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. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kes Tokyo (musician)[edit]

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

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

There are no reliable sources to prove the notability of this subject. All the sources cited in the article are either self-published or just mention him in passing. Google News search returns no hits [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhbent/Archive Crow^Caw 00:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete immediately per WP:EVASION and close this AfD. SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhbent/Archive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator is either a sock of User:Mhbent or part of his circle and has registered an account to post this article originally created by Mhbent. Much of the content is identical. That means it should be speedily deleted per G5. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 7 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. After about three hours of reading sources - and reading the group itself, which I hadn't seen before, I've been trying to work out whether this Facebook group is indeed notable. That there are 30,000 members doesn't confer notability in itself (there are much larger groups), and it's not the first (or only) group which has existed to point out unusual Wikipedia articles. So I turned to the sources themselves: they're interesting, but they're not really convincing as "non-trivial" sources. A fair few of them read as re-prints of press releases, interviews, or advertising for the group, and are written by the group's members. Others are from student newspapers, although the only one that I really found acceptable is from a member of the group - which makes the article a form of self-promotion. The most reliable sources I found - Vice and The Tab are from members of the group too, even though they're not entirely supportive and often criticise the group as being "neofascist" and full of unnecessary trigger warnings (ghosts? birds?). Maybe the group will be notable in future, but at present it seems to be a passing phenomenon without any "significant" or mainstream press coverage. Sorry guys - maybe in a few years time? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club[edit]

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of Notability, Numerous violations of POV Policies, use of Wikipedia as a tool for promotion and organization, inherent Wikipedian bias, COI from editors who have deleted numerous speedy deletion requests before discussion was allowed. . Shibbolethink (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (full disclosure, I have contributed to this article) The article is well cited and asserts the group's notability. It has over 30,000 members, more than many other Internet communities with Wikipedia articles (such as Wikipediocracy), and has been profiled in sources like Vice and The Atlantic. My impression is that Wilson has been asking other users to contribute because they will do so with less COI. The article does not read like an advertisement or promotion. Positive reviews are presented alongside negative ones. The fact that more positive writings exist isn't a skewed point of view on Wikipedia's part. I don't know what "inherent Wikipedia bias" means, but if it means Wikipedians can't write about things related to Wikipedia, there are a lot more pages to delete. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi @Boomur: I dispute that the CFWC has been profiled by The Atlantic, it has been mentioned by Alexis Madrigal in a blog on tinyletter.com which does not qualify as a WP:RS. That AM is perhaps a deputy editor of The Atlantic doesn't change the fact that the CFWC hasn't been mentioned in The Atlantic itself. AadaamS (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWikipediocracy is a website in which users from outside the environment can browse. While there may only be X amount of members, anyone can access the website. On the other hand, one has to be a member of CFWC to see all the posts in the group-there is no fair way to judge the sizes and impacts of each site. In addition, Wikipediocracy is devoted to discussing Wikipedia and the Wikimedia organization as a whole-a meta commentary. CFWC simply posts and shares Wikipedia articles, in which commentary may or may not take place. --Blueshirt21 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment actually: regarding its visibility, unless you've been blocked from the group, "anyone can see the group, its members and their posts. With its current visibility settings, your Facebook friends' comments in the group can pop up in your newsfeed, not unlike a surprising Wikipedia find." Source: Mic Thus, both members and non-members can browse Wikipediocracy and CFWC equally.--DrWho42 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedian bias is the inherent bias to see this group as notable simply because it is a group of people editing and reading wikipedia. There are no straight-up wikipedia articles about other edit-athons, only those within the category of edit-a-thons. Also, there is a skewing of positive vs negative bias because this article excludes the various other groups that have sprung out of CFWC, simply because of its "fascist" moderation policies. Several of those are mentioned in the references themselves, but are excluded from the main article because it has only been edited by, and for, the article's subject. The members of the group. In addition, Boomur is a prominent member of the group herself, having appeared and volunteered to help keep the article alive in the group's post found here. This user has unfairly deleted Speedy deletion requests, POV tags, and probably will do the same to this AfD request. Simply because this user is a prominent member of the group, and should have a COI tag in the talk page. --Shibbolethink (talk)
  • "Wikipedian bias" from the subject being "a group of people editing and reading wikipedia" is not a valid reason for deleting the article; Wikimania would need deleting also. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I already explained what I mean by "Wikipedian bias" elsewhere on this talk page. Wikipedia should not give special credence or notability to Facebook groups simply because they are organized "to share cool and freaky [interesting] wikipedia articles." If a group exists to organize people who read and edit wikipedia, it should be in the sphere of user-pages and where edit-a-thons go, not in a primary article of its own. There exists a subconscious vanity bias in all of us as Wikipedia users to see notability in groups dedicated to wikipedia. Wikimania exists on a whole other level of notability. It's a conference held annually that gathers real people to attend lectures and see exhibits and organize discussion panels. It has so many other aspects that raise it above notability, whereas this page, CFWC, does not. It is only a Facebook group.--Shibbolethink (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shibbolethink, I think you only get one vote per discussion, which in this case is the statement you made as nominator. Everymorning talk 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to the references and as far as I know, the only other group that sprung out of CFWC's "fascist moderation policies" that has a reliable third-party source is Cool Nerds Trivia Club based on the Vice article: "Cool Freaks’ Wikipedia Club Is a Shitshow of Esoterica, Political Correctness, and Trigger Warnings".--DrWho42 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding Shibbolethink's comments, I don't see how letting people know that I was helping out with writing the page makes me a "prominent" member of CFWC. I am a member of the group, but I am not a moderator or anything else. Mostly just a reader. I have not "unfairly" removed any tags from the page. There is plenty of discussion on the talk page to prove that CSD and PROD tags were not appropriate. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's also Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia, Banned From Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club, and several others. These were mentioned in blog posts published by the same journalist who posted that Vice article. Everymorning, I assumed since the stats page on these votes only counted bolded statements, and didn't include my "Deletion" bolded in its count of "duplicate votes," that I had to also vote in bolded text. Thanks for the update. Also, Boomur, there was NOT enough discussion on the talk page to prove that POV tags were inappropriate, but you deleted those tags.--Shibbolethink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. I just noticed that I accidentally deleted the tag when deleting the last CSD. Besides that I don't recall removing any POV tags. ~ Boomur [☎] 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While those groups exist, what source mentions them? Based on a search of the Vice article, they only mention Cool Nerds.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It was me who removed the POV tags because, per my note at the talk page, no dispute had actually taken place; someone was just slapping a POV tag on the article for no obvious reason. Sam Walton (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SamWalton, you're misremembering. I went into the talk page and said "I will create that dispute!" And wrote out a small thesis on why the article has POV problems. Then, when Boomur was removing a CSD tag, she also removed the POV tag. Check the history. --Shibbolethink (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if we're going to bring up canvassing, the banned member group Banned From Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club mentioned by Shibbolethink posted this: "We got a mention on this chill ass website".--DrWho42 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we really doing this right now? Has it gotten this low? @DrWho42: That user is a sock/meat puppet facebook account coming from.....you. (Redacted evidence not viewable). --Shibbolethink (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry @Shibbolethink:, the Facebook user in your screenshots is named Mike Kabinsky, not Mike Kaminksy. ~ Boomur [☎] 05:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh @Boomur:, it makes me so happy that you've resorted to trolling. If you had kept clicking, you would see that I also included a screenshot of the relationship between one and the other. There's a large collective of very similar users on Facebook that all have variations on the same name and all have profile pictures of tons of people in suits in a specific orientation. (link redacted) Here they are, all together in the probably fake group "Banned from Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club." But you already knew that. --Shibbolethink (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'd like to address this comment in 3 parts: 1) I had removed my comment before you replied to it, which must have presented you with some edit conflict even if you began to reply before I did so. I am not sure why you have restored my comment. 2) I do not know what you mean by "trolling", but I acknowledge that I failed to notice the final screenshot. 3) I'm not exactly sure what you are insisting this means. ~ Boomur [☎] 05:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I lost that whole "good faith" thing that is supposed to be kept in these discussions and thought you were trolling, probably because DrWho42 just tried to pass off a parody of an offshoot of his own facebook group as a real collection of people who can be canvassed and I thought you would already be aware. When copying over my comment, I copied over the entire block, I didn't notice that the edit conflict had to do with more than signing my comment. If you want to remove it, just delete this thread up to my initial reply to DrWho42 with imgur links. My apologies.--Shibbolethink (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgiving my new account as I've decided not to go with my old, very embarassing and innuendo laden name, I'd like to go forward with what I have to say. To be fair I was also in the group Banned From Cool Freaks (before Mike Kaminsky banned me for, well, being a notable member of CFWC), and User talk:DrWho42 knows me, and yet that Mike Kaminsky regularly went out of their way to sling slurs at me constantly and that was their only interaction with me. You've proven that there's a loose collection of characters that had a same name, their spontaneous creation was more than 6 months ago however, and they haven't really been active especially no evidence of any collaboration by them especially of late. The Mike Kaminsky that was shown as the admin of Banned from Cool Freaks is literally the only active Mike Ka*insky I've seen. On top of which, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove by claiming that User talk:DrWho42 is Mike Kaminsky or what he would even gain by showing people who would have animosity for Cool Freaks Wikipedia club that we're disputing the Wikipedia Page. --Paradoxparasol (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Paradoxparasol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I'm not Mike Kaminsky but I can blank the name if it pleases the discussion. As far as I know, Mike Kaminsky is a meme based on the comedic device of repetition which in this case is several Facebook accounts all claiming to be Mike Kaminsky.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTFREE only applies to real names of people in screenshots.--Shibbolethink (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The reality of Facebook names is a digression of this discussion as many Facebook users adopt new names to reflect their identity and I would not argue this point further. For example, Facebook real-name policy controversy. I respect the wishes of this discussion to omit names from my screenshots and thus have done so.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Boomur, the page is biased towards the group because positive responses are much better documented in the page than negative ones. Also, I fail to see how the fact that the Facebook page has 30,000 members makes it notable. There are plenty of subreddits with a lot more subscribers than CFWC has members, but that doesn't mean they need their own Wikipedia page. IamA and TIL are both subsections of the article for Reddit, and each have over 7 million subscribers http://redditlist.com/. If they aren't notable enough for their own pages, why is CFWC? WatsonCaesar (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — WatsonCaesar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Also, TIL and IAMA have many third party references in the annals of various news organizations: VizWorld, ComicBook.com, and The Washington Post. --Shibbolethink (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely that's more of an argument for editors to make articles for TIL/IAMA if they meet the notability criteria as you have posited than for the CFWC article to be removed. An article meeting notability criteria should not be deleted simply because other potentially notable subjects have not yet had articles created for them, editors who are well-versed in the subject should be filling in the gaps. Felineastatine (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Felineastatine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I didn't suggest that IamA or any other subreddit meets the notability requirement (quite the opposite in fact). I think they are served quite well by their current entries as part of the main article for Reddit, and that if larger, more influential groups don't meet the requirement for notability, then neither does CFWC. WatsonCaesar (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV does not require that all views are given equal page space, but that they are represented equal to their coverage; if you have more positive reception than negative it would be false balance to write equal lengths covering each. I think the article does this fine. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also I noticed that there was a link to this deletion discussion posted in CFWC about an hour ago (along with an earlier request for the removal of a speedy deletion tag from this article on the Afrikaans Wikipedia) which I think makes an excellent case for this page just being a promotional tool. WatsonCaesar (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll be honest and say, as a member, i'm biased. Shibbolethink, however, you refer to the moderation policies as "fascist" in a manner that implies that you agree with that assessment, making you look pretty biased against the group. Look, this is a comprehensive, well researched, well sourced article for a facebook group with a large number of members, and dare i say the article shows a pretty neutral point of view. There are plenty of articles here that don't meet the notability standards, but this is one that, while NOT NECESSARILY meeting the standards (I'll be honest, i don't know where i stand on that), seems to be tagged for deletion much quicker than many other non-notable articles. I say, as it's a facebook group that has been reported on by major publications, that that does qualify it as notable, and i'd say keep. drlemon98 03:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that drlemon98 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment hi @Drlemon98: if you meant that you are a member of that Facebook group, then I would suggest you are better off not voting due to WP:COISELF. Please change your vote to a Comment. AadaamS (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that's a little excessive. The Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club article has nothing to do with drlemon98, their family, or any personal pursuit of theirs. Members of the group are not receiving money from the group, nor are they financially invested in it. Being a part of the group does not necessarily advance the group's interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests—why should it? The level of COI for anyone who is not an administrator of the group is pretty low, I think. Subscribing to The New York Times doesn't make someone ineligible to write about it. ~ Boomur [☎] 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Boomur: I have never maintained that users in that group should not write about the group, on the contrary, I would welcome if users in the group could find WP:RS to support their claim that the group is notable. I wrote that they should refrain from voting, not writing. I take it you don't agree so we'll have to agree to disagree. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The usage of the word "fascist" is literally the exact same wording as that in the vice article. I should have put quotes around it. "Periodically I see outbursts from members of CFWC pop up in my feed—people driven to Network-style meltdowns about the fascist hypersensitivity of the Cool Freaks' moderators. Those tirades quickly disappear as the writer is booted and the page is scrubbed clean again."-River Donaghey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibbolethink (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page is 100% promotional material for a Facebook page. It is a prime example of bias within Wikipedia. As a researcher I regularly use Wikipedia in order to answer questions and aid in my research. A number of my colleagues argue that a mass-user encyclopedia is not a reputable source, while I disagree. However, when editors blatantly ignore a relatively simple epistemological criteria for distinguishing "knowledge" from "non-knowledge", they strike at the importance of this knowledge. There is no informational value to knowing about this facebook page, there is no scholarly value to knowing about this facebook page, and there is no consistent sense of incompleteness without this page. To keep it is a strike against the increasingly free spread of knowledge. Lxplot (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it should be noted that User:Lxplot has removed their SPA tag despite having made few edits.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User: DrWho42, I have made a larger number of edits than you on a larger number of topics (you vs. me. If there is any legitimate reason for me to be tagged as SPA, please explain why it does not apply to you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxplot (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: correction, DoctorWho42.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DrWho42, why do you have two accounts?--Shibbolethink (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, that was confusing. Regardless, it can be observed that I've made contributions to topics in my area of expertise (read: not this) Lxplot (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firstly, I am a member of the group (not a moderator, not a frequent commenter, just a member). Wikipedia only decides whether articles are suitable subjects for inclusion based on their coverage in reliable third party sources. This article has enough of such sources in my opinion. I'm not at all convinced by any of the above delete rationales - articles simply aren't deleted because of their authors, but based on whether they adequately meet the notability guidelines. If you don't think the subject has been covered in sufficient reliable sources then argue that - arguments based on the author or that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on similar subjects aren't valid. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really think everyone above is misunderstanding the use of such "other examples." The point is that these subdivisions of Facebook and Reddit are not notable on their own. They only exist as groups of people on Facebook or Reddit to organize people who like Wikipedia. They don't do anything else, they have no other purpose. There should exist a higher bar of notability for such subjects, or else there are INFINITE subdivisions of what should be on Wikipedia. All the third party sources simply discuss the groups existence, and most of those references are personal blog posts themselves. If I go on my tumblr web blog and say, "I love using /r/Wikipedia." I don't think it qualifies as a third party source providing notability. That's the nature of most of the external sources Boomur and DrWho42 are using: web blogs from people who have used the Facebook Group. Also, it's important to say, the amount of members in the group should be thought of under the lens of other group memberships, and the total userbase of Facebook as a whole. This listicle: "The 25 Facebook groups with over 1 million members" shows how inflated membership numbers in Facebook groups can be. Each of these has more than 33 1/3 times as many members as Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club, has been mentioned in several third party news sources (listicles and web blogs and tweets), but I really do not think they are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Even moreso, there's something very interesting about most of the entries in that listicle: they no longer exist! This is because Facebook Groups and Subreddits are both inherently unstable! CFWC shuffles around 90% of its moderators every couple of weeks, and Subreddits are well known for their lack of stability, and that's why they get deleted so often! And that's why they should have a higher bar of notability.--Shibbolethink (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As an administrator of the group, I'm refraining from the vote, but I would like to point out that your claim that "90% of its moderators are shuffled every couple of weeks" is completely false and unsubstantiated. If you are going to make arguments toward the merits of its notability, you cannot simply will other realities into existence. There are over three dozen moderators -- all of whom have been steady since my tenure began over seven months ago. I'd like to note that when you come to edit this discussion, the prompt at the top does specifically say that unsupported statements have little weight in the discussion. Nb. as you continue this arbitrary -- and, dare I add, regarding your account, single-purpose? -- crusade against this specific page. --Stellaproiectura (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment @Stellaproiectura:, Calling me a single purpose account is a very serious accusation that should be backed up with evidence. If you'll take a look at my userpage, you'll see that I created this account a while before the CFWC page even existed. Also, I engaged in edits of various other disparate articles between then and now, and continue to do so. So I suggest you research a /little/ bit more before saying such, as you say, unsubstantiated claims. Unfortunately, I don't have the Admin list from Facebook over time, but I do have screenshots that are from specific former Admins that time and time again "step down or are forced out." I'll grab those in a sec --Shibbolethink (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi @Samwalton9: as a member of the Facebook group I would suggest that you refrain from voting, please change your keep vote to a comment due to WP:COISELF. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted that you suggest I refrain from voting but I'm not going to strike my vote simply because I happen to be in the group. I don't run it, I don't even frequently post there. This would be akin to suggesting I'm not allowed to vote on an AfD for a cereal brand because I happen to eat it. Sam Walton (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subject of that page lacks notability per the WP:GNG as no WP:RS verifies the notability of the subject Facebook group. AadaamS (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentFurther Self-promotion evidence lies in the correlation of the view statistics and the posts on the group itself. Seen here, one can notice the massive spike in views (about 3400) coinciding with December 30th. That was also the day of the article's creation, and the day that wikipedia user DrWho42 posted this on the public group, using the conversion of UTC on those Facebook times, it's clear the views of the article directly followed this post. 3400 views that day, and then nothing more, as that post in the Facebook group itself sank to the bottom. I therefore posit that the only views this article gets are from people who are in the group itself, and those who want to see it deleted, and a small minority of random other people. The only people who have written the article are those who are prominent members of the group, and the only views they have received are from all the other members. I think this is a product of the "herd mentality" that this group demonstrates. I don't want to pass any opinions on the political leanings of the group or anything like that, but, if one were to read this sandbox article from DrWho42, it's clear how much self promotion this group's normal proceedings entail. I wager that the creation of this public wikipedia page is just an extension of that self-promotion. --Shibbolethink (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page views are also not a valid reason for deleting an article. For probably the third time, this article being created for promotion is not an adequate reason for deletion. Valid reasons should be based on the existence or lack of reliable sources covering the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, an article being created for promotion IS an adequate reason for deletion. See here: What is deletion for? and then click " What Wikipedia is Not" and scroll down to " Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". --Shibbolethink (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your first link is an essay, not a guideline or policy. WP:PROMOTION says nothing about deletion policy, just that Wikipedia isn't for advertisement. The actual policy page you're looking for is WP:DELETE which states that reasons for deletion may include "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" (emphasis mine). Thus, please feel free to argue that the content isn't encyclopedic or doesn't meet notability, but don't falsely claim that just because an article may have been started for advertisement purposes that it should be deleted without question. Sam Walton (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually @Sam Walton:, the first article says, right at the top: "This page is here to help familiarize you with some of the guidelines and policies relevant to deletion." Also, it's not about being started for advertising purposes, it's about existing as a promotion. WP:Promotion is very much a valid reason for deleting an article. Especially when notability isn't met.--Shibbolethink (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject is laughably un-notable. No one cares about it except the members themselves. We might as well have Wikipedia articles for individual subreddits or MySpace pages or that random guy on Facebook who inexplicably has 4,996 friends. --Jtle515 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could the delete voters please go through each source used in the article and explain why each isn't a reliable source? Do that and I'll change my vote to delete because you'll have convinced me that the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Saying you don't feel like the subject is suitable or that the article was created by a COI editor are not valid arguments. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imho it is also up to the creator/keepers of the article to demonstrate how the article satisfies WP:WEB: When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.. Also, it's not enough that a subject is mentined in a WP:RS that source must also explain why the subject of this article is important along the guideline of the previously text in italics. No source in the article has demonstrated why that Facebook group is important. It hasn't won any awards, it hasn't a large number of mentions in mainstream media and no source demonstrates significant IRL impact. The article needs better sources to verify its notability if it is to stay a standalone. Which sources do you think verifies the notability of that Facebook group alonge the lines of WP:WEB? AadaamS (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the sources in the article; BetaBeat, a subset of the New York Observer, have an article which describes the group as "the Only Facebook Group You Need" and seems to be a reliable source. The mic.com article seems reliable, written by a member of staff of a website which seems to provide editorial oversight. I'm pretty sure Vice is a reliable source, with quite a long article covering many aspects of the group written by a staff writer. The Tab is debatable, the author doesn't seem to have written many articles and I believe it's a student-run website. The other references are also debatable, some being blogs, but I think the above three and the article make this a borderline keep. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Sam Walton (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, yes the NY Observer and Vice (magazine) are indeed reliable sources, but is there a consensus among internet experts that CFWC is the only Facebook group a FB user needs? Not that I know of. Neither article mentions any impact the group has had on anything like culture, history, society, economics, science or anything at all. So while the sources themselves are reliable, they don't verify the notability of CFWC. The Tab is a student magazine and they don't count as WP:RS. The Wellington Library is a trivial mention and so it also doesn't help to establish notability. AadaamS (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to adhere to WP:N by almost any measure. 30,000 members is hardly a large number for a Facebook group-there are numerous Facebook groups with over a million members that warrant no entry, why should this be any different. Article is obvious self-promotion, and violates WP:PROMO. Also doesn't really have WP:NPOV, as those who have created page and introduced most edits are admins of said group. There is also very little reason why this is important. As has been said, every other Subreddit or chat room or sub-forum on other Internet sites warrants a Wikipedia page, why should CFWC be any different? Not to mention a severe lack of sources, nor any other external references. Blueshirt21 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Blueshirt21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Per Sam Walton above. Article is informative, group is notable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wwwhatsup (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Not canvassed. But a member of the group. I put the Wikipedia page on my watchlist when I joined. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An admin of the "banned from CFWC" Facebook group The Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia, which User:Shibbolethink mentioned, has been canvassing its ~800 members. Source: imgur screenshot--DrWho42 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was also sent that message, and I can speak to the rest of the message that you edited out. It said the following: "Don't just go to the article and start commenting/voting if you don't already have an editor account. That's against the rules, and you should have an editor account anyway. If you want to comment and don't have an account, actually USE your editor's account in other articles, both because it shows that you're a real person who cares and therefore it's not breaking the rules, but also because editing is fun." --Shibbolethink (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, you can't post screenshots of Facebook with user's names included on Wikipedia. It's against WP:NOTFREE. Take it down please.--Shibbolethink (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've edited out the names but that is the full transcript based on what I've received personally.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, I know I'm not supposed to comment without an account, but I'm the author of that message. It was sent to ~7 people who I personally know and Shibbolethink is right, I discourage explicitly people who hadn't used wikipedia before from commenting. That's against the ruels. Also, It was not sent broadly to users of DPRW, or "canvassed" or posted anywhere publicly.--205.208.122.25 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, for the record, Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia is not a "banned from CFWC" group. The cross list of its members with those that are banned from CFWC is not the majority. Most of the members have never heard of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club.--205.208.122.126 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with some of the other comments that this page is 100% promotional material for the group and should therefore not be allowed on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but a bunch of people on Facebook who share Wikipedia articles with each other cannot be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination. Whitehat2009 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Whitehat2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You are indeed right because so far, the keepers have not managed to demonstrate how to verify its notability per WP:WEB. AadaamS (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quoting from WP:WEBCRIT here: "non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" This is particularly damning. As you said, the Keeps have to show that CFWC "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shibbolethink: please explain why you continue to claim that all the article's sources are self-published blog posts by group members. It has been established above that the article uses reliable third party sources. ~ Boomur [☎] 19:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Boomur: I didn't say all, I said "most of those references are personal blog posts themselves" and most of them are. The Atlantic mention, the library mention, the Honi Suit article is barely about CFWC, it's a virtual listicle just like the Paste article. The Tab doesn't employ professional journalists, neither does Honi Suit. Honestly the only two possibly worthwhile sources for proving notability are Vice and Mic. The Mic.com article, btw, isn't searchable or referenced in any other aspect of the Mic.com site itself. When you search Mic.com, it doesn't show up. I suspect this is because the art.mic.com contributor in question, Gabe Berado's articles on Social Media don't merit site-wide mention. And the Vice article doesn't really contribute to notability so much as lack thereof. The entire article is about how unstable the Facebook group is. If this group disappeared tomorrow because of a massive coup by one or two admins, as has happened in the past history of the group (see here), society as a whole wouldn't even notice. The third party sources themselves probably wouldn't even alter their articles. The only people aware of the change would be the group's members themselves. You guys. Honestly, you should just make a notable groups subheading on the Facebook article and be happy.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Boomur:, also, it's important to realize that the WP:RS standards are actually pretty stringent. School newspapers, opinion pieces, editorials, and other such non fact based articles are less reliable for notability. Especially when considering the bias of some authors. If the editor of a piece is close personal friends with an admin of CFWC, that lessens the notability addition of that article. The article I'm alluding to hasn't been published yet, but when it is, I don't think it'll help the notability case that much. For reference, here's a quote from WP:RS: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces."--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Although a number of verifiable references have been cited, the topic probably falls short of the requirement: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" detailed in WP:WEBCRIT. The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers -- not particularly reliable. Piboy51 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Group is big enough and influential enough to be notable, article is unbiased. The only criticisms of bias come from people who really go and try hard to find things that the article doesn't mention. Vhata (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (PST)
• Delete - size is not a primary guide to inclusion, neither is there any verifiable evidence presented of the group being wp:rs "influential enough to be notable" - The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers - not particularly good quality sources to establish WP:Notability - fails WP:WEBCRIT and wp:web and the WP:GNG imo Govindaharihari (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Is pretty evidently notable, more so than some political parties or movements. RoyalMate1 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is evident. Stamboliyski (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is certainly not evident. I agree with the comment above that content does not meet the requirement that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". There is a lot of noise above that should be ignored. Members of the group should certainly be allowed to have a say here. There is no conflict of interest. I am not a member and do not intend to join it, but if I was a member, I would still think it did not deserve an article. There is no reason why being a member means you support having an article. All members are wikipedians who know how wikipedia works, or at least should do. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bduke really hit it on the head here. Myself and several others have been somewhat overzealous in requesting COI or lack of votes from members of the group, as one does not imply the other. But even so, a rational third party observer who reads WP:RS, WP:AKON, and WP:N, and WP:WEB, and then this AfD, and the source article, is forced to conclude that the article in question doesn't meet these grounds: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice." AND "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."--Shibbolethink (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is evident. EricthePinko (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic's notability is not "evident" as a number of people think the article is non-notable. Would you please explain why you think the article is notable? Piboy51 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As an addition to the explanation, verifiable evidence for its notability has to be demonstrated. Deletion discussions of truly notable subjects usually end very quickly in a hurricane of such evidence provided by those who want to keep the article. AadaamS (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article fulfills notability guidelines based on reliable third-party sources as demonstrated by The New York Observer, Fast Company, and Mic. Due to this substantial coverage, Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club should remain along the ranks of Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review since it reflects how the wiki translates into human culture with "memes" like toast sandwich and list of lists of lists. Its criticism is also balanced based on the reporting thus far and shows the general consensus until more news accumulates.--Electricbolt (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Electricbolt: Wikipediocracy is an irrelevant comparison because that article has about 4 times as many sources and is mentioned in 3 mainstream newspappers: The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. Unlike the sources for this article, those mentions in the newspapers also demonstrate the impact of Wikipediocracy. The sources you refer to in your vote only demonstrate that the group is there and how it functions, there is no mention of impact as per WP:WEBCRIT. AadaamS (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability hinges on junk food news sources, not the significant coverage in non-trivial works that WP:N speaks of. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The topic meets WP:WEBCRIT per coverage in New York Observer, Vice, Mic. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nice secondary source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm a member, not an admin of the group, and after reading this thread I'm not convinced being one of 30,000 members is a COI; thus, I'm marking this post "Keep." I believe this article should not be deleted because decentralized online communities like these facebook groups carry significant weight in globalized culture. Who these people are, why they are organized, and what rules they use to govern themselves are significant and interesting questions. The online sources supplied demonstrate that there is external interest in the topic, and that Cool Freaks and its related groups are notable. Does the article have some issues? Yes. Does it need a rewrite? Probably. But such is not an argument for deletion. Jordanbowden (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Jordanbowden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Atlantic, Vice, and other good RS's do, in fact, prove notability. I saw a few comments about subreddits getting their own pages, and if there's enough sources to prove notability, then why not? It's tempting to fall into a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but we should avoid these. Is this article self-referential? Sure, but again, we have the independent sources, so we're fine with articles like this about Wikipedia-related stuff. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Whilst the sources are "independent", they're hardly *good* sources - most just detail what the group is. I and my friends could go out and write four or five personal blog pieces about a group of our choice on LinkedIn that has even more members - that doesn't mean that group would deserve its own wiki page. This article is quite clearly self promotion, and also is of no interest to anyone who isn't in or close to the group - as shown by the complete lack of reputable sources. The "New York Observer" source is also a little misleading - the piece wasn't published in the newspaper, it was published in an online blog which is operated by the newspaper group. Jbjp91 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Jbjp91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 Already speedily deleted under g7. Already speedily deleted under g7 (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bus Routes in Jiangmen City, China[edit]

List of Bus Routes in Jiangmen City, China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no real content to merit an article Jac16888 ^Talk 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this article is tagged for deletion, and I disagree with it. I've seen many other list of bus routes on wikipedia like for Calgary, Edmonton, London, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, so why not create one about Jiangmen? If you think that Jiangmen is too small of a city, then you're wrong. Jiangmen has a population that is bigger than some of the cities I listed above.Tony0517 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of numbers and a list of places, that has no encyclopedic value, and the content you're now adding (times & charges) is even worse, wikipedia is not a directory--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why'd you allow the existence of the other pages about lists of bus routes. Those are the pages that made me think there should be one for Jiangmen too. Tony0517 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2]][[User:Tony0517|Tony0517] (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - page creator should read WP:NOTDIRECTORY Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 6 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.  Sandstein  12:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immunome Research[edit]

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

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

Journal of no consequence published by a no-name publisher. No impact factor, etc. Currently published by OMICS Publishing Group [3], which is listed as a probable predatory open-access publishing group by Jeffrey Beall.[4] Bueller 007 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This publisher is definitely fishy. The journal is indexed in Scopus, perhaps a remnant from when it was BMC published. I have been arguing for a while that we should not use Scopus indexation as evidence for notability of a journal, given their lax inclusion policy. Rather than concluding that this journal is notable because it is Scopus indexed, I'd rather argue that this inclusion supports my assertion about Scopus. However, given that it is accepted use in journal AfDs to accept Scopus coverage as evidence for notability, I am refraining from casting a !vote at this point, so that the larger community can give their opinion about this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the record, WP:NJournals says that having an impact factor (which this journal does not have) is "always evidence of notability". It does not make the same statement about Scopus, it merely lists it as an example of one of the indexing services one might consider. The only indexing services that include this journal (Chemical Abstracts Service, EBSCO Information Services and Scopus) are very non-selective and should not be taken as an indicator of quality or notability. They are likely holdovers from back when this journal was published by BMC. The journal is not indexed in any biological service, which is odd because it is primarily a biology journal. From their website[5], it can also be seen that they published only 14 articles in 2014 (yes, that's 14 ~articles~, not 14 ~issues~) and they published zero(!) articles in 2013 and three(!) articles in 2012. Junk publisher; junk journal. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you. When I remarked on Scopus being taken as indicating notability, I was referring to the AfD practice of the last several years, not NJournals. Scopus should have delisted this journal a while ago. As I said, Scopus is rapidly losing credibility in my eyes, but I don't think other people editing in this area would agree with that. perhaps it is time to revisit this. I'm pinging DGG to see what he thinks about this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I suspect the Scopus indexing was primarily due to the BMC affiliation. I however think that Scopus indexing does constitute a weak indication of notability--it is not true they have no standards, as is proven by the fact that they index none or almost none of the other journals from the current publisher. Looking at other factors, until the most recent two years they published almost no articles; more recently, most of their articles have been invited reviews and editorials, which indicate effort to become more significant. I think the overall impression is "not yet notable". (Incidentally, some Omics journals -- not this one -- lay claim to an impact factor, but say in footnotes that it issn unofficial impact factor, based on google Scholar. When we say an impact factor proves notability, we mean an official SCI or SSCI impact factor, not these.) DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nom and Randykitty make a good case against the current Scopus indexing as contributing to notability--there could be some inertia on Scopus' part in delisting. But we need to be careful not to engage in recentism. The journal has fallen on hard times, but the question is, was it notable in the 2005-2011 BMC/Springer era? For the first several years there was only one issue a year, with <10 articles per issue. To me it looks like it was a serious journal that was having trouble gaining traction. The Scopus listing contributes to notability, but I wonder if the listing was because of the importance of the journal or the importance of BMC. This case seems a judgement call, but lack of articles, lack of impact factor and uncertain motivation for the Scopus listing even in the BMC era, suggests to me a marginal delete, with no prejudice to recreation if the journal takes off and regains credibility, impact factors, etc. The basic facts of the journal are verifiable, however, so I don't see any problem with a mention in, e.g., a list of BMC journals. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My impression is that this was once a relatively high-impact but very low-output journal. I don't think it maintained its high-impact status long enough (or published enough articles) to be notable, as suggested by the fact that it has never had an impact factor, even during its "glory days" with BMC. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I agree that Scopus indexing is poor evidence for notability. HOWEVER, I think that this article could be expanded to include notes on the journal's predatory practices, the journal's acquisition by OMICS group, etc. Notable is not synonymous with "good for science." right? I think this journal is notable BECAUSE of its predatory practices, and the articles written about those practices. They establish that the journal has received outside notice and impact, since it was REMOVED from pubmed for being predatory. That's an interesting and notable fact that deserves a mention on Wiki. --Shibbolethink (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problems that caused the delisting of this journal are not unique to this journal; they apply to all OMICS-published journals, and they are covered on that page. Surely the hundreds of questionable journals published by OMICS do not each deserve their own page just because they share a predatory publisher. This argument doesn't make sense. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. As far as I know there are absolutely no sources discussing this particular journal, nor its change to OMICS, not its current state. As I didn't !vote earlier: Delete, per DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season[edit]

2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NSEASONS, non-league season article JMHamo (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS, WP:NOTSTATS... GiantSnowman 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NSEASONS, current consensus is that only fully professional leagues are of a sufficiently high standard to warrant individual club season articles. Also a clear NOTSTATS failure due to the complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:56, 11 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 Adam_Spencer#Book. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Spencer's Big Book of Numbers[edit]

Adam Spencer's Big Book of Numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed by creator. Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Could redirect to Adam Spencer#Book. Boleyn (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. I couldn't really find anything to show that this book passes notability guidelines. It exists, but existing does not mean notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete unless enough third-party media attention can be found to justufy a separate article per WP:GNG. In its current sourceless state it doesn't look notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the creator of the article, but doesn't it now meet WP:GNG due to it having two reliable sources in The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, in which it is the main focus point?Jjamesryan (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I regard WP:NBOOK as probably Wikipedia's worst notability guideline (with WP:PROF coming a close second) as virtually all widely-published books and a hell of a lot of vanity press works meet it, but this does seem to meet its criterion 1. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• So, Nick-D, does that mean it's a Keep? Jjamesryan (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid not - I don't want to endorse WP:NBOOK (which clearly isn't consistent with WP:GNG given the low level of sourcing it specifies), and don't think that this is a particularly noteworthy book. I just wanted to note this. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, doesn't it also meet the GNG? Significant coverage, as it is the main focus point of the article, reliable as they are The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, two well-known and well-respected newspapers, I am unsure about the definition of primary, seconary and tertiary sources, they are independent of the subject, and I don't really understand the presumed bit. Jjamesryan (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles are lightweight promotional pieces Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 8 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. Obvious hoax. Favonian (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When The Horses Are Running And The Dogs Are Silent[edit]

When The Horses Are Running And The Dogs Are Silent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources given, and article is written in a dubious "here are the tour dates but they haven't been confirmed by the artist or her label" style, with some "critical backlash" stuff that I've cut as unsourced WP:BLP. Seems to be a WP:HOAX as the only Google results for the title refer to a 2010 Ellen DeGeneres prank about an "imaginary film" of the exact same name. McGeddon (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources have been found whatsoever on Google. I used Yahoo to prove the album's existence but still no results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowager (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 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. There seems to be significant consensus to keep, and none to delete. I fail to see why this was nominated, seeing as the CSD nominations were clearly disruptive editing. (non-admin closure) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Makhdoom[edit]

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

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

• Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Sourced. Historical personality of local fame and beyond. Google returns over 80,000 hits of the search string Hamza Makhdoom Kashmir. Original article (this one is a re-creation after too hasty deletion) was maliciously nominated for speedy deletion by a single-purpose account that aimed to erase from Wikipedia anything that would "steal" the title of "Sultan-ul-Arifeen" from Sultan Bahu – whilst Hamza Makhdoom, a maedieval sufi, is also known under this exact name. Hence, the editor speedy tagged all articles where this title was mentioned: Hamza Makhdoom, Makhdoom, Hari Parbat (because of Hamza Makhdoom shrine located there) and, ultimately, he/she went on to edit Sultan-ul-Arifeen to remove any reference to Hamza Mahkdoom from there. An SPI is in the making because it is very clear who the master is. kashmiri ^TALK 21:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - victim of a sock/meatfarm harassment campaign, or something along those lines. Regardless, he appears to be a historic saint, so I'm pretty sure that he's notable. There is also [6] in addition to what is currently in the article, and almost certainly far more available for those whom are familiar with Indian sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is very notable in reality for his works in Kashmir valley. So there is no option of deleting the article. I have visited the place numerous times and visualized the tens of thousands of people visiting the place, that really confirms notability of the person for me. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 21:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having a significant shrine dedicated to a subject seems like a compelling case for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nitesh Estates Limited[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about subject that seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - the company is notable all over the world. Even its MD's page is also existing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitesh_Shetty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete -Yes, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. We may however make a redirect to the Nitesh Shetty article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it follows WP:CORPDEPTH. All content are verifiable. Ramesh 12:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) — Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Nitesh Estates Limited is a notable company. The sources used over here are of the media sites Economic Times, Deccan Herald, Money Control etc. that in itself states that its notable 46.229.224.226 (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — jolly.smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @Jolly.smith: - it looks like you forgot to log in to post the above -- please log in in order to change the signature back to your username (just an identity protection measure). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This smells of a sockpuppetry case, Rhododendrites. Ethically^Yours! 06:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for (1) lack of notability (WP:CORPDEPTH isn't met, only the "New King" ref approaches what is requried), (2) for being promotional per WP:TNT, and (3) for copyright violations for text taken from [7]. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally promotional, sources do not support notability at all.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheyi Ojo[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - based on [8], [9] (goes a little beyond just a routine quick interview), [10]/[11]/[12] (how many 14 year olds get this level of coverage for signing a contract with a club, even a Liverpool/Chelsea size club?). Absolutely no question that he fails NFOOTY, but I *think* he meets GNG based on these sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - certainly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and seems to fail WP:GNG. Not convinced by the coverage, it's all too "OMG a young prospect!!!" for my liking. GiantSnowman 20:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear NFOOTY fail, and the coverage noted above is very much along the lines of routine, "this guy could be great in a few years" gossip. What has this player actually done? Answer: nothing, he is just a hot prospect potentially, he hasn't even crashed and burned and generated coverage because of that. Fenix down (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not convinced the article meets WP:GNG. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I see no independent non-trivial coverage at all: "young lad does well at little club, goes to big club and might play for them sometime" is no basis for appearance in an encyclopedia. It's decent background material for when and if he actually does something worth noting, but that's all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quackademic medicine[edit]

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

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

This is a term used primarily by one blogger (David Gorski), which lacks coverage in reliable sources independent of his blogs (by which I mean both Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine). Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Vague neologism with little penetration in media. Googling yields 186 distinct results. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For the record; the article creator was banned for socking. NickCT (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ridiculous. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A-11 and so tagged. Ridiculous indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changing !vote as CSD tag was removed (probably correctly). Subject clearly fails WP:N and WP:NEO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY 'X is a Y term' should surely be a clue here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and not promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contrary to nominator statement, term is actually used by at least two bloggers, three excellent refs already in article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that the term "Quackademic medicine" is not used in the second source (Novella), and the third source doesn't appear to be at all reliable-just a blogspot post on the blog of a non-notable person. Everymorning talk 16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article (Quackademic Medicine) has been copy and pasted in it's entirety into the article titled Quackery. Not sure if this affectes the discussion here? 108.181.201.237 16:23, January 11, 2015‎ (UTC)

• Reverted. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any effect here. This is about notability, the basic criteria for article creation. The content is perfectly legitimate as content in other articles, even if this article were deleted. A kneejerk reversion is not proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replied on the talk page of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A sentence describing this concept could be put into the article on "quackery" but there is nothing distinct or notable here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking notability. Some coverage in the Quackery article would be due, as others have said. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Why not just put the majority of this article under Quackery in a section on Academic Medicine flavor of quackery? It's a unique subflavor of Quackery that revolves around spoofing academic medicine, not just establishing oneself as an alternative medicine practitioner. I think it deserves at least some mention on Wiki, probably under a subheading.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I wouldn't strongly oppose a redirect, but I can't really see the value given the limited use of the term. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I get the feeling that most (WP:SNOW) are agreed that a separate article isn't warranted simply because of lack of notability and neologism concerns. There is also some recognition that brief mention in the quackery article would be acceptable. I agree with both POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links (programming language)[edit]

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

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

unsourced article, does not appear to be a notable programming language Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Is (was?) a project at the University of Edinburgh. A test of programming languages is whether they are used by anyone other than their creators, and this one doesn't seem to be, aside from one German dissertation.That might be because it appears to use a rather esoteric functional programming language (OCaml). Microsoft has a component called LINQ that is similar, and they are sometimes mentioned together, but LINQ works with Visual Studio, so there is no competition there. If we kept it, it would be only for the sake of completeness. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could not find any significant third party coverage, a requirement for notability per WP:SIGCOV. Piboy51 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there might be one source here. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The main publication about this language has 239 citations according to GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. APerson (talk!) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Margin1522. All information I can find about this subject related to it being only a project at the University of Edinburgh. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italy-Moldova relations[edit]

Italy-Moldova relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to this relationship besides embassies and diplomatic recognition. No evidence of leaders visits, significant trade or agreements. Even the Moldova embassy can't describe any significant relations LibStar (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* [13] *cough* Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on leaders visits. LibStar (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe subject is notable. The article has to be improved.User:Lucifero4

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article is anticipated to be speedily moved to Italy–Moldova relations. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the subject is notable but the !vote above mine will likely be disregarded as completely unsubstantiated. There's a fairly extensive record of visits between the two countries in what is essentially a 20-year diplomatic history. The countries are geographically not that far apart, such that a reasonable trade relationship might be inferred though none can be verified at this point. The Italian embassy has only been open since 2008 and in the time since there have been 3 official visits including one to Italy by the Acting President of the Republic of Moldova. The coverage associated with a state visit like that is almost certain to produce WP:GNG-level coverage, even if we haven't found it yet. Yes, that's a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument, but I think its a valid and logical one in the context. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Italo-Moldovan/Bessarabian relations go way more back than 20 years, see https://books.google.com/books?id=_6j9SosuzxwC&pg=PA417 --Soman (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Rajan[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.It is case of WP:TOOSOON and is currently not notable VanishingRainbow (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON.182.65.166.60 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Azhagi (TV series). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Redirect - Can't find any direct coverage for this guy. NickCT (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:14, 6 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toiran.com[edit]

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

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

fails GNG - sources are all to company's own website, YouTube, or Facebook DOCUMENT★ERROR 15:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 5 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. Per consensus. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Coleman[edit]

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

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

This is a problem biography. The subject is a crackpot (check the ASA complaint against him, for example), and I thought he was a notable crackpot, but in the end I can only find one mainstream source that's about him. Everything else seems to track back to himself. IMDB is listed as a source for his having had a book made into a film> That's a directory entry, not a source. One newspaper article referenced, I cannot trace in the archives (may be just my bad search-fu). Another one exists but is clearly a caricature not a serious profile, though it accurately sums up the fact that his books are self-published and he is a dedicated self-publicist.

For example, it is well known that he is a militant animal rights proponent, but he is not discussed in sources on the subject, presumably because claims such as every time you put peat in your mouth you're eating cancer, are so crazy that nobody will reference them.

In short, a neutral biography of this man requires analytical independent sources of some weight, because otherwise it';s just a storefront (which, to be fair, sums up most of what he does). More tot he point, most of the sources are old and seem to refer ot the 15 minutes of fame when the PCC and ASA censured him. So in the end this looks like a WP:BLP1E or coatrack or.. something, but not in a good way. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure I understand the deletion rationale. He clearly meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG regardless of the soundness of his claims and current state of the article. Since most of his work was pre-Internet it's not so easy to gsearch, but even still I found several sources in the first few pages of hits: According to this source he's "sold more than two million books in the UK alone", The Independent (arts and ents section, 1996), The Independent again, interview with Animal Liberation Front (eh), Lengthy review of Betrayal of Trust in The Ecologist vol 28 no 6 (Nov/Dec 1998), Several works reviewed in The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health (search results) (about as respected as journals get, I think -- now known as Perspectives on Public Health), The Independent again... Looks like while his books are self-published, they've received pretty considerable attention in respectable publications. I don't know that any would independently meet NBOOKS, but the combined coverage lends notability to the author, especially since he seems to be a rather controversial figure. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly notable. Has been a journalist, an activist who has influenced government policy, has written several books one of which has been turned into a film... Being a crackpot is not a valid criteria for deletion - we have articles on David Icke and Timecube, the crackiest of crackpots.--greenrd (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable irrespective of whether you consider him a crackpot. --Michig (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an author if you make The Sunday Times Best Sellers list, I would determine you immediate meet WP:AUTHOR. WP:GNG widely comes into play regarding controversy and criticisms regarding this person's work. The nomination almost entirely focuses on the nominator's bias and opinions of the subject's work. Wikipedia is not censored, not for original research, and not a soap box to suppress articles not in alignment with your views. In terms of actual policy based arguments, there's reference to WP:BLP1E which is a stretch by any attempt. The article is poorly sourced, needs considerable work, NPOV, and seems to have major gaps for some information. Those are all surmountable problems and well outside of notability issues. Mkdw^talk 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to AfC. Article moved to Draft space on creator's request (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Zurawski[edit]

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

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

Seems promotional, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 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 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Willis (RAN officer)[edit]

Andrew Willis (RAN officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't believe that this person meets WP:SOLDIER. Although the MVO is not as common as being awarded an OBE for example I don't believe that the MVO makes him notable Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see which WP:SOLDIER criteria this guy would meet. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Run of the mill, mid-ranking officer. The MVO is not nearly high enough for notability on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is primarily the curriculum vitae of a middle-ranking officer. It says very little about his receipt of the MVO and it is unlikely anything more could be said. The article does not establish or claim any particular notability of the subject. Dolphin (t) 22:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. MVO is down the VO list. Not that high an award, and rank does help towards WP:SOLDIER either. Doesn't meet WP:GNG from what I can see. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:20, 11 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 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books[edit]

Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable imprint. No reliable sources listed, nothing obvious shown through a brief search for general webpages, news or books. Bjelleklang - talk 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability, and the article was apparently created to help collectors of the books "keep track of their collections"[14] - pretty much an admission of the fact that there are no secondary sources for the information. --bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Widr (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Lack of substantial independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very NN, nothing out there to be found and if the list (because it basically is one) is merely there to help track things then make a wiki over at Wikia, it's not content we want nor specifically need. tutterMouse (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just started a related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino films and TV series based on Wattpad stories - there appears to be a bit of a walled garden with articles about Wattpad authors and stories. --bonadea contributions talk 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Parent[edit]

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

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

non-notable sexy lady. damiens.rf 13:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes she is an actor but basic problem is we need in-depth write-ups from neutral reliable sources, not just listings that she was in such and such a film. I found a mention here but more is needed to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's always made me cringe that WP has specific policy for these folks (i.e. WP:PORNSTAR). I don't see which criteria she'd meet. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - @Damiens.rf: no one can ever beat this beauty [15] , Anyway no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG AadaamS (talk) 13:46, 6 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 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nooruddin (Dawoodi Bohra)[edit]

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

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

mostly copy paste and person itself is unnotable. Does not have any secondary sources to verify notability. Summichum (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There seems to be an awful lot of copy pasting here. Cut that away, and you then have all the information not related to the subject of the article. Cut that away, and what you're left with can't even be called a stub. Even a redirect wouldn't be appropriate because the name "Nooruddin" is so common in the Indian subcontinent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT: even if this person was a notable saint, the article is beyond repair. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite being listed for three weeks, there's no real consensus here. It looks like there are some reasonable suggestions for merging, but that can be worked out on the aritcle's talk page without the formal AfD process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural festivals in Indian colleges[edit]

List of cultural festivals in Indian colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe this list fails the notability requirement for lists described at WP:LISTN, namely "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that LISTN says "One accepted reason..." You always should explain why you think LISTN is the best way to analyze the list. And I don't think it's relevant here, because (I'm surprised to see that) we have many articles on these festivals. So this appears to be an index of notable topics satisfying WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:College festivals in India per WP:CLN. If we have enough articles of a certain type, then absent a compelling reason not to we're going to list them together (see also intro to WP:NOTDIR).

  As a side note, it looks like there's some confusing redundancy in the categorization, as Category:Culfests is presently a subcategory of Category:College festivals in India despite that being what a "Culfest" is, as explained at Cultural Festival (India) (where Culfest redirects). Which also means that Cultural Festival (India) is the proper parent article, which should be merged to this list (or this list merged there) given how short that article is. And then whatever category we end up with should be renamed to match that article title (or the article title renamed if the category title is better). It's also possible that we shouldn't have all these articles if the festivals are not all independently notable, but that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis prior to deleting this list or the category. Follow all that? ; ) postdlf (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see the reason why it should be deleted, have you thought of redirect or merge? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to @Postdlf:'s comments above, I failed to mention that as well as my quote from LISTN, I also brought this list to AFD because I believed that most of the festivals listed are not independently notable, based on a preliminary observation that there are far many more redlinks/nolinks than there are blue links. I have now done a survey of the contents of the list. By my count, there are currently 93 festivals listed and there are 32 blue links; 24 are stand-alone articles and 8 are links to a section in the relevant school's article. Of the 24 articles, 7 have no references at all (4 of them tagged, 3 not tagged), and 9 have insufficient references (3 of them tagged, the others my opinion based on links to blogs, the school's own website, etc.). That leaves only 8 articles with references to proper third party sources. I haven't looked at any of those references in further detail, but judging by some of the titles some may be little more than passing mention. In short, if all of these articles were put to AFD, I think the survival rate would be pretty low. However, it seems I have put the cart before the horse by nominating the list first. As for Bladesmulti's suggestion, it could be merged into the Cultural Festival (India) page that Postdlf has mentioned. Other issues would also have to be addressed such as what criteria would be required for addition to the list. Right now it appears to be a free-for-all. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see how you have researched. Merging to Cultural Festival (India) will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CSC. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CSC are you referring to? There are three different criteria there. I think it fails the first, as even the bluelinks have veribility problems that I have described above, let alone the red links. Arguing for the second or third options could be awfully dangerous, bearing in mind that according to Higher education in India there are up to 33,000 colleges that could potentially be eligible for the list.

In fact, the final paragraph of WP:CSC - "Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace. - provides a reason for deletion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are correct in your argument here that none of them is notable, then obviously #2. If you are wrong in your argument, then #1. I would have no issue with Merge other than if a lot of other stuff gets merged, then WP:TOOLONG may come into play. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:13, 6 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 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Sarkar[edit]

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

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

Probable autobio of a musician, no reliable references provided, prod-blp tag removed by author. Sanjib Sarkar Music Director was A7/G11 speedied twice, current article was moved from that title. --Finngall ^talk 17:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Twice speedily deleted and latest delete tag removed by author. All the more so... Fylbecatulous talk 15:25, 7 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. Appears to be lots of mentions, but none that meet our criteria as reliable sources -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah and Julia[edit]

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

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

Article may fail WP:GNG. None of the recorded songs have charted nor do they appear in an album from the artists. They only appeared in a national pre-selection for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 of which they did not win the pre-selection to represent their country. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems like they have released another music single after JESC. Seems like partly WP:GNG passes.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Not notable whatsoever. If they get a page wouldn't every performer who's ever performed in a (J)ESC national selection get one too? Doesn't deserve an article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This passes WP:GNG the only other input doesnt have a stance in guidelines but personal opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Their music video here has close to a million views. Possible source here, source here, mention here, source here, mention here, mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The third source from Oikotimes is unreliable. Prior consensus at WikiProject Eurovision deemed them as unreliable, as anyone can register a profile on the website and publish "news" without sourcing their content. All the other sources only state that they took part in a pre-selection, of which they placed third, so they never got to represent their country at Junior Eurovision. Of the 12 notability points at WP:MUSICBIO, they partially meet the first, the remaining eleven criterion they fail. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is none of the in depth coverage needed for a standalone article. All the sources offered are just mentions or WP:ROUTINE. SpinningSpark 18:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per routine or trivial coverage in sources and failing all other criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 01:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage that would make this not a case of BLP1E (the Eurovision contest). There's only one news mention of "'sarah and julia' eurovision" and "sarah and julia dutch duo" doesn't get anything that works, either. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-on-4[edit]

All-on-4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable treatment. Mentioned in the news a couple of times but nothing that seems to be reliable or objective. Article in its current form is highly promotional and fails WP:NPRODUCT along with WP:SIGCOV. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 04:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why instead of deleting other people's work, can't you propose the improvement of the article? This is a very well known method. Google returns more than 500 thousand results on the exact term, Google news UK returns more than 2700 news/articles, and Google books return almost 5000 entries on the exact term, how can you say it is not notable?João Pimentel Ferreira 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

See WP:BURDEN. If you can improve it, please do so, instead of accusing me of being a person who deletes other people's work - unless you're the author of this article? Anyway, if I see improvements, please feel free to ((ping)) me and I'll be happy to withdraw the nom. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number of Google hits for something is not an indication of notability; WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just random pages that happen to mention something. The links have more information. ekips39 05:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost the author of the article, and you could have tagged it differently instead of proposing a deletion, that was only my concern. Some issues were added later on the article such as the "advantages" of the method. I already deleted that paragraph. I also deleted all mentions to trademarks or registered marks to avoid the article to be seen as propaganda. Google might not be a reference, but what about Google books with almost 5000 entries? And this term is not random, it refers specifically to this method. João Pimentel Ferreira 15:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

• Keep sources in reliable sources demonstrate sufficient notability. -- Scray (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll improve the sources. Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 12:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now seems "better"[edit]

@Kikichugirl:

• I removed all the trademark issues.
• I removed all the sentences tagged as ^{[citation needed]}
• I removed the topic "advantages"
• I added independent and reliable sources. Pubmed, one of the main medical publishers in the world, has 39 entries for this treatment.

Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

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 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen mwadime[edit]

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

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

fails GNG - claim to fame is being the 20th most influential student in Kenya DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Students aren't notable generally. Shii (tock) 13:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Secretary of a local students' union. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 7 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 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret 1st Japan Tour[edit]

Secret 1st Japan Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only sourcing here relates to individual shows/factoids; there is no general, in-depth discussion in reliable sources of the tour as a whole, as is required by WP:NTOUR--there are, actually, no reliable references in this article at all. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Gaon, 10 Asia News, and Sony Music are reliable sources for the tour. The tour happened, and it even if it was not as popular as major K-Pop groups, I would not dismiss the article and consider it for deletion. Mazic (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This was a Japan tour, so was there any independent, significant coverage of it in Japan? That's what should really matter; the K-pop gossip news/PR-machine is hardly relevant. My gut tells me there was not, as the Zepp venues are pretty small and none of Secret's releases in Japan have sold particularly well. The Sony Music reference is the artist's own official website and as such is not independent coverage. The rest are typical K-media puffery. One of the sources is about one of the members becoming like a Korean Beyonce after losing weight - that is not serious journalism in any sense and isn't even real information, just (again) PR fluff. 10 Asia News is a site specifically designed to promote kpop - their interviews are fine but PR stuff is not reliable or independent. Unless there was significant (not a one-off announcement) coverage of this in Japan, this should be deleted. The tour can be mentioned in the main Secret article. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is one of several articles made about Korean bands touring Japan for no apparent reason. Claim to notability seems nonexistent. Shii (tock) 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) theenjay36 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWBM-TV[edit]

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

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

I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Searching for the stuff on Google produces nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Fails WP:NME. —theenjay36 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc. Defunct station with little history, so a RD is more appropriate to the parent organization here. Nate • (chatter) 09:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should consider any other recommendations than that. Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc. is also nominated for deletion. —theenjay36 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. theenjay36 05:55, 9 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 00:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Préity Üupala[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Recreation of a Nickaang sockfarm article. Miss India international AP is not a major contest. Bit part actor with no significant roles in notable productions. Her producer credits are as associate producer on non notable video shorts (one of which has ~37 producers). She does not inherit notability from being in the same room as Jackie Chan. Moscow Horror film festival is a not major. She lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted at Preity Uupala - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preity Uupala. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At this point in her career she has not achieved notability. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Fonseca[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced BLP of a voice actor, the page is too old to be eligible for BLP prod. Unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject, does not appear to meet GNG, ANYBIO, or NACTORS. Last nomination closed as no consensus after no one participated except the nom. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable and indepndent sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eveliina K Liehu Ivanoff[edit]

Eveliina K Liehu Ivanoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiographical page which doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines 331dot (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. C679 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above; no sign of anything suggesting she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 10 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 00:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Botchi[edit]

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

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

This article makes absolutely no sense. It is a collection of various terms in Japanese that regard loneliness and is not actually any discussion of anything beyond a vague meaning of the words. Several of the sources cited are either not working or are not reliable sources, consisting of blogs and random word searches in a search engine. There was a previous AFD on this that came up as no consensus because of apparent confusion that this term is even remotely studied, which does not appear to be the case. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nominator. I added a link to the old discussion for reference above (I hope that was OK). Note that the linked ja:WP page is a DAB which says basically that botchi is Internet slang for "loner". The article is a series of (somewhat incoherent) anecdotes about people eating in toilets and the like. I am sure such problems exist, but there is no evidence that this is "unique to Japan", so no reason to use a bit of Japanese slang as the subject title. A properly researched article (not a foreign language student essay) is conceivable, but would surely hardly benefit from anything here. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is basically WP:SYNTH and reads like a personal essay by the author. Shii (tock) 13:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Using the above logic, then the term "selfie" should also be deleted from Wikipedia. I don't think the term being used as slang is grounds for deletion, especially given the sociological implications of the terminology in Japanese society. 130.54.130.246 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous discussion of deletion was overwhelmingly for keeping the article: (Redacted) 130.54.130.233 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. There were 3 Deletes, 2 Keeps, and me; I made a couple of comments, and think the article would be better deleted, so it is possible to claim that there was a slight leaning towards Keep, but that is all. Indeed selfie really adds nothing encyclopedic to human knowledge, but WP can be indulgent, and since this term is in use in English there is a reasonable expectation that it will be a fair reflection (ouch!) of the term and phenomenon. More below. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: botchi could certainly have an entry at Wiktionary, but it would need to get the origin and definition right, neither of which happens here. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As before, the article is still a rambling essay pieced together from various snippets found on the web (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). --DAJF (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. (Sorry: I forgot that this time I did already vote 'delete') The article is about a Japanese slang term, ぼっち which means 'lone(r)'. Analysis:
• History: Could conceivably be the basis of an article about "The Loner Phenomenon in Japan", but not clear it is really any different from anywhere else. Remember that Japanese sources are desperately keen to remind themselves of the uniqueness of Japan.
• Opinions of academics: chitchat from someone who works in a university, of no consequence. It actually seems to contradict the above, because it claims that "they" (which people exactly) want to have friends, and ... "are scared of eating lunch alone."
• The rest is a random collection of word glosses
  • Botchi-meshi: loners eat alone
  • Comyu-shō: loners have communications problems, with glosses of "communication disorder" which we are told is different
  • Botchi-seki: there are places where loners can eat alone
  • Kodokushi (孤独死）: people dying alone. Totally unrelated
• In short, there is (almost) nothing here. en:WP is an encyclopedia in English, and should have titles in English, unless there is a very clear reason to do otherwise. Yes, writers of popular articles, and academics too sometimes like to show off, but WP is here to be accessible, not to show off. There is no reason to have an article entitled 'Botchi'. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You shouldn't make a second delete !vote.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per Imaginatorium this could plausibly be an entry in Wiktionary. There is also a place for essays on the history and usage of words, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic. An encyclopedic article should be able to survive renaming, and I don't think this one could. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Training Center[edit]

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Vrac's prod was removed by creator. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What mentions I can find don't get this unsourced article past WP:ORGDEPTH. Vrac (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article text is a close paraphrase of this page, probably close enough to be a WP:COPYVIO. Removing it would leave merely an Infobox. The article is basically just saying that the organisation has a training unit. In that are they any different from any firm in the world beyond an SME? The article makes no claim of notability, nor can I see one. Its subject matter is already covered adequately - and in original wording - at Biman_Bangladesh_Airlines#Subsidiaries. AllyD (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon girl[edit]

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

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

OK. Another clearly non-notable work of fiction that fails WP:BKCRIT is here because there's no suitable CSD tag. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wish the author well, but this book just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I can't find anything to show that it's ultimately notable enough to merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]