< 28 January	30 January >

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian radicalism[edit]

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

I added a deletion template, because the article is insignificant and this act of radicalism is not reported anywhere by the media. It was useless and waste of editors time in trying to expand this article.Even if anyone disagrees, this page would eventually be deleted because there are no reports for this type of radicalism.23.27.248.32 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Completing a nomination for deletion on behalf of User 23.27.248.32 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may not be reported in the media but there has been signs of radicalism. We've got a whole category about it and there are loads of sources in the references list. There is gonna have to be more reasons before I can support deleting it. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We really can't have an article on a subject not discussed by reliable sources. -- 120.23.95.177 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This strikes me as being Noun + Adjective rather than Noun + Noun. We've got liberation theology — that's "Christian radicalism." We've got Christian socialism — that's "Christian radicalism." We've got pacifism — that is, in part, "Christian radicalism." This is an amorphous fork, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic WP:SYNTH, grouping a number of things together and calling them "Christian radicalism," when the sources don't do that. Some WP:NPOV problems too, but that isn't an AfD issue. -- 120.23.95.177 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an original piece of work. It seeks to bring together Christian movements that describe themselves as radical. No source given (or, to my knowledge, any source existing) brings these together in this way. Relentlessly (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Berrell[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable writer/poet. She has several writing credits (which isn't unexpected as a writer), but nothing that appears to get close to the criteria described by the WP:AUTHOR guideline. There also doesn't appear to be anything that satisfies the GNG. Bjelleklang - talk 23:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Celia Berrell is a very notable poet. very few poets ever get published. She has her work in the High School Text books in Three Countries - Australia, Ireland and Canada. Education institutions in those countries consider her work worth studying by their students. She is also an 'approved resource' for the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in the UK. She is also regularly published in the CSIRO Magazine - a national magazine for those interested in science related matters. This is extremely rare for a poet. She has received a grant and had a large body of work vetted by the James Cook University in Queensland. She has a book of her poems published, and many more attributes. i understood by adding this and working on her site, the potential 'deletion' would be removed as I had also logged an objection while editing and improving the content. Berrell is becoming one of Australia's most notable poets. The references on the site all attest to the notability Sarah Thinking 26 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Sarah Thinking 26Sarah Thinking 26 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC) ~~Sarah thinking26~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Thinking 26 (talk • contribs) — Sarah Thinking 26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello, I agree that Berrell is a very notable poet. She also writes articles and biographies. Her poetry inspired by the art of Sharon Davson is considered a world firstcollaboration by the South Australian Libraries Board. ^[1] To be in high school text books in three countries in rare for any poet, especially living ones. Roman.abbassi (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Roman.abbassiRoman.abbassi (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)— Roman.abbassi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

striking out sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://davsonarts.com.au/unique-collaboration/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - inclusion in a Macmillan textbook is probably a decent indicator of notability. as is winning a prize that was covered by USA Today. Combined with the various other established publishers that have published per poems and I'd say she is notable. Unfortunately, there isn't a huge amount of biographical material available to support an article. This interview and this bio should be enough, though. (Neither establishes notability, but both should be sufficiently reliable to fill in the details of her bio after notability is established.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- According to the article you linked she didn't win, but was one of the finalists. Bjelleklang - talk 22:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love her poetry. We studied it at school; so I would say she is notable. She actually got me interested in poetry and I liked that fact she wrote it about art as well. I didn't know poets did that, and she does it with science also. You actually learn 'science stuff' when you read her verse. I'd like to see more about her up. Tim Fredricks 53 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Tim Fredricks 53Tim Fredricks 53 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I forgot to say before, my sister has abut 20 Scientriffic magazines with poems by Celia Berrell in them. My sister is into science and reads me the poems. Great stuff. Tim Fredricks 53 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Tim Fredicks 53Tim Fredricks 53 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC) — Tim Fredricks 53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

striking out sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your sister reading the poetry is completely irrelevant to establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe Celia Berrell is a notable poet. She has a very broad audience from school children in Australia, Canada and Ireland through their English textbooks and the CSIRO Scientriffic magazine, as well as being endorsed higher education institutions in Australia and elsewhere. Then there is the web audience, which just keeps growing because her work is educative and enjoyable. I've learned a lot from her poems, so I am happy to keep adding to her site as I find more references. Joan Silver (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Joan SilverJoan Silver (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC) — Joan Silver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

striking out sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janine_Thompson. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several references to the Celia Berrell page which I feel will be of interest to readers and users of Wikipedia, as well as support her work as a valued poet and notable with educators and the public. Thank you. Joan Silver (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Joan SilverJoan Silver (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is now a sock puppetry investigation for all the single purpose editors who have swarmed this AfD. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janine Thompson. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. I am the original author of the article. I've rolled the active version back to what I believe to be the the last version that was properly verifiable (April 2013). This version was approved for publishing and edited for proper formatting by other Wikipedia contributors and editors. IMAGinES (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:AUTHOR. no major awards and the coverage is not in depth. The swarming of several sock puppets is a clear indication of conflict of interest here. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Is not notable. Page has been heavily edited by socks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneWilde (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G3 by Bbb23. (NAC) ///EuroCarGT 05:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry N.G. Phillips[edit]

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

Harry N G Phillips (apparently born 1999 [1]) has, according to the article, starred in three of the biggest West End productions, a major film, and has released an album. Such a person would be easy to find online but in fact all I can find is a few social media sites where someone of this name is commenting on such things. It appears to be a hoax. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete hoax - no mentions found in expected places Deunanknute (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inarguably a hoax. Does not appear on the full cast and crew lists of World War Z, and the West End claims are implausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 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 Religion in Denmark. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irreligion in Denmark[edit]

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

No need for this article because we have the Religion in Denmark article and this article is very short. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Religion in Denmark, where the basic ideas here are already discussed in more context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Religion in Denmark until such time as a genuine article can be written. It appears from the template at the bottom of this article (an "Irreligion in Europe" navbox based on the general Template:Europe topic) that someone or someones is trying to build a real category of articles relating to athiesm and irreligion as distinct topics. I can see some merit to this as there's always been a questionable logic to only discussing those subjects directly under topics of their antithesis, and I see at least one link (to Irreligion in the United Kingdom) is well fleshed out and cited. Unfortunately this article isn't an article yet, and the category as a whole isn't a category yet, so much so that the navbox title of "Irreligion in Europe" redirects to...a subsection of the article Religion in Europe. -Markeer 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Religion in Denmark as per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mostyn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person, relying entirely on primary sources with the exception of one article in a reliable source, of a person who, by virtue of a "change of title" technicality, just barely escapes being speediable as a straight WP:G4 — except for that one change of title within an organization that he was already involved with last time, the actual content of the article, and the quality of the sourcing provided to support it, are still substantively the same as before. Three of the four sources here are his own LinkedIn profile, a press release on the website of the organization he works for, and a raw table of election results for his unsuccessful political candidacies — and the one acceptable source here, #1, is not enough coverage to qualify him for an article by itself. Being the CEO of an organization is not a notability freebie if the sourcing for it is this limited, and being an unsuccessful candidate for election to political office is not a valid claim of notability at all — but a Google search confirms that the coverage with his name in it is almost entirely of the "namechecking his existence" variety, with not even close to enough of the "substantively about him" kind of coverage to claim WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a significant organization. Down Kitty (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"CEO of a significant organization" is not a notability freebie on Wikipedia — a CEO of an organization, regardless of its significance or lack thereof, only gets a standalone article on Wikipedia if you can reliably source him over WP:GNG as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines let alone WP guidelines for Politicians.Orasis (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like this subject continues to get recreated. Discussions have noted the he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. I agree w/ Bearcat that anything in search just defines who he is and contains his comments on other topics. Not sure about the G4 aspect, but doesn't look notable to me. Jppcap (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah[edit]

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

No significant works what so ever. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Advertisement type news article in Ittefaq about this article. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 16:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is look like a 'personal branded' web portfolio. This page should be quickly remove from Wiki, already some of Bangladeshi Newspaper publish news on this page. Funny!--Aashaa (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the horrible English in the article, almost none of the sources are reliable. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the news sources used in the article are unreliable and probably paid/affliated news. Such associated sources preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Also the news link provided by Ibrahim Husain proves that the Ittefaq (the only considerable and reliable source) has close association with the subject and because of this, we can't consider the source as reliable. Hence I am suggesting deletion of the article. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – No doubt about here; this person is a media personality's of Bangladesh. Working with Radio Today since 2010 as a Radio Jockey. Beside his radio jockey career he is also a writer and actor. But nom. said that No significant works what so ever and Advertisement type. So, article not actually advertisement based; just following the wiki rule. Including 14 different newspaper link reference; not only Ittefaq. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 08:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
~~Delete~~-Musa may you search my name at Google, you could get 100+ newspaper links on me (Prothom Alo, Daily Star, Kaler Kantho is there!), and also find news of ATN News, Maasranga, Jamuna Television about me! I would request you just create a new article on me! You also find me at IMDB!--Aashaa (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – Dear Aashaa; you are not Important or popular person at all. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 12:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Thats the thing, neither Aashaa nor Salman is important or popular person at all. How can we measure popularity of Salman? What have he done for society or any particular field? Is he a media personality? He wrote two mediocre books (probably self published) and acted side role in two dramas. So whats make him notable? Did anyone knows how many FM radio in Bangladesh? Its 13 radio channels. So how many rjs are working over four years at the radio? Is it make him notable?? According to wiki policy, he is not notable. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rj salman is notable among radio jocky's in bangladesh. Ferdous (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Ferdous: That's not a way for reaching a consensus. Deletion discussion is not a vote or polling. Explain your point with logic. Why the subject is notable among the other RJs? Or why other RJs are not notable? - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His official Facebook fan page already had gotten 151,952 liked and also verified from the Facebook authority. Don't you know Mr. Rahat who are verified from the Facebook authority? This is the biggest verified fan page in the radio industry of Bangladesh. He got Best RJ award from Bangladesh Cultural Academy in the year 2012 and in the year 2013 by the survey of Neilson Bangladeh (an international rating company). He is also The managing director of Campus Radio Bangladesh. Isn't it notable? — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 07:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No matters how many likes he got. Facebook even verifies less-notable persons. Facebook verified the page of Rashel Kabir, keyboardist of Shironamhin. His Facebook page has only 2,700 likes. I can't even find any news article about him in Google search. Facebook has also verified some nonsense pages of dog and other animals. I have tried hard to find some independent sources (The ittefaq article is not independent at all) to add citation for his Neilson award achievement, but failed to find any. I also failed to find any information about the award from the cultural academy. The only thing we have is the affliated promo interview of Ittefaq. I will change my vote to keep if you can provide some reliable source other than the Ittefaq article so that we can verify his awards.- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 08:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Musa, a lot of new thoughts may be we wikipedians learn from you. Hasive Bhai is much more famous then RJ Salman, Facebook Celebrity Arif R Hossain, Sedative Hyptonics have to be article at Wikipedia. Kudos to Musa!--Aashaa (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue at hand here is not popularity or fame, it is the very strict concept of notability as defined at Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires that the subject of an article has been the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in independent media, so that we have unbiased source material from which to build the Wikipedia article. In the absence of such source material, the subject's popularity is irrelevant. If we have no material from which to build an article, then we cannot have the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 12:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. No significant coverage, does not pass GNG nor ENT. I'm not sure why are we still discussing this. I want my Wikipedia article, GIMME GIMME GIMME wa wa. – nafSadh did say 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the others advocating delete. In addition, I need to point out that disc jockeys or radio jockeys are almost never considered notable just for their work, unless they become nationally or internationally famous. We have deleted many articles of local or even regionally known DJs. Bearian (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milstein Family Foundation[edit]

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

This article has been deleted at least once in pretty much its current form, and the original editor User:Jewishsarah(User talk:Jewishsarah) was blocked for her persistence. I'm sure the Foundation does great work, and the Milsteins look like lovely people, but there is no real assertion of notability, its references do not meet the general notability guidelines, and the tone is promotional. I think the author needs to wait until there is serious press coverage of the foundation, demonstrating notability. ubiquity (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ubiquity. Please review, there is quite a bit of different information than what User:Jewishsarah(User talk:Jewishsarah) was publishing. There are sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Reuters, and The Times of Israel. Therowervz (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is Californian press coverage relating to the foundation but it appears to me to be all about one event. See [2], [3] and [4]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this article is unreferenced. Much of the rest is backed by citations to self published sources. There are some sources in third-party publications, but not enough to meet WP:GNG or pass WP:NORG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For this Foundation and its beneficiaries, the various third-party Jewish trade publications that are cited in this article are highly relevant to people that would be searching about this Foundation on the web. If you were to speak to any of the editors-in-chief at any of these publications they would confirm the authenticity and good works of the Foundation. Therowervz (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't supported, the reliable sources cited just mention it as tangential to something else, basically. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister and TungstenCarbide can you join the conversation here? I saw your comments on a different discussion about this page and would appreciate your support. Therowervz (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Therowervz: Calling on two blocked / banned users isn't going to help your case here much. And it could be perceived as WP:Canvassing, which is not allowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 I didn't realize they were blocked, I saw a post they made on another page about this foundation page having reliable sources and thought it would help if it was a part of this conversation. Therowervz (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 29 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 g11 self-promotion, a7 no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Populah da man[edit]

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

Consider CSD-A7 but some assertion of notability made in the article. However, but no reliable sources to back it up. The textual references are to WP:UGC. Appears to fail WP:GNG for a new artist. Record released on his "own independent record company" and "promises to release a debut album". WP:Crystal ball I have not. Gaff (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obvious self-promotion, see page creator's username Kges1901 (talk) 08:52, 30 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 01:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hoying (Pentatonix)[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Kaplan (Pentatonix) Wgolf (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - not enough content to support notability of subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete. Certainly qualifies as notability has in no way been established. Fylbecatulous talk 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. For the reason being notability issues as mentioned above. An article can be created when he has other activity outside of Pentatonix (and Superfruit which also has its own article and is sufficient enough) — Usfun8991 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- fails WP:GNG. Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability as an individual. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual notability isn't really there at the moment Cec2020 (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstie Maldonado (Pentatonix)[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Kaplan (Pentatonix) Wgolf (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - not enough content to support notability of subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. Certainly qualifies as notability has in no way been established. Fylbecatulous talk 18:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Group is notable but notability is not inherited. Meters (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No individual notability outside of Pentatonix. — Usfun8991 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability outside of group has not been established. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability as an individual. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Kaplan (Pentatonix)[edit]

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

Along with Kirstie Maldonado (Pentatonix) and Scott Hoying (Pentatonix) all of them link to the page for Pentatonix when you just leave there names off (Scott Hoying, Kirstie Maldonado and Avi Kaplan) what I'm saying is either these 3 should be userfied or deleted. (redirect be pointless as there main names are redirects) Wgolf (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - not enough content to support notability of subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with speedy delete. Certainly qualifies as notability has in no way been established. Fylbecatulous talk 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No individual notability outside of Pentatonix. — Usfun8991 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of putting a speedy on these but figured I bring this up. (as they all already link to that band) Wgolf (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability outside of group has not been established. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability as an individual. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:A11. Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury Goods Index[edit]

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

The Luxury Goods Index (aka Rolex Index) appears to be made up, possibly by the author User:Rolexindex; I have certainly found no evidence of this anywhere other than here and it appears to be non-notable. Standard & Poor's have a Luxury Goods Index so possibly this could redirect to the article but as there's no mention of it there I suggest we simply delete. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No mention of this index found, no mention found of the supposed inventor. Could even be a speedy delete on made up grounds. It is not the same as the Standard and Poor's index (which looks at companies producing luxury goods rather than countries likely to consume luxury goods) so it should not be a redirect to that article. Meters (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion A11 as made up, especially given that the user name is the same as one of the names given for the index. I'm inclined to think this is a new invention, so if we don't speedy delete, it should still be deleted as unreferenced original research. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 29 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) 02:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flash-It[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No reliable sources to prove the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product; fails WP:PRODUCT. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither claim of nor sign of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable product, poor promotional attempt Deunanknute (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced although overly detailed... Perhaps someone ought to put it up for FA status?.... –Davey2010^Talk 01:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who perhaps haven't yet realized .... I am joking!, Obvious Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, fails WP:N. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Panchal (MoP Ambassador India)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:Notability because there is no coverage of him, nor has he done anything particularly important. Also, the creator username indicates a possible COI. Kges1901 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable Deunanknute (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Also it reads kinda WP:PROMO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:44, 30 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Newman[edit]

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

Non-notable sexy lady. damiens.rf 18:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can you please stop with the "sexy lady" comments ?, Once in a blue moon is generally fine but every AFD is not, Please keep the comments to yourself, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has appeared in lots of movies and TV shows, but none seem to be notable. I have not clue if her roles in these were major or minor, but either way she does not seem to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce Recovery[edit]

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

This is an Original research essay that explains how Divorce ties in to the Five stages of grief. It doesn't appear to me to be noteworthy enough for an independent article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - as presented, most of it is unsourced, some of what is sourced is mis-sourced (such as sourcing the opening sentence to a dictionary def of "recovery", so it appears to be a WP:OR essay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. ~~Keep~~ – It does read like an essay, but it's not OR. The connection to the 5 stages is obvious and was made back in 1988 by the Rosenstock book, which is cited in the article, and repeated since then by divorce counselors. In fact a large part of the article is a word-for-word copy or close paraphrase of Neumann, who is also cited. So if anything there are copyright issues. It needs a new lead that describes the content better. It should probably also be renamed something like "Five stages of divorce recovery". But if that was done I think it's a well-defined topic that could have an article. The copyvio parts will have to be removed, which may leave some sections as stubs, perhaps just the title of the stage. They would have to be filled in later. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the parts that I didn't strike out as copyvio are basically copyvio of this source (and it also looks like the sourcing may have just been copied from there, rather than checked directly, which is a no-no.) Strike what's there, and we're basically left with an opening sentence, sourced to a dictionary definition that doesn't cover it, on a page that would have to be moved anyway due to Improper Title Capitalization. This is not to say that an article on this topic could not arise under a similar title and be acceptable, but as it stands, it's looking pretty WP:G12 to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Well, that was drastic. I guess anyone who wants to know what article we are talking about will now have to look at the history. Unfortunately this is a problem with new editors – they think that citing sources means copying them. If we are going to say that copyrighted material must not exist on Wikipedia, which is the policy, then I guess delete is the only option. But this is the wrong forum for that. This article should have been reported to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Here our job is to decide whether a properly sourced article could be written, and we both seem to agree that it could. I would suggest that the best course, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (2nd bullet point from the top) might be to withdraw this nomination and report the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting the portions that are clear violations of copyright is not "drastic", it's what WP:COPYVIO calls for ("If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known."), although in this case I carried the information about the source of the violations in the edit summary rather than the discussion page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - it's referenced enough to be notable, but the article does need a total rewrite Deunanknute (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of African Traffic Signs[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user and have the same issues regarding lack of information.

The article contains no sources or references and currently uses road sign files from other countries than those they are being used to represent. I do not believe there is currently enough information on the subject at this time to warrant such an article, unlike Comparison of European road signs which is fully sourced and documented. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~- the information may be tough to find, but it is out there Deunanknute (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is zero information. I may re-create this article in a few months once I have uploaded the road signs for SADC, a block of about 15 African countries, but currently these 3 articles are nothing but speculation. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - I agree with Fry1989 here. This article lacks any relevant information, and seems to have been the grounds for an edit war between two (unregistered) users. Some of these users have made similar unsourced edits to Comparison of MUTCD-Influenced Traffic Signs, but that article is properly sourced, as is the European comparison. I think that some poorer African countries get surplus signage from their former colonial powers, or have based their signage on them (cf. Mauritius and the UK). If that is to be represented on Wikipedia, it should be sourced at the very least. Fry1989 actually took the time to upload the Mauritian version of those signs, and that's what's needed here. As it stands, though, this article and its past revisions appear to be largely speculative, except for the cases where Fry1989 uploaded the appropriate signage. Hence, my decision to delete. --Amateria1121 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - changed, if nobody's going to write it, and it was part of an edit war delete for now. Deunanknute (talk) 19:40, 30 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 moved to draft by CedrusLibani075 (talk · contribs)

Nabih Naamtallah Azzi[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The subject of local notoriety and legend / gossip, but no real notability. Sourced entirely to a private family website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cedrus Libani: — Preceding unsigned comment added by CedrusLibani075 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Page does in fact detail a culturally relevant person with regards to the history of Tabarja. This page involves aspects of local beliefs on the person, but does not stray so far as to declare the person mythical in any way. If there is anything in particular you want removed, feel free to actually edit the article. However, this person is important to the history of not only Tabarja, but also to all of the Kesrwan region. An industrialist who modernized the local infrastructure, connected the city to the first electrical grid in the country, and paved the old dirt roads seems worthy of mention.[reply]

More sources will be found, if the family website doesn't suit you then don't bother using the Kennedy family website or the Royal family website to source their articles. Also of note, I belong to the Nakouzi family, I'm not writing an article about a family member or for personal reasons. I am attempting to document the history of the area, and he is a big part of it.

Comment @CedrusLibani075: The articles on John F. Kennedy or the British Royal Family use websites dedicated to those families, but not exclusively. Those articles are well-sourced with reliable secondary sources as well. Should you be able to provide such reliable secondary sources about this subject, I would welcome them. And surely you can recognize the difference in significance between the President of the United States or the British Royal Family and the mayor of a town in Lebanon. It may well be that Azzi is significant in the history of Tabarja, but unless that significance extends beyond Tabarja, that still may not merit inclusion. Local notability is not the same as global notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to emphasize that I'm not approaching this on some unabashed emotional tantrum, I really do think this page has merit. I understand your point, however I have to respectfully disagree. Nabih Azzi is not only known in Tabarja, but throughout the Kesrwan region, which I mind you holds almost a quarter of Lebanon's Maronite population. Yes, I understand he doesn't make it into the history books, but that's because there are none in the region dedicated to the history of Kesrwan in recent times. This article is made with the intention of informing the public, not deceiving them. And quite frankly, it's not anyones place to determine if a single person who is important to one group but not another does not merit mention in what is suppossed to be the human encyclopedia.

Also, I was not referencing president Kennedy, I was referring to his father the industrialist. And yes, two large families who are noteworthy in their localities are worthy of comparison. The Azzi family hold the same status of the Khazen and Sursok families in the region, both of which hardly have verifiable references in their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CedrusLibani075 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unfortunate that the history of the Maronite population in Lebanon is ill-documented, but Wikipedia can't solve that problem. If there are no reliable sources, there are no reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 29 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Thompson[edit]

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

No external reliable sources. No claim about notability except having youtube account with a lot of folllowers. Darx9url (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've found mentions of her here & there but that's it ... Sadly I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well a couple of sources have been found - Meh keep. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Laun chba ller 21:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article already links to a (short) biography at AllMusic[5] and a charting single[6]. Could do with some more sources to flesh the article out, but I think this just scrapes the bar at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 10:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Passes notability - as with all articles, it will take a bit of time to flesh out, update and source fully.Filastin (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No.2 hit in Germany. There her article is undisputed. Rather keep. --mmg (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmares (KGB album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Can't find a single mention of it online, including on KGB's own blog. Of the 3 references given, two are dead links, and the third makes no mention of the album. Probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested without comment by article's creator. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly Delete - possibly non-existent, certainly non-notable. Various parts of the article (such as the Metacritic score) are easy to verify as fiction. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it turns out that the artist's article is also a hoax: both articles were full of deadlinked references, and the working references had faked titles to hide the fact that they were about other people. There's no coverage of this artist in WP:RS online:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, no evidence there is a WP:NMUSIC-meeting entity here. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stinson Hunter[edit]

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

I don't believe that this person has lasting notability and is a case of BLP1E - his efforts to out peadophiles. Beyond that I don't believe he meets GNG beyond this one event. Potential COI as well - page created by a MrsXHunter Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known enough to be the subject of a recent documentary on national television. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the documentary itself makes him notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, the article in question is not adequately referenced — it relies solely on a single article in a gossip/entertainment/scandal tabloid, which is a class of publication that we do not accept as appropriate reliable sourcing for anything under any circumstances ever. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if the sourcing can be improved significantly, but no claim of notability ever entitles a person to keep an article that relies exclusively on one unacceptable source to support it. Delete unless proper sourcing can be located. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per documentary. seem to pass wp:gng.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page needs work for sure, reads semi-promotionally right now. Documentary notwithstanding, I'm seeing a lot of articles on subject in search. But this could be a case of WP:BLP1E possibly. For now, I think this page could use a thorough re-write using better sourcing and see where it stands. Jppcap (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for article deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1-propionyl-lysergic acid[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced. There does not appear to be references to it in the scientific literature. Google hits are essentially only online drug discussion forums. Therefore the article fails WP:V and WP:N (chemistry WikiProjects require that chemicals meet WP:GNG). The article title is also wrong and doesn't match article content. I'm not sure if that means the article is intended to be about something else, or if it's just a careless mistake, but that can be fixed if necessary. ChemNerd (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. PianoDan (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page has been moved to 1P-LSD, handling the mismatch between the article's title and the article's text. ChemNerd (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this chemical is not independently notable. There are literature references to derivatizing the 1-position, but nothing for this guy in particular. Cited sources are obviously unreliable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral though the article does not meet wikipedia's notability standards yet it is extremely likely that it will begin to make headlines in the next six months and I have no doubt that it will need re-creating in that time. Testem (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculation may turn out to be true (and I'm sure I can find an admin willing to undelete/userify if so), but the relevant guideline here would be WP:CRYSTAL, which suggests this is not a reason to keep the article. ChemNerd (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all references are bunk. Articles without a single reliable reference aren't worth keeping. It doesn't even read like an encyclopedic article. The introductory summary explains more about the current state of designer drugs than the chemical itself. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect LSD until it is more notable. Hajme (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, with the exception of Ambassador of Iceland to Azerbaijan, which wasn't AfD tagged and will need to be dealt with separately - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Azerbaijan. Michig (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not sure why someone has decided to make another sprawling series of ambassador articles, this time for non resident ambassadors who in some instances are located thousands of km away. Also nominating, (there are about 100 but nominating these first)

Deletion sorting
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Andorra-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbijan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahamas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If we keep one of these, we have to keep all 65536 possible articles about ambassadors from one country to another (since someone will cite whatever we keep as a precedent) , and 65536 articles that are each a few names and a slight description seems like a waste. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There is no notability with any of these ambassadors. Tavix | Talk 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a binary all or nothing? I am looking at Ambassador of Iceland to Australia and it is a standard list of the previous and current ambassadors of Iceland to Australia with the dates that they served. We already have articles on most of the ambassadors in Icelandic and some in English, so why is a list with their dates of service not a reasonable list? It appears to be a standard almanac entry. Almanacs are only useful if they are complete.

they are all non resident ambassadors, they may have visited Australia once to present their credentials, but there is no coverage of actual work done as a non resident ambassador of Australia. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the current non resident ambassador to Australia, is the same as the non resident ambassador to Croatia! Which might show how relevant this post is. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

even better the current non resident ambassador to australia is based in Germany!! That might show how notable the ambassador posting in Australia is. I wonder if he has actually visited Australia? LibStar (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's not an all or nothing thing, but there has to be a standard between notable and non-notable ambassadorial relationships. For me, I believe that litmus test is whether or not there is an embassy (and I'm sure there are exceptions). If a country x has an embassy in country y, there should be significant (and thus notable) relations. None of these fit that description, which makes them non-notable. Tavix | Talk 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - we're not even talking about potentially-notable X-X relations articles - there are offices, titles and plaques on walls. The relations between countries here are, really, irrelevant - we would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for the office itself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

given that what I've nominated is non resident ambassadors, in almost all cases, there is zero coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Per nominator and other supporters. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:44, 31 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. Michig (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mad TV recurring characters[edit]

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

Mostly trivia and fails WP:NOTABILITY in my opinion. Needless clutter that is beyond cleanup. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically this is fancruft, and also "per nom". Drmies (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Comment my default attitude would be Delete just because I don't see a single citation at the bottom of the article, and leave it there. But at the risk of plunging into an Other Stuff Exists debate, I should mention there's an extensive collection of articles regarding recurring characters and sketches related to Saturday Night Live (big example here). It strikes me as this is very much an apples-to-apples comparison. I assume the editors who spun off the SNL pages (and there are many of them) created sub-pages for brevity on the main page, combined with a notability justification based on the show itself. I mention this because...MadTV has an article that is clearly about a notable subject, and this sub looks like a spinoff that probably happened for the same reason. This needs inline citations, this needs links to article about the recurring characters, this needs footnotes about the show...no question of any of that. But I don't think this is a deletion without some conversation about whether sketch comedy shows as a whole should have subpages about content details. -Markeer 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to have a conversation about this here, I'd just like to weigh in: I think the List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches article (and all its subpages) should be deleted also, and would be happy to nominate it for AfD with consensus. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think the relevant criteria would be: Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists which says that the list has to be notable on its own. There is plenty written about Stuart or other Mad TV characters but the only thing I could find on the characters as a group were fan sites and no refs in the article so I think it is clearly a delete. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:50, 31 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 10:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movies.io[edit]

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

This article has been online since 2012 and has seen nothing in the way of improvement. A Google search turns up little to affirm its notability, as per WP:WEB requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has no sources, and I found no reliable sources on the Web either. Searching on Wikipedia offers little that would de-orphan the article, so I don't think it can really go anywhere that has a hope of salvaging it. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam and Questia searches turned up nothing, so it is down to the handful of reviews from the Google search. While complimentary, these are effectively new product reviews; I think they fall short of the in-depth coverage needed for WP:WEBCRIT. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me - Found nothing, No evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010^Talk 15:10, 29 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia_Ugolini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lydia Ugolini

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Her books are poorly represented in her own country and vanity published by her niece in English. In addition, most of the sources cited are unreliable, and an exhaustive search in both Italian and English turned up no other sources. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the image and some sources are based on her father's fame; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Ping me if you think you can convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearian. Some of the biggest claims regarding her popularity and notability are either unsourced or the source is a dead link, like the two for her works being "required reading" in schools. I'd vote keep if there was better sourcing for these claims. INeverCry 06:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her books are included in only a handful of libraries in Italy, according to the library search used as a reference in the article. With that poor a representation, I doubt there's any sourcing to be found for the claims. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a wikinewbie not sure if this info is relevent - found a blog site that lists books about dachshunds, The Story Of A Rich Dog and A Poor Dog is one (maybe a wikipaedian who loves dachshunds could start an article on this);^[1] and isbn search comes up with lots of web sellers of the title.^[2] Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Dachshund Books". www.doxielovers.com. doxie lovers club. 2015. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
^ "The Story of a Rich Dog and a Poor Dog (illustrated edition)". www.isbns.net. isbns.net. Retrieved 5 February 2015.

Thanks for the info, but inclusion on that particular list doesn't make the book notable, and neither does the number of sellers. (It's easy to get hundreds of sellers just by signing up with the right service.) If you're interested in what makes a book notable, take a look at WP:NBOOK. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for article deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transdimensional mathematics[edit]

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

OR. Hard to follow but seems to consist of some odd assertions about dimension. The main source mentioned on the talk page seems no better, a very poorly written synthesis, available from Scientific Research Publishing which does seem like a reputable publisher. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this is original research in the Wikipedia sense, but it also falls far short of our retention policies. This article is essentially the work of (arguably fringe) independent economist Bhekuzulu Khumalo. Neither Khumalo nor his work have received any attention in reliable third-party sources. So far as I can determine, none of the papers listed have been cited by anyone other subsequent self-citation by Khumalo, and none are in what could even be charitably described as influential journals (International Advances in Economic Research is probably the best of them, but his publication there is a "Research Note", which in that title is sort of a step above a Letter to the Editor; on the other end of the scale, Global Journal of Mathematical Sciences: Theory and Practical is considered predatory by Jeffrey Beall). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. are we saying one must be published by a Western journal, this is merely a man's foresight that at higher dimensions the derivative falls going to 0 at infinite dimensions and that integral increases being infinite dimensions, if your reputable people could not see that, whose fault is that. This world is not English, is Wikipedia for English speakers only, it requires far more thought to take something from one Language into English, what is so frightening about the fact that the derivative falls and integral rises because your reputable people did not see that link, we have to grow up, see around, people speak thousands of languages, fringe, well if the not fringe people could not see simple fact that at infinite dimensions derivative is zero and integral is infinite, ask yourself why they are not fringe, numbers do not lie, delete if you will, but the numbers and logic has followed, if you can not understand the logic, blame yourself not the person who discovered the conceptsInkanyamba (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid those mathematical assertions make no more sense here than in the article. "the derivative". What derivative?; there are as many as there are functions, i.e. an infinite number, even in just one dimension. Such vague and meaningless assertions are worthless. It is not our fault if the article is so poorly written it makes no mathematical sense. Other than that we have already commented on the sources; yes, some sources are much better than others. It's not a matter of nationalism; if anything there are more Western fringe sources than foreign ones. But the main sources here are not reliable ones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is variously incomprehensible or promotional ("Needing to think like outside the box like Einstein"?), and the sources look like a real-life walled garden of dubious fringe scholarship. I don't think improving the English is going to help. If "this triangle could very well be known as khumalo triangle one day", come back then when there are reliable independent sources to cite. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete per WP:OR. Also because it's gibberish. PianoDan (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is so confusing about stating simply that at higher dimensions the derivative tends towards zero and integral towards infinity and adjustments must be made accordingly, what is your scientific reasoning for refusing, none, not one human can fight a scientific truth. Fringe, obviously, what man will promote original thought from another, Sterling the ex owner of LA Cavaliers basketball team said it right, then he was hated, you promote your own, why should a French, AngloSaxon, Jew, German ever promote black original thought, never, the refusal of the concept of the individual is being refused replaced by this what we have, bad system, evil minds, blacks aligned with keeping image of owners of media as superior are only ones who will be promoted, especially when it comes to science. One would have thought Wikipedia was above that, an encyclopedia dealing with facts. Well world will wait patiently for Chinese or Indians to hopefully start encyclopedias of their own, after all papers where edited probably by Chinese and Indians. Reality of this world. Everything boils down to simply money. Please don't delete this conversation. If ever a white ever mentions that rate of change decreases with dimensions and integral increases with dimensions, it just means nothing but racism has taken place today just like 200 years ago, never must a white man from his non fringe institutions say anything similar to definition of transdimensional mathematics. Unfortunately you will find it difficult to study dimensions without accepting that fact. Enjoy your money, delete it, but this conversation must stay, you are saying if somebody sitting in a tropical rain forest discovers something it does not count as they are fringe, scientific thought does not work like that, it merely works on something is true or false, the principles are getting more complex, you will realize too late, its just knowledge for all to share and contribute and enjoy. Now we will have unnecessary duplication in technology for the same result, trillions down the drain because we could not understand liberty is greatest collaborator Inkanyamba (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkanyamba: Wikipedia's goal is for verifiability NOT truth. Verifiability is vital for keeping Wikipedia factual, if we just included any assumed truth without verifiable references it would be a mess. So in fact, this is very similar to the scientific method of which you are so fond. In science, something must be verifiable by being repeated by many different people before it is accepted by the scientific community. Something your original research has failed to do at this point.

Redirect to Dimension which is what I originally did with this rubbish, but was reverted. For the record Transdimensional already redirects to Dimension, as should this. All the multi-dimensional mathematics are described in the article. This article has no references and is WP:OR. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect, as some of the comprehensible stuff is wrong. This does not need to be on Wikipedia, anywhere. MicroPaLeo (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR gibberish, bordering on WP:Patent nonsense. -- 120.23.61.107 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited much needed compromise if that is the idea of consensus, left it as bare as possible, but very boring, it will grow with the knowledge increases, most original thought has always originated from the fringes, this is a scientific principle, that is all it will ever be, remember most just promote from their community, Bhekuzulu is not your community, his community must promote his works, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all this is stating a theorem like any other theorems that a full on Wikipedia, , .Inkanyamba (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, for Wikipedia, inclusion requires sources independent of the original author(s). Here, the only person who appears to have considered this topic is Khumalo. So Khumalo's journal publications do not demonstrate notability (again, in the Wikipedia sense). We would need evidence of other, independent writers discussing or critiquing these ideas, in reliable sources (which many journals are, including many non-Western journals, but not things like OMICS and RIP journals). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would help if you wrote in Standard English, complete sentences, fully developed thoughts. You do not even start the article with a sentence. Why not? It appears to be a bunch of thoughts, not necessarily related to the topic and tangential phrases thrown into a page. No one could decide to include what exists now as an article when there is no discernible topic and it is without sources. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly OR, possibly patent nonsense too. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear (series 11)[edit]

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

I'm not sure where to begin with this. First, this is non-notable, without significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Second, this entire page seems like a walking advertisement, the format is very abnormal, and the lead is gone because I took it out as a copyvio. I'm sure there are lots more copyvios on this page, I simply don't have time to look for them right now. Cheers. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 04:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first, I don't think that's copyvio at all - I think the website in question copied its text from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Note it is in exactly the same format as Top Gear (series 10) and Top Gear (series 12) on either side (and every one of the other 21 articles, for a total of 22). All are formatted the same way and it doesn't seem particularly abnormal. Such season-by-season articles are commonplace for highly rated notable television shows, fiction, non-fiction and otherwise. I see no reason to randomly delete one right in the middle. I'll restore the lede (issues with which could be resolved without blanking anyway) until it can be demonstrated that it is an actual copyvio. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111 - Episode guides like these can't generally be well sourced, You have to make do with what you have which with these aren't alot, Also if we delete this we may aswell delete the lot which IMHO as an encyclopedia is a pretty stupid idea, Also it's obvious this site had copied the lead from here, Anyway not really seeing any valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep-as said above the fact that it is a episode guide.Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 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. Withdrawn by nom with no comments in favor of non-keep. (non-admin closure) --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 21:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aromal Chekaver[edit]

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

Non-notable. Notability is not established in the two sources given- the first one of which doesn't even mention "Aromal Chekaver", the second one a few passing mentions- and I could not find other decent sources. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 03:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing- consensus is clear to keep the article. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular folk hero of Vadakkan Pattukal ballads. The first reference [7] spells his last name as "Chevaker" pp. 341-4. [8], [9] (says featured in number of films and part of ballad tradition), [10] (says celebrated in ballads), [11]Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ugly as this article is, there are plenty of other books that talk about this literary character. WP:NFICT doesn't help but I think the subject might be notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Subject meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Here are the sources, -[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. The required criteria is "sources must exist" not that they are "available right about now". All sources I have list in my this comment was found doing simple Google Books search. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is only a stub, but we are talking about ballads (plural). If we were talking about characters in a film, I would want to see it merged back to the film: my rule being one franchise one article. However that is not applicable here. I am worried by "not true" at the end of the text: I assume this means "contrary to the traditional story". As I am no expert, I am declining to alter it myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 31 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. I'm closing early since the outcome's obvious - (Lixxx235 Please be careful when blanking copyvios especially when they're not copyvios at all) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Hardline[edit]

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

Proposing for deletion. I'm sincerely puzzled over what to do here. I just basically blanked the entire article for being a copyvio from several sources, so G12 doesn't really apply, but there can't just be a blank article sitting there. Cheers, --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i wrote a portion of this article so i don't see how its a copyvio, maybe the places you pointed out as a copyvio copied from here? RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. If it is too empty after cleaning out copyvio, then just write something back in (part of WP:BEFORE). I can and have just written a bit with one of the linked sources, even though I admit being very uninitiated in FPS. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "copyvios" you've removed are obviously copied from here, not the other way around. You can look at the page history and see it develop over time. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored the deleted material. The only genuine copyvios appear to be descriptions of two gametypes that were added in this revision. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh I'm OK with my placeholder replaced back with legit content. And a self-written replacement for the removed mode description before I see myself out. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's crystal clear that both blogs are copied from Wikipedia in the first place. This one from June has the same layout, but without section headings or refs, while this one from December even uses internal wikilinks! --Soetermans. T / C 15:00, 29 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) 02:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Tate-Brown[edit]

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

non notable person per WP:BIO Deunanknute (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Can also fall under either WP:VICTIM or WP:PERP (undetermined which is valid at this time).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The only thing that approaches notability is him being involved in a non-notable event. Acebulf (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novanet[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable software company. I am unable to find any sources that cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 02:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC) - Mr X 02:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried cleaning up the worst of the marketing and copyvio, but couldn't find any significant coverage of the company or its products in WP:RS online. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 30 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. Discussion regarding a page move can continue on the article talk page, if desired. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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

This article is entirely based on a specific incident which is already covered. Furthermore, the alleged fact that this airstrike is some kind of Israeli "involvement" in the Syrian civil war is original research and POV. Ashurbanippal (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was true when the article was a stub. Though much has changed. Since this discussion was started, the article has been expanded to include many different involvements. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is false. The fact Israel is involved in airstrikes in Syria is the definition of involvement. One can argue the magnitude of involvement but it is foolish (or political agenda pushing) to deny they are involved. The article has several references even though it is very new. The motivation for deletion appears to be strongly motivated by a political agenda. It appears to be a relevant, notable and well referenced article. KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.9.4 (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel hasn't been involved in the internal conflict of Syria, it only intervenes when it considers that Hezbollah is preparing attacks against its territory. Otherwise it says neutral in the civil war and doesn't support either side. Besides, even if Israel were indeed helping the opposition or the government, one single incident with its own article doesn't justify an entire different article about the same thing.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created the article is that 1) bombing a country that's in the middle of a civil war in an intervention in that civil war, 2)Hezbullah is a combatant in the civil war and so is Iran. There has been both sniping and bombing on the border (I know, not everyone agrees that it IS a de jure border, but it's sure as hell a de facto one). I remember all the arguments about what to do with the blitzkreig in Iraq a year ago. We need a page where everything on a topic comes together. This is it.Ericl (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I struggle to see this as anything but a POVFORK of January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident. Sources do not appear to describe these tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Hezbollah in the Golan Heights as "Israeli intervention" in the war. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion has alleviated most of my concerns about this being a POV fork, but I agree with Ism schism below; "intervention" carries POV concerns that do not appear to be explicitly mirrored in the sources, so I would suggest a rename to Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War if this is retained. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Israel Involvement in the Syrian Civil War. The article began a a stub, but has been expanded to include many facits of involvement. The subject is clearly notable, and scholarly resources exist to edify the article properly. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The renaming sounds like a good idea but it could fail. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources exist about Israel's involvement in the Syrian Civil War as well as the impact of the war on Israel. In addition, the article covers far more than just a single bombing campaign, so I don't believe that forking is an issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panyapharmed[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Company claims to be one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Iran, but the cited source does not support that claim. Otherwise a company of no real note. Search for sources reveals almost nothing outside of social media, directory listings and stats sites. Search for the company name in Persian (using machine translation) is equally unilluminating; accepting that I don't read Persian. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Nothing significant found from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Serlo[edit]

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

Every reference is a press release--apparently the same press release, published in various trade journals and one newspaper. The references were written in such a way as to obscure the actual source of the material. Promotional bio, violating NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albeit a weak keep at first. Though about half the sources are about Serlo's death, SPT and journal sources are decent profiles. I'm seeing some other material in search pre death from Bizjournals and multiple articles in CU Times, not sure why those aren't on the page. This could use a moderate cut down, but could be cleaned up/better sourced. Jppcap (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Liga Indonesia Second Division. Only one weak keep argument, the rest favour deletion or redirect. No arguments against the suggestion to redirect, so that's what we'll go with. Michig (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangli Rangers F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG.No source. Yogwi21^talk 13:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable club. Fails GNG. ƬheStrike Σagle 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Although the club plays in the fourth tier, the source provided apparently indicates this is still a national level league, so the club pass WP:FOOTYN. We have thousands of other articles for clubs at comparable levels or lower so I'm happy for this to stay unless someone can prove that the now dead link is wrong. Fenix down (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga Indonesia Second Division; not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the same article for the same reason as GS provided. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cititrust[edit]

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

Either this is a very shady company, or it's simply not notable. Searching for "Cititrust" on GBooks turns up lots of mentions of a Cititrust in the Bahamas that helps companies with tax evasion by setting up shell firms, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if that is the same company or not.

Note that the current name of the company, according to its website, is "Cititrust International" (which turns up few unaffiliated web hits), and I only searched English-language sources. Maybe better sources are available in Spanish or other languages. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if you found something, I strongly suspect it would fail WP:CORP anyway. Pax 02:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm simply not finding the reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, I'm confused as to which Cititrust. I'm seeing some passing mentions international or either way, at most small pieces in Reuters and Bloomberg. Again, not sure if this is the same company though. Page currently reads like promo and spammy as well. Jppcap (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ritmoteca.com. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan J. Parron[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable; only cited source comes from PRNewsWire, which I don't believe would be considered a reliable source. Google check and Highbeam check turns up no other sources. Article is vaguely (and occasionally not-so-vaguely) promotional in tone; I stripped out several external links from the body of the article as well as a long, context-less set of links at the bottom. Article has existed since 2011, but that seems more to do with just not having been noticed in that span of time than anything else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; and redirect to Ritmoteca.com. No basis for notability, independent from that company (assuming that the company is notable, which may be a dubious proposition itself). Even the press release is only that 15 years ago he got an award from his alumni association, which is no big deal. TJRC (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually just about to redirect Ritmoteca.com here as an alternative to speedy deleting it as excessively promotional. —Cryptic 21:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ritmoteca.com per arguments above. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kane (mathematician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel Kane (mathematician)

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

Dude might have potential, but he hasn't proved anything important; not a very well-cited scholar according to Google Scholar, and getting over a 700 in math on SAT in fifth grade does not a notable person make Catarago (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a link for his Google scholar citation counts; he doesn't seem to have a profile there. Note that half of his work is in mathematics, which is a low-citation subject, so the CS half of his work is overrepresented in the search results. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We normally don't keep articles on academics based mostly on their undergraduate or earlier accomplishments, but there have been exceptions (Arthur Rubin comes to mind as one) and Kane's record of achievement in top-level contests is very exceptional. It also looks like he's on-track to a good academic career, although it may be a bit too soon to have accumulated enough notability for that aspect of his life. As I hinted above, the CS publications can probably be judged fairly enough on their citation record and best-paper award record (the article doesn't mention it but he also has a 2005 Machtey Award, essentially a best student paper award), but that's problematic for the math publications because of the low citation rate in that field. I think that the quotes from the Morgan award citation are more telling there: "“Daniel’s first paper improves on a famous Annals of Mathematics paper by Paul Erdős" (Annals is arguably the best journal in mathematics, and Erdős one of the top mathematicians of the 20th century), and (in a paper written as a high schooler) "He proved an open conjecture stated by a well-known number theorist several years before". They match my impression of the CS side: a little early, but already strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 15 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, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable prodigy, but this might be a case of too soon? 'Weak keep per Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His GS profile gives a h-index of 12 (which is too low for WP:PROF), while his younger accomplishments have not attracted the kind of national press coverage that, for example, Michael Viscardi has received. Some of the things listed in the article (e.g. "He won a Best Paper award at the 2010 Symposium on Principals of Database Systems (PODS)") are utterly ordinary. -- 120.23.11.150 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. While generally true that student awards are not considered under WP:PROF, there are exceptions to this at the highest levels (Arthur Rubin being the obvious one, but possibly also Reid Barton and Gabriel Drew Carroll, though I don't think either of those make particularly good test cases for a precedent). If we had to codify our de facto best practice in the matter, it would be: four time Putnam fellows are ipso facto notable. I don't think we should necessarily put that into policy, but it's still useful as a litmus test. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and a few reliable sources do mention him in detail. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find the suggestion of Sławomir Biały, that a 4-time Putnam winner is more or less, well, ANYBIO #1, compelling. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Clear majority in favour of keeping. There is some support for a merge, and that can be progressed on the article's talk page if desired. Michig (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. I removed one reference which was a post by Kota which didn't even mention ACTE. Most of the rest of the references are primary sources; Kota's own university faculty pages, and a publicity piece by NASA. Yes, they test flew his idea, but they test fly lots of stuff and a test flight doesn't make it notable. I didn't evaluate the Fox News reference beyond noting it was Fox News and dismissing it for that reason.

I can't find anyplace that supports the claim of 12% fuel savings; the only mention is in the Times of India article, which is a short local boy makes good human-interest article about Kota and only cites unnamed aeronautical experts worldwide.

I know this made the front page under DYK, but that just makes me wonder about the quality of the DYK review process.

Note: the first AfD was closed procedurally with no bias either way, so re-nominating for a fresh debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times of India bio is admittedly not great. The Fox News article that the nominator dismissed out of hand needed no such dismissal (regardless of one's political alignment, Fox News is generally a reliable source). The NASA press release is arguably not independent, and the university pages most certainly are not. Were that all there was to go on, I'd be more inclined to side with deletion. But they are not. There's discussion of the topic by Scientific American here and in one of their senior editor's WP:NEWSBLOGs here, Bloomberg Business (which even drew an illustration with a hilariously out-of-context Twilight Zone tribute), and Popular Science. There's room for editorial quibbling, I'm certain, about where we should have this information (at the current title, under the company name, under the company's product name, or in BLP format titled after the inventor responsible), but none of that is an issue for AFD to consider. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first SciAm item. It does not meet WP:GNG. We require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I agree that SciAm is generally a reliable source. But, this is not significant coverage, and it pushes the definition of independent. This is a short piece which reads like a press release for Kota's company. It briefly mentions three different projects. ACTE is only mentioned in the last paragraph, and not even by name. Two thirds of the space is devoted to a photograph and three videos credited to Kota. The 12% fuel savings is repeated here, this time as a statement attributed to Kota, and full of vague claims (could boost, as much as).

I also looked at the SciAm newsblog. This also strikes me as not significant coverage and not independent. It's a rehash of an article Kota wrote (In our May 2014 issue, Sridhar Kota [...] published an article, etc). It includes absurd puffery as, Kota and his collaborators at NASA and the U.S. Air Force say the test is an aviation first. Of course it was an aviation first. All test flights are aviation firsts. That's the point of test flights. That doesn't make it notable.

Then I look at the PopSci article. It features a YouTube video produced by Kota's company. It cites no sources other than quotes from Kota. Conclusion, it's another warmed-over press release.

In short, do we have sufficient references to be confident this exists? Yes. Is it notable? No. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is true that the claim of 12% fuel savings is dubious. The Bloomberg Business link given by Squeamish Ossifrage says "FlexSys says that its flap cuts fuel use by 4% to 12%", which is certainly more correct than the (IMO plain wrong) "aeronautical experts worldwide have said will bring down jet fuel costs by up to 12%" of the Times of India. Furthermore IMO the fule saving is calculated only when the flaps are used (basically at startup and landing), which is a tiny period compared to the whole flight. Newertheless it seams to me that the technology is interesting and it is better to ameliorate the article (making it less an ad for Mr. Kota) than to delete it.--Danh (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nascent technologies are worth keeping, and this one appears to have some promise. Even if it fails, lots of promising technologies fail for one reason or another and still qualify for inclusion. Let's give this a little time and see what happens. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Air Force found enough promise in the technology to actually build flight hardware to test it. Flight testing anything that significantly changes the aerodynamics of an aircraft is not trivial as it entails considerable time, money and even risk. This makes it notable in my view. The article itself, though, contains too much self-promotion. All mention of FlexSys Inc beyond being the system's supplier is superfluous. Also, since the tests are apparently still being conducted, the article is necessarily incomplete until the test results are in. However, aerodynamic structures that can flexibly adapt have been a continuing field of interest for years now, so Wikipedia should at least include a mention of the ACTE for those researching the field, and when the tests are complete the article can later be filled out with the results. Roarshocker (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notable and one of many hundreds of ideas that are tested, might be worth a few lines at Flap (aeronautics). MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. We've also got Adaptive compliant wing, which also suffers from a lack of good references. It has a number of refs, but they are mostly primary sources, just like this article (the AW&ST reference being the one exception). -- RoySmith (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to merge. --Danh (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge This seems notable to me. There are articles that discuss it. The "primary source" issue is always complicated when it comes to new technologies or new ideas in science. To make an analogy: if Wikipedia was around when Einstein first published his theory of relativity would we say it wasn't notable because it was only in "primary sources" i.e. the physics journals where he first published? I hope not. I don't know enough about aeronautics but my guess is this could be merged in with some other article on aircraft technology. Perhaps some expert could take a shot at that, but in any case I think it is notable and should be kept or merged. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cans[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. The article as it stands is terrible. But I think this might actually have some coverage, and I'm inclined to be a little permissive to counter systemic bias (to say that our articles on the cinema of Paraguay are incomplete is an understatement). First things first, if this is kept, it should almost certainly be moved to Latas Vacías. As for sourcing, this article from the Paraguayan National Secretariat of Culture discusses the film somewhat (although the awards it won are probably minor in the Wikipedia scale). This article has sort of a minimalist review (citing its popularity but not its quality), and at least according to my terrible Spanish skills, implies it had a domestic release in Paraguay. This one also suggests that a release was at least planned (it's an earlier article, so...) and gives some background on its production that would allow us to cite things like the film's language and budget. I presume there's more in Paraguayan media, most of which is simply not searchable online. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the name and I've changed the bulk of the article (sans the article name) to reflect on the name it's actually known under. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I ever supported deletion, but HEY, nice job Tokyogirl79! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: I'm finding quite a bit, but I am running into a little bit of trouble with the exact release date. It looks like an early version of the film was shown in 2013, but that the official release didn't happen until 2014. There is a lot more information at the Spanish language WP, which I'll try to incorporate. So far this is looking like a keep from my end, since there is quite a bit of coverage and there is a review, along with some awards. I'm not sure of all of them, but they look like they could potentially contribute to notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 28 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) 00:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY: [23]. Cavarrone 10:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per meeting WP:NF. Notable to Paraguay or in the Guaraní language is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia, as shown and exemplified by Tokyogirl79 and her due diligence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. I've also moved this to Latas Vacías since it looks very likely that it'll be kept and this is the most common name that the film is known under, to the point where coverage is almost exclusively under this name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Outdoor Living[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:CORP, unable to find reliable references Deunanknute (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some references--why do you think them unreliable? and where have you looked further? DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references are:

1. Company's website

2. small article in local paper

3. Paid Advertisement

4. article on pool demand

5. article on yardwork

6. nomination, no other info

7. Paid Advertisement

2, 4, and 5 may, or may not, be direct advertisements, but they come from sources that do carry significant advertisement for the company.

None of these reliably establishes notability, and I did not find other sources that did. Deunanknute (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. blow it away.

Looking at the sources Deunanknute may be wrong about 7 but is otherwise on the money. 3 states that it is an "advertising feature" at the top of the page. 2, 4, 5 and 7 read like press releases, I question whether they can be considered independent. Sources 2,3,4,5,7 can be found on their media page of their website.

This page is an advert. It's written in the preferred copy then sources are found that are partly relate but do not actually verify the claims made. Such deceptive sourcing shows the intent to promote.

Deceptively sourced advertisements should have no place on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above, deceptive use of sources to masquerade an advert as an article. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Object to a paper with over a 1/2 million subscribers all over southern Australia being described as a "local paper". It is totally beside the point how the sources were found for the article, as long as they are RS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the majority of the sources are not reliable as they are not independent of the subject eg advertising feature. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 30 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lastrit.es[edit]

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

No evidence of reliable, secondary coverage per WP:ORG, WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Blogger spotlight on haulix.com is not independent, as Haulix is a self-proclaimed promotional site that hosts promotional or self-generated content (e.g. press releases). Having over 7,000 reviews in and of itself does not demonstrate notability, unless independent sources testify to the significance of the website to the industry. Many mentions of the website are trivial mentions that focus on albums released rather than the website itself. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blog was named Metal Review (metalreview.com) for 12 years. This may account for the difficulty in finding 3rd party references since the blog/domain no longer exists and searching for "metal review" returns far too many irrelevant results. I disagree that the amount of original content doesn't demonstrate notability. I believe it does as it serves as an excellent resource for reviews of metal music albums since 2001. The fact that the editors receive dozens of legitimate promos for review each week from major labels (Metal Blade, Century Media, Profound Lore, Seasons of Mist, etc) shows that the "industry" thinks the blog is relevant. Complicatedgame (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 20:21, 28 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GRADES[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only released a few singles that didn't chart on the national charts. No references that go into any detail about him, except for the one in the article. That ref is an interview, so it doesn't count towards notability. Bgwhite (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:21, 28 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan athavale[edit]

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

Almost all sources are youtube videos that were self-published. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. A quick google search revealed there weren't any RS to support notability. ƬheStrike Σagle 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've replaced/added to the references with a number of better sources: CTV News; CBC News; Manitoba Music; The Winnipeg Sun; Global News; and Backbone. Hopefully these are more reliable sources and satisfy Wikipedia's criteria.

I did have one issue when adding content: Meghan's participation at the G20 summit is documented here: http://www.examiner - dot - com/article/g20-young-entrepreneur-summit-30-canadians-will-be-there but the dite is on Wikipedia's blacklist for some reason. I will try to find another source for it; there didn't seem to be anything spammy about the source, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroll (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be being primarily edited by user Acroll, who I suspect is the Alistair Croll mentioned in this article as having an undisclosed relationship with the subject: https://newmediamanitoba.com/events/276/how-not-to-fail-with-alistair-croll 50.72.165.184 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's me. Not sure about undisclosed (am I supposed to disclose that? Don't most people who write entries have some relationship to the subject?) since my username is my real name.

Meg is a fairly notable entrepreneur in the Canadian technology scene, and I believe the references are legitimate news sources, all reasonably independent. If the criteria for an entry are notability and independent references I believe Meghan, and her work on things like education, entrepreneurship, and interactive media are sufficiently notable and independently verified.

Do you need other information to make a decision on this subject? I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with many of the tools and policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroll (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do seem a bit spamy, but AFAICT are independent and reliable (newspaper articles, TV interviews). Most of the good ones were added after the AfD nom. That said, it feels like a paid-for bit of press (both our article and some of the sources). keep for now, but I'd suggest people involved read WP:COI and WP:SOCK Hobit (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (drone) @ 20:20, 28 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. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no arguments for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LinguaLeo[edit]

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

non notable WP:CORP Deunanknute (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator found more sources

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I came here thinking I might find a erroneous argument for deletion. So it is :( First of all, LinguaLeo is not a website, it's a language learning system, IOW, it's a complex of apps for English-learners. I suppose native speakers of English underestimate the notabily of LL because they are not a target group. But in Russia, Brazil and Turkey Lingualeo is very popular, especially in Russia (10M users). The service was gazed many times by Forbes, Vedomosti, Kommersant and [[RBC Information Systems[RBK]]. All references are well formated. Finally I may take o look at a big russian version of LL's article and its [24]. --Gruznov (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 20:15, 28 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) 07:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Not a notable title. Has no independent and verifiable coverage. User:Pidzz has created a redirect and then uses an IP to sock edits. Attempted to run an RfD for the re-direct but was advised that it wasn't appropriate. SPI can't be started as IP's are involved. Best solution to this one is delete the article and salt it to prevent a redirect from being inserted. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) @ 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable secondary coverage seems to be nonexistent.LM2000 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Ackerman[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:AUTHOR, book comes out in a month WP:BKCRYSTAL Deunanknute (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Deunanknute (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this AfD. As an author, his debut novel is starting to receive critical attention. He is notable under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I think we should also get someone to look at it in terms of WP:Soldier. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"starting to receive critical attention" is not notable. Under which part of WP:SOLDIER does he fall? I was unable to find any notable awards, contributions, or roles. Deunanknute (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Current article clearly needs significant cleanup regardless. Ackerman has certainly written (and spoken) for a lot of high profile media: The New Republic, The Daily Beast, The New Yorker, NPR, and so on. And, often, they are having him write about himself, which seems somehow substantively different than just being a columnist with a byline. But it's still not independent, third-party coverage of him. There are slight mentions in connection with his novel in Vanity Fair (here) and the Los Angeles Review of Books (here). The novel got a full review in Kirkus (here). Arguably, that speaks more to the book's notability than to Ackerman's, but given the entirety of the picture, I don't think it's entirely unacceptable to keep the author as the primary topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus will review books for pay [[25]], which questions its value as a notability indicator. Deunanknute (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Kirkus Reviews, Kirkus reviews remain evidence of notability unless they are in the review-for-pay Kirkus Indie program, which this one is not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as updated. Author has been extensively published in major publications in the recent few years and I have made a major edit to the entry to reflect that and other support for notability.Firstmilast (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the places you mentioned "He has been interviewed in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal and appeared on Charlie Rose, The Colbert Report, NPR's Talk of the Nation, Meet the Press, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Al Jazeera and PBS NewsHour among others.", and in nearly all of them he was interviewed because of his position as CEO of Americans Elect, not for any other, notable, reasons. Deunanknute (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the general notability guideline, it doesn't really matter why he was interviewed so extensively. National coverage is national coverage. In any case, the argument is not that he is notable because he is CEO, but because of the nature and breadth of the coverage he has received. Furthermore, there is additional coverage of the individual based on his service in Fallujah:

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) @ 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for his activities and for his already-notable novel (in additon to sources already mentioned, note (Michiko Kakutani's early praise in The New York Times [26]). At this point, WP:CRYSTAL isn't warranted and would be pointless. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:13, 29 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ig Publishing[edit]

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

non-notable, many published works are reprints Deunanknute (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - meets WP:CORPDEPTH

Keep. Notable publisher, despite awful sub-stub of an article. See, for example, Publishers Weekly's 10-year retrospective of the company,[27] and articles from both Publishers Weekly[28] and the Washington Post[29] about the Lizzie Skurnick Books imprint. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [30], [31], [32]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:27, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Marshall (headmaster)[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable academic, being only at secondary education level, and the article is cited entirely to primary sources. I turned down a CSD request as it might be possible to argue a merge / redirect for Carlton le Willows Academy, or there maybe old print sources that I can't find. In any case, worth the full AfD I think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I fail to understand how articles such as Tony Little (headmaster) meet guidelines; while this does not. Curlymanjaro 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.56.179 (talk) [reply]

I think the principal difference is that Tony Little was head of Eton College, which is several orders of magnitude more notable than Carlton le Willows Academy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He didn't "found" the school. He was its first headmaster. There is an enormous difference. School headteachers have a very high notability bar and he's nowhere near meeting it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to be overly contentious, I accept the lack of notability; but dispute the claim made regarding foundation. I have quoted from the Grammar school website, in an account made by his son: "To those of you who started at the school after 1957, this might seem a slightly odd request, but dad was the first (I suppose now, you’d say, founding, or foundation) head master when the school opened its doors in 1954. He therefore will have had more influence than anyone on its early development". -- Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:56, 01 Febuary 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he was the founding headmaster (that's just a posh way of saying "first"); he was not, however, the founder (which generally means he initiated the project or paid for it). -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no basis for an encyclopedia article here, and the sourcing is totally inadequate. --Michig (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. Apparently a matter for the copyright violation noticeboard and OTRS appear to be involved too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Foster (journalist)[edit]

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

~~The text of the article is copied from here. The author claims that it is a public domain source, but i don't see any evidence, Vanjagenije (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)~~ I withdraw my nomination. This is not a case for the AFD, this is a case for the copyright violation noticeboard. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IADDED A LINK

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Paul Fisher (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Nominator has withdrawn the AFD, therefore tag for AFD should be removed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article talk page says OTRS PENDING.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:49, 29 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Jehanneuf[edit]

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

per WP:GNG, cannot find any significant coverage on her. Also, doesn't appear to have significant roles or have a large fan base, so doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR either. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:12, 16 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) 22:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (remark) @ 20:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. BenLinus 1214^talk 03:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's a couple of books on her but I'm not seeing much evidence of notability..... –Davey2010^Talk 04:43, 29 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.