable new secondary sources have been published regarding Bias Disorder. According to WP:NOTABILITY, Notability is not temporary. Since the interest in Bias Disorder appears to be temporary, I propose deletion. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 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; well reasoned. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Nițu[edit]

Andrei Nițu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While technically meeting WP:NSPORT, in my opinion, this falls under the part in the lede of that guideline, that says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis theirs.) He only has two fully pro league appearances, the last of which was eight years ago, with no indication that he will make more any time soon. More importantly, he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moses devoss[edit]

Moses devoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia articles about musicians must satisfy the relevant requirements for inclusion: to get their own article, a musician must receive independent coverage in reliable sources, or demonstrate significance by winning major awards, being played in national rotation, etc. My searches (web, books, newspaper archive, Ugandan top music lists) found no independent coverage, only informal bios written by the artist himself. I propose that the article be deleted until more reliable coverage appears. FourViolas (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 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 merge to Sleep hygiene. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junk sleep[edit]

Junk sleep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a neologism with little to no reliable sources. This was previously an uncontested prod that no one bothered with for 6 months.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a medical term, now being commonly used. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Crummett[edit]

Ebenezer Crummett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another hoax, detected and flagged by the indefatigable 66.177.64.39. Searches find the usual mirrors, including translations to German and Italian and "books" recycled from WP. There are other references suggesting that there may have been one or more people with this name, but no independent confirmation of what the article says.

The article gives three references. I do not have physical access to the first two, but Amazon provides "look inside" searches for both, and there are no hits for "Crummett" - see article talk page for details. I do have access to the third reference, the collected papers of Alexander Hamilton in 27 volumes, which has a cumulative index, a fat volume in itself. There is no entry for Crummett. I have also checked other relevant books including "Who Was Who in the American Revolution" without result.

Conclusion: fails WP:V. No confirmation + false references => deliberate hoax. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One bits of evidence JohnCD didn't mention in the summary above is that the three accounts that contributed to this article worked exclusively on this article and no others. —Noah (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, one or more people by this name existed, but all the stuff about being decorated for bravery, saving Lafayette and quarrelling with Alexander Hamilton is completely unverified - in fact, worse than unverified: plausible sources are cited for it which would confirm it if it were true, but which do not in fact mention it at all. That's why I call hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 21 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oncodynamics[edit]

Oncodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly non-notable term (search engine does not return many results), apparently coined by only source used in the article. Brambleclawx 17:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering in India[edit]

Engineering in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This really isn't a reference article on engineering in India. Rather, it's an essay on the narrow topic "Considerations in the Pursuit of an Engineering Degree in India Today". —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of technology-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep articles based just on their titles. If we did, we wouldn't have speedy deletion under WP:CSD A3. See WP:TNT for additional commentary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:26, 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. — MusikAnimal talk 05:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sundicators[edit]

Sundicators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other then it exists there is nothing to show that it is notable - Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 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 keep (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna wannabe[edit]

Madonna wannabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since nearly every celebrity has the so called wannabes I believe there's no reason to have a full article dedicated to the wannabes of one particular case. If more articles like this appear on Wikipedia, it will turn into a website filled with details about how some people try to impersonate and look like their favorite celebrities. WERSDF112 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Amiraslanov[edit]

Emin Amiraslanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he 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) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 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 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amil Agajanov[edit]

Amil Agajanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he 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. Looking at his number of appearances, the number of clubs he has played for and his appearances / club, seems the very definition of a non-notable journeyman footballer. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 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 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Abdulov[edit]

Samir Abdulov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he 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) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 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 00:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Abbasov[edit]

Asif Abbasov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he 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) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 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 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhan Mirzaev[edit]

Orkhan Mirzaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Aerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he 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) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Morris (voice actress)[edit]

Heather Morris (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable per WP:NACTOR. Had 3 acting credits between 2002-2003 LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Mirzaev[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Javad Mirzaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd three years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Aerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he 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) 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dilts[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Dilts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. The few ELs on the page are either associated with the subject, are dead links or are of dubious provenance. This page is (self-)promotional as far as I can see. No improvement in almost two years of being tagged. Previous discussion reached no consensus. Famousdog (c) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajee Narinesingh[edit]

Rajee Narinesingh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (possibly by article subject?) Fails WP:BLP1E; in that all sources discuss subject's surgery issues. Television show has some coverage but nothing that satisfies notability for this person. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 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 speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Treasures of Swat[edit]

Hidden Treasures of Swat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability. Lots of commercial links masquerading as references; lots of non-references even after a cleanup effort. Article smells like self promotion as book's publication date was just a couple days before the addition of the article. Mikeblas (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is dildarswat, Thanks for your kind effort • Gene93k,(talk). Kindly provide some assistance regarding my article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dildarswat (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Morrison (actress)[edit]

Julie Morrison (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NACTOR. Has only done 1 movie and voiced 3 episodes of a tv series. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Devata Island Stadium[edit]

Arena Devata Island Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Yogwi21talk 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minamoto no Yoshiari[edit]

Minamoto no Yoshiari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm technically neutral on whether this should be deleted, but I have my doubts and so I'm putting it forward for the community to decide. Neither of the Japanese encyclopedias I usually use (MyPedia and Britannica Kokusai Dai-hyakkajiten) have articles on him, and looking him up on Kotobank brought up only two bare-bones biographies. A fair few Japanese university websites appear to mention him, but several only in relation to the obviously more famous colleague, the god of scholarship and poetry, which seems to imply he fails WP:NOTINHERITED. The present article contains material previously cited to the English version of a Japanese archery association's website, but said English version no longer exists, and the Japanese website doesn't mention him once.[1] (Take from that what you will, though, when said website only mentions one member of the Minamoto clan.[2]) He appears to have been involved with the compilation of one of the court histories, and the Michizane and (possible) yabusame connections are interesting but I'm not entirely convinced. His name appears 31 times in the Sandai Jitsuroku, so enough information appears to exist for us to build an article, but the same could probably be said for dozens of other Heian courtiers who don't have independent articles in the majority of print encyclopedias and don't get articles here either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 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) 16:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Anderson[edit]

Euan Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of India[edit]

Legends of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

sources are not adequate for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 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 Procedural close. This should not be at AfD. Seems to be an actual place called Andugulapadu. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kothapalem or andugulapadu[edit]

Kothapalem or andugulapadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At least one name should be selected for a village Dan Koehl (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain about the other village. That may or may not exist or have been renamed (officially). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:22, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Ghent apartment siege[edit]

2014 Ghent apartment siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per Wikipedia is not news. Non-notable event, no deaths, not terrorism, gained higher exposure because of timing to Sydney event, but proved to be unrelated. Orphan with very small chance for a link in any meaningful way. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 05:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy[edit]

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in independent, reliable sources meeting WP:GNG. A PROD was contested with the edit summary citing lots of Gnews hits (linked below). I see ~70 hits, some of which are news stories that mention articles in the journal, but no significant coverage of the journal itself. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no cleaned the article up and added some content and references. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PLease calm down, nobody says that the journal doesn't exist and, in any case, existing is not enough to be notable. Neither is the number of citations very relevant, but the fact hat the journal is in the Science Citation Index is and should be sufficient to keep the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I have to clarify myself. I didn't want to offend anybody. I am no native speaker, so maybe I just didn't find the right words. I am sorry if my statement caused some confusion. This wasn't my purpose. Andol (talk) 20:50, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from the Morse Family[edit]

Merry Christmas from the Morse Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable self-released album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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 No consensus on Kemp, with no prejudice against speedy relisting due to most participants here overlooking him, Keep on Morrow, and Delete on Ellenbogen. This is a good example of why it's generally not a great idea to bundle biography articles together unless they're all on very similar subjects.. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert Kemp et al.[edit]

William Herbert Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ian Morrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Gershon Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These people were failed Liberal candidates in the United Kingdom general election, 1950. Two of them finished third with 8% each (not a significant percentage) and the third one finished third with 16%. Apparently none of them ever had a significant professional or even political career, as it looks like none stood for parliament again. The Theosophist (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do all authors, KBEs (which, by the way, is not referred to at the article) and Lord Mayors have an article? Many people write books and they are not notable, many people every year are awarded membership to British Orders but are not necessarily article-worthy and the position of Lord Mayor is, in most cities, held by people who are only locally notable.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Theosophist: The Morrow article clearly refers to his knighthood. I think I can safely say that all authors, KBEs and Lord Mayors don't have an article. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Members of British orders are not necessarily worthy of articles. But commanders/companions and above (including knights, of course) have always been held to be. Only a few dozen knighthoods, at the most, were usually handed out every year (and fewer are now). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Clarityfiend: I note your uncertainty about Kemp. Please can you explain why you think Morrow fails WP:ANYBIO and Ellenbogen fails WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Morrow fails ANYBIO because a knighthood or membership to the Order of the British Empire are certainly significant awards, but they are held by thousands of people, not all of whom are sufficiently notable to have articles. I also do not see any significant contribution of Morrow to business or of Ellenbogen to legal literature. He has written law books, certainly, but are they notable enough to warrant an article for him?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to seconding The Theosophist's comments, I've already noted that there are no solid references for these people to show that they've reached the required level of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Theosophist: If Morrow fails, he does not do so on the basis of WP:ANYBIO. The article clearly states what he received it for and this is properly sourced. I note that you are uncertain about the notability of the law books written by Ellenbogen. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to say that the mere fact that one was created a Knight Bachelor for x reason, does not necessarily mean that he made ″widely recognized contributions″ to his field.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Clarityfiend: Please can you explain what you mean by "solid references"? Morrow's knighthood is referenced to Who's Who perhaps the premier reference source in the UK. Kemp's position as Lord Mayor was referenced to the 1950 edition of The Times House of Commons, a nationally recognised reference publication. Ellenbogen's authorships are not currently referenced in the article but these are confirmed by the relevant link above. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mere mentions don't help much, especially if they just confirm simple facts. Kemp's lord mayority(?) is an unnotable fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: It is Lord Mayoralty, for your information.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of drivel. Of course it does. And it clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually boast that I understand the British honours system more than most people and this is why I know that many times people of secondary and tertiary importance receive honours. Just look at 2015 New Year Honours. Still, the Rolls-Royce argument may be sufficient but then we should create an article for all other Rolls-Royce MDs too.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also Morrow had obits in the Guardian and Telegraph. Though Ellenbogen's obit did not make it to The Times he is mentioned in 80 articles according to The Times on-line archive. Graemp (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is also probably worth noting that the Morrow article contains a portrait of him that is held by the National Portrait Gallery, linked to their website for everyone's convenience, the significance of which should not be lost to anyone who knows about such portraiture. Graemp (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get 80 articles from? I see only one, and it's not about him.[7] Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Times digital archive http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/basicSearch.do access only for subscribers or certain UK library card holders. Graemp (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, "the position ... is largely ceremonial. The role of Lord Mayor is decided upon by a vote amongst the elected councillors," not the general public. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is not correct, as Graemp pointed out. It does not matter if an office is ceremonial or indirectly elected. What matters is whether an office is important. Most Lord Mayors of Stoke-on-Trent do not have their own article because they were simply local magnates who were selected to lead a year′s city parades and (maybe) sign council documents. This why they are not notable solely on the basis of being Lord Mayors of Stoke-on-Trent.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just local magnates, but long-serving councillors (who may also be local magnates, of course). People aren't just parachuted in as mayor - they're elected from the ranks of the council. But I agree lord mayors are not notable by virtue of their office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Theo and Necro. I would also point out that the role of lord mayor would also include a number of important non-ceremonial functions, such as chairing meetings of the full council, the most senior policy deciding meeting of the council. However, I don't agree that "lord mayors are not notable by virtue of their office". WP seems to distinguish between the importance of the authority, valuing strategic and regional significance. For example, the List of Lord Mayors of London provides evidence of notability of that particular office. Stoke is not London but its regional significance as the centre of the UK pottery industry led to its status and that of its civic head being elevated in 1928. Graemp (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have to remember that Lord Mayors of London are a special case. They are usually prominent figures in the business world and are also almost always knighted on vacating their office (indeed, it used to be traditional to appoint them to baronetcies). Whereas lord mayors of other cities can be complete nobodies outside the council chamber. And let's face it, in general who knows who their mayor is? It is certainly true that many mayors, even of relatively small towns, have been knighted (or even appointed baronets) for outstanding (and usually very long) service to their towns, and these are obviously notable, but others must be judged on their individual merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I said 'weak keep'. Stoke-on-Trent is not a tiny city, he was an Alderman and then Lord Mayor. I think on its own, definitely not notable, but his political candidacy, chairmanship of local political branch, justice of the peace status. Here is also some more info on his chemist success; [8]. JTdaleTalk~ 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ JTdale: Some good points. I note that you can't see the notability of Ellenbogen and appreciate that as a non-UK resident, you may be handicapped by lack of access to UK sources such as The Times Digital Archive. Graemp (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Graemp. That is probably true. JTdaleTalk~ 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: When it comes to notability, I don't think that this point is that valid as according to UK Monarchy the role of Queen is also ceremonial. The fact that the post was not directly elected by the public did not in itself reduce the responsibilities of its holder. Graemp (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, of course, is that the Queen is sovereign for life, whereas the Lord Mayor is elected every year! I don't think we can assume non-executive mayors or lord mayors of British cities are ever notable simply for being mayor. They must have other achievements as well. Any long-serving councillor is pretty much guaranteed to be elected mayor eventually. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are of course many differences between a British Queen and a British Lord Mayor. I've not been able to locate anything that indicates length of tenure to be a determining factor on notability. But as Necrothesp points out, most Lord Mayors are likely to have had a long career in public service anyway. Notwithstanding the point I made above about Stoke, I agree with Necrothesp, some Lord Mayor's would probably struggle to meet a sufficient level of notability. Graemp (talk) 15:09, 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 withdrawn. KTC (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vamsi Paidipally[edit]

Vamsi Paidipally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AfD of duplicate of another article currently under AfD with a slightly different spelling. See Vamshi paidipally and AfD. Record nominator as neutral, as I don't know which spelling is proper, and the the film director has a half-dozen films with articles (merited or not, I haven't checked, and have little knowledge of 'Tollywood'). Pax 03:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on a quick glance at the shear volume of references in the article concerning his most recent film, this director ought to be quite notable; the question is over which article has his name spelled correctly. Pax 03:21, 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 03:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vamsi and Vamshi both appear to be common transliterations from Telugu. It might be worthwhile to list alternatives as we do for Vamsi (film): "Vamsi (also known as Vamsee, Vamshi, or Vamshee)". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:38, 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 04:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodan + Fields[edit]

Rodan + Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (talk) @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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, czar ⨹ 02:30, 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 03:25, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Morgan (baseball)[edit]

Gareth Morgan (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player. I'd be okay with a merge but it keeps being reverted for some reason. Looks like it might be a COI single purpose account too. Wizardman 03:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there are significant firsts that Gareth Morgan has achieved in Canadian baseball and amateur baseball that he is deserved of his own article. All references are valid. Siting C.1 and C.2 for AfD. The article can be improved with more content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkcmorgan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Gkcmorgan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment sorry, but you don't get two !votes...Gaff (talk) 05:28, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Del Rio[edit]

Antony Del Rio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I perviously tagged the article with a BLPPROD for only having an imdb external link. The article has now been deprodded but it was pointed out in its talk page that there wasn't any notability established in the article. And while there have been citations added onto the article, a majority of them do not seem to be reliable. So I do not believe that this article is notable enough to have a page on this site in its current condition. GamerPro64 00:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Maybe you're right and maybe I'm wrong about wanting this article get deleted. I personally just think it might not meet the standards. I'm not stopping you from improving the article. If there is enough material to warrant it on this site. GamerPro64 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 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 03:19, 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 keep. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Ford[edit]

Maria Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sexy lady. damiens.rf 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." A bunch of those films/t.v. shows in the article are notable, click on the ones that are wikilinks to see.Vrac (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clicked on them. She had just really small roles (if we can call that 'roles') in a few notable direct-to-tv and direct-to-video films like Casper Meets Wendy, Addams Family Reunion and Beethoven's 5th. --damiens.rf 15:11, 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 02:59, 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Saunders (photographer)[edit]

Red Saunders (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be notable only for starting Rock Against Racism; his role in that is covered in that article, rendering this one superfluous. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 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 02:59, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Thomas-Garner[edit]

Hannah Thomas-Garner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The individual is not WP:notable as Wikipedia defines it, and neither is her disappearance. I did a thorough search for coverage, and updated the article with what I found. This appears to be a routine missing-persons case; the police believe the girl is a runaway. News coverage has been almost entirely local and on social media sites. But Wikipedia is not the news, and it is not Facebook. MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing a fact. Her story was on NBC News, Also known as "National Broadcasting Company" @MelanieN:. Missing in America: Hannah Thomas Garner - NBC News -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
Yes, it was. It was also mentioned by the Huffington Post. In both cases, it was clear the contact/coverage had been initiated by the father, and was a "courtesy" report on a missing person. (And you will notice I said "almost" entirely local coverage.) I'm not seeing sustained reportage outside of the immediate local area; sustained coverage would be required to take it out of the category of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. And the subject doesn't qualify for inclusion under WP:CRIME, since there is no evidence a crime has been committed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry for yelling, its not appropriate. As much as I don't want it deleted, it should be deleted. Please delete it. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't/won't delete someone else's comment. If you want, you can change it to lowercase where appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: -- I mean the article, about Hannah Thomas-Garner. You're right, it should be deleted under WP:Notable. CookieMonster755 (talk)£
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:39, 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 02:48, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adryenn Ashley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adryenn Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article recreated by a now-blocked user. Subject has received passing mentions in articles about Yelp, but her only significant coverage comes from press releases and IMDB. Fails WP:GNG Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 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 02:43, 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) 15:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Davis (soccer)[edit]

Sean Davis (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested by an editor without leaving an edit summary. — Jkudlick tcs 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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 Keep. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenocentrism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Xenocentrism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a dictionary definition of the word. There is no discussion of the thing itself. Is it a good or bad thing? What causes it? How common is it? What are its effects? There is no evidence given that the scanty sources even ask these questions, much less suggest answers. Borock (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping. Also you've recycled the editing policy in countless AfDs, it does nothing to advance how an article for deletion is notable, I doubt any closing admin takes "editing policy" into consideration. LibStar (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument for keeping as it states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". WP:PRESERVE provides numerous suggestions for improving content as an alternative to removing it. See also alternatives to deletion. Admins certainly bear these principles in mind per WP:DGFA, "by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy". Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support a merge with xenophilia as an alternative to deletion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think there's enough significant coverage to merge a great deal of content across. St★lwart111 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trackinfo, I'm not "ashamed of myself" at all and that's a pointless and baseless ad-hom given the content of the article, the quality of the sources provided and the fact that multiple others have expressed the same view. Everything is something someone made up one day; the question here is whether that something has subsequently gained enough significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Misinterpreting my statement doesn't make it any less true. There are, as pointed out, multiple passing mentions of the subject and a handful of more expansive paragraphs that all lead back to the same genesis. That's not "significant coverage" enough for me, though I've supported the sensible merge suggestion put forward above. Maybe read things a couple of times before shooting from the hip. St★lwart111 11:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have become more conciliatory suggesting "Sensible merge" but that still frequently means to kill the subject. It blends in with the merged subject, it gets chipped away in small edits and what do you know, after a year or so, its gone completely or maybe a passing mention remains. I've seen this too often in other contentious cases (this is contentious because it is an AfD) so I think merging is a bad option. It usually is, unless the goal is to make the subject go away. You already said "I don't think there's enough significant coverage to merge a great deal of content across." I don't suggest you had that ulterior motive, but you didn't do sufficient research when you said "looks like something someone invented that hasn't subsequently been used much by others." You spoke from an uninformed perspective and that is misguiding the consensus of this discussion. I drifted into my personal interest in the subject I was previously unaware of by name. More googling, it seems other people, common folk, have been using the term in the exact context I used it --ls1tech.com/forums/street-racing-kill-stories/406672-reasons-why-ricers-tick-me-off.html-- see here from over 8 years ago. That's not a wikipedia source, its not for the article, but it shows the term being used. I've added a few other sources, all from Google that show it in use is other academic research. The University of Florida includes it as a key term in their sociology class. OK, that is Florida. Here's a tip for doing a Google search. More and more, the top pages are being bombed by irrelevant results caused by sites paying for rankings. With that Google is less dependable (and are eventually headed for the same xenocentric effect of the auto industry, I digress). You actually have to look a little deeper before you determine that everything is junk. But simply put, if you get more than 10 pages of hits, there most likely is some gold in there. It takes some serious effort to read all those pages to say there is nothing of validity there. Trackinfo (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your unsolicited advice and non-apology but I know how to use Google. You say I "have" become more conciliatory as if your comment prompted as much. But my second comment was only hours after my first and more than a week before yours. Who didn't do "sufficient research" if one of us appears uninformed (but isn't) and the other didn't even bother reading the discussion. Your non-reference, if anything, supports my original assertion - that this was something someone coined that hasn't since received the sort of coverage required to make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Your bad-faith opinions with regard to merging are noted, but that doesn't make it any less a legitimate option at AFD (by long-standing consensus and WP:DISCUSSAFD). Guess I shouldn't hold my breath for that apology. St★lwart111 09:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are consistent with your handle. Enjoy humming your tune while you close your eyes and cover your ears. That isn't the way you learn. So all I hope is for other respondents to look at what is present in Google and base their "vote" on that. Trackinfo (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your response to getting called out for a baseless personal attack is to respond with another personal attack. Mate, we've all learned plenty from you today. St★lwart111 10:58, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:46, 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. slakr\ talk / 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Walker[edit]

Lars Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that Walker meets the standards of notability for authors. All sources given in the article, and all others I've been able to find, are either the websites of organizations he's affiliated with, such as his American Spectator author profile, or interviews with Walker, usually on blogs or other publications of dubious reliability, not independent coverage of him. Huon (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<sarc>Of course not; Wikipedia is for porn now, not books. Pornstars survive their AfDs because the smut industry games Wikipedia's own "PORNBIO" notability rules, whereas authors are too busy writing to find the time to bestow each other with bogus, incestuous awards. Not that the press pays attention to anything except politics and Hollywood anymore anyway, and all the "content creators" are URL-blocked as references.</sarc>
Your call, gentlemen. Just have the common decency to throw some lilies on the casket before shoveling the dirt.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, the award requirement is not just an odd criterium of notability for pornographic actors, it is a basic criterium applied for ANY biography, including authors (see WP:ANYBIO#1), with the only difference that in porn you have to win an award, in the other professional categories a couple nominations could be enough. There are dozens/maybe hundreds of writers kept at AFD on the basis of their accolades. Cavarrone 07:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The smut industry knows what Wikipedia's notability requirements are, so they game your system to manufacture "award winners". That many authors survive AfD does not distract me from the (as I see it) problem of Wikipedia's ongoing elimination of obscure meritorious knowledge while promoting even more obscure meretricious knowledge (see my larger comment below). For every author who is submitted to and survives AfD, there are probably dozens of others in the encyclopedia whose articles are less fleshed out, and which I now do not dare edit for fear of attracting attention to them.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - Seriously, I've not clue on this one. He seems to fail WP:AUTHOR sadly. I have to agree with the sentiment of Раціональне but as much as I think thats the case (we seriously have way to many pornbios) that's not what the policies say presently. JTdaleTalk~ 04:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are we here for? The purpose of the project is to accumulate meritorious knowledge. If a writer with 7 published novels, 20 articles at an influential magazine with a ninety year pedigree, 97 other columns at an institution which should have an article here (but which presently doesn't), an interview by a notable in-his-field with his own Wikipedia entry, and who has been cited as an authority in other Wikipedia articles, still lacks notability - while any interchangeable silicon bimbo who wins a prize for spreading her legs automatically has it (thereby demonstrating the difference between meritorious and meretricious knowledge) - then the problem isn't that the writer is insufficiently accomplished, it's with the encyclopedia. (I do not consider the fact that a Google scan reveals no "dead-tree" reviews of Walker's work as indicative of insufficient accomplishment on his part because virtually all reviewing of sub-genre topics has shifted to the internet, i.e., "blogs, over the last decade and a half. Being name-dropped in a three-inch-thick New York Times is something authors in the 1970s would have reliably expected, but not any more.) How many contemporary Viking historians are there with a greater command of the subject than Lars Walker? In fact, I can't recall any at all, living or dead. I'm sure they exist; it's just that they've written even less than Walker.
Every hour I spend here, I encounter multiple (usually older) articles of obscure personages (often authors) with less accomplishment than the one at hand, whose articles simply would not survive AfD today - and I make the decision, every time, to not submit an AfD. And I don't dare edit their articles either, because someone watching my contributions might notice. Reflect on that for a moment: a situation exists in which an interested editor refrains from improving an article for fear that it will be deleted.
A final word from notability criteria: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included..." In short, it's not iron-clad. You get to "vote your conscience".--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1987 was a typo; his first book was published in '97.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People "good at getting attention" are what celebrity gossip blogs write about (fueling an incestuous cycle); Wikipedia should hold itself to a higher standard. My complaint isn't with the sources or even with girls like Knox. It's with what the Project here has apparently decided regarding what knowledge it considers worth keeping. I would argue that the purpose of Wikipedia is better served by having articles on more obscure persons of merit (and the fewer sources around them the better). The interested reader has no shortage of salacious sites fawning over Knox, but where will he go to find out more about who wrote Hailstone Mountain? Why does Wikipedia need to be a spigot of popular tripe? -That's what the rest of the internet is for. Even so, I wouldn't care if the place carried articles on porno "actresses" so long as the obscure author articles were retained; it's only when the encyclopedia retains the smut and deletes the authors that I wonder if the time I spend contributing is well-spent, because a "policy of cheapening" can only result in the marginalization of your reputation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would like to rework the notability guidelines, this AFD discussion is not the effective place to do so. As for "where will he go to find out more about who wrote Hailstone Mountain?", since the only place this is being sold is Amazon, presumably he knows about that site and its About The Author Page... and even that will direct them to the author's website. Wikipedia is not meant to be every possible reference. This is not the white pages, it need not include everyone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain clearer
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:13, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:27, 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 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Cable[edit]

Regal Cable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is probably a hoax; it does not exist & uses www.regalfilms.com as its website, where there is no mention of the subject. The article might be a creation of one of Bertrand101's sockpuppets as the subject is pointing to Santiago City (the vandal's 'residence') as its headquarters. theenjay36 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:30, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Film Critics Society[edit]

Nevada Film Critics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually the same case as with North Carolina Film Critics Association. No reliable third-party coverage, no indication of notability. Emmagood 1995 appears to have created this article, and it's many stem articles (seen on the source page), purely to include them in film accolade listings. Please see this relevant discussion and this ongoing one (permalink) for more information on this subject. Sock (tock talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:40, 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 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balesh Singh Dhankhar[edit]

Balesh Singh Dhankhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely sure of this person's notability. I did a Google News search, and mostly just found him quoted as a spokesperson. Google Web searches return self-published sources. That said, I might be missing something here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:45, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:33, 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 redirect to Rick_Riordan#Magnus_Chase_and_the_Gods_of_Asgard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Summer[edit]

The Sword of Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a yet to be published first installment of a future trilogy. It's too soon to see if it will pass WP:NBOOK. Vrac (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:31, 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 redirect to Rick_Riordan#Magnus_Chase_and_the_Gods_of_Asgard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard[edit]

Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a book series that does not exist yet. It's too soon to see if it will pass WP:NBOOK. Vrac (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always re-upload the image if it gets deleted, so that's not an issue. Uploading book covers doesn't really take that much time and if all else fails then I'm willing to undelete it or re-upload the cover when/if the book/series gains more coverage. As far as other articles go, the existence of other articles doesn't mean that those books actually pass notability guidelines (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - odds are that they just haven't been redirected or deleted yet, although once in a while you'll have a book that has gained enough coverage to merit an article prior to release (like Dan Brown or Stephen King). However the good thing about redirecting with history is that once the book releases and it gets the needed coverage (FWIW, I'm expecting it to) we can always un-redirect the article and add the new sources. It's not like deletion where the article history gets deleted and we'd have to start from scratch or request that the article history be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:30, 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 Move back to user space. There is unanimous consensus that this should not exist in main article space, but opinion is split on delete vs. userfy. Iaritmioawp makes a reasonable point that the original author has been banned from editing on this topic, so it's kind of pointless, but it's also harmless. In general, if there's a reasonable alternative to deletion, it's usually worth taking, so that's what I'm going to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: also removing Hakomari and Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria, which are both redirects pointing here. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Empty Box and the Zeroth Maria[edit]

The Empty Box and the Zeroth Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BK for notability, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Until recently, this article had been in userspace and was moved by a separate editor to mainspace after the original author left Wikipedia. The Japanese Wikipedia article only cites a single primary source, so it doesn't help in satisfying notability. A cursory Google search of the titles The Empty Box and the Zeroth Maria and Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria largely reveal fansites and blogs discussing the series. The original title 空ろの箱と零のマリア mainly shows retail websites and more blogs, although there was this entry on a website with unconfirmed reliability, and therefore I don't believe would be enough to establish notability. Therefore, based on the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that the article in its current state is mainly in-universe information with a few cites from Amazon for the release dates, I believe it should be deleted. Or it could also just be moved back to userspace. 十八 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.--十八 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--十八 21:42, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:06, 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Xtreme Wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
World Xtreme Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion/training school. 5 years after the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Xtreme Wrestling), but I don't see coverage (In fact, sources usually talk about WXW, a German wrestling promotion). HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:02, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:06, 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.
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=xenophilia%2C+xenocentrism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cxenophilia%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cxenocentrism%3B%2Cc0
More