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) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015[edit]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015 (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)

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Added to the nomination 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC) by Tavix | Talk  )

I wouldn't think a list of number-two singles would be notable. Frietjes (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Infinitely recursive series. Ignoring the "We're #2! We're #2!" jokes, the next would be a "List of #3 singles," then "#4 singles," ad infinitum (well, to 200). This is a distinction without significance (no reason for this slicing of the pie). Hithladaeus (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Hithladaeus. Rmosler | ● 22:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be deleted for the same reasons List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) was. G4 should apply here since this simply a continuation of the previously deleted articles. Would we have to go through a full AfD again if someone creates the number twos of 2016 next year? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The list fails WP:LISTN. Esquivalience ^t 23:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possible G4. Fails any notability. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dump per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I noticed that the creator of this list, Coxmason88, also created List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2000. I'm WP:BOLDly adding it to the nomination because if this one gets deleted, that one should too. I checked and these two seem to be the only years that exist. Tavix | Talk  22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clealy fails WP:LISTN and WP:IINFO. That's what this article is.--Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete per everyone above - IMHO "Number 1 singles" are fine but "Number 2s" are pretty pointless, Anyway Fails LISTN. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable per everyone above. BenLinus1214^talk 22:16, 16 June 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. If anyone wants is userfying let me know, Davewild (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RideAmigos Corp.[edit]

RideAmigos Corp. (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 and promotional. The refernces are either local uncritical articles or press releases. The company's products are not yet widely used; the photo of the executives serves only to promote their own self-importance. , and has no encyclopedic purposes DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to have been written by an in-house publicist. Most references either do not discuss the subject and do not prove the related point or are press releases. The only somewhat unbiased piece appears to be a local online news article. Not enough to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now and draft to a willing user's userspace - My searches found no actual significant and notable coverage here, here, here and here. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 June 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 Martin Fowler (EastEnders). Davewild (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bye (actor)[edit]

James Bye (actor) (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 fails WP:ENT, he has not had significant multiple roles in film, television or stage. From what I can find out over the last decade he has been in 6 television series, with the exception of his latest role, all the others have been an average of one episode each and of those, two of those appearances cannot be reliably sourced. 5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect as well.--5 albert square (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep- as a long running and popular soap opera, EastEnders is likely to generate a lot of coverage (even if 90% of it is gossip and fan drivel). The other screen appearances seem to be minor roles. Alternately, since the majority of coverage, now and in the near future, seems likely to concern Bye's role as Martin Fowler (EastEnders), a plausible redirect/merge to that article with ((R with possibilities)) would be appropriate until multiple reliable, third-party sources non-trivially discuss the person rather than his role. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it - Everybody starts off small but by the logicality of similar fact evidence his career will most likely only go up from now. His appearances will become more frequent and he is now a main character in a very popular soap opera. HIs profile has been irrevocably boosted. David King 947 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders). The actor has only had one significant role, so fails WP:ENT, and as the article currently stands, there is only one independent source (a tabloid), the other being the actor's personal website, which is not a reliable source. –anemoneprojectors– 13:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders) as no evidence of notability - According to IMDb he has been in a few other stuff but none of them are well-known so for now Redirect looks a better option, Can easily be reverted in 2 or 3 years if his career changes beyond EE. –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders). Fails WP:ENT (for now) and is perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. However, the redirect might be helpful to some. BenLinus1214^talk 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferratum Group[edit]

Ferratum Group (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)

Most of the sources are just regurgitated press releases, as seems to be the case when I tried to search for more sources. I do not believe that being listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange makes them inherently notable, since notability is not inherited, and thus they fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete i just worked the article over, and looked for independent sources, and found none in english. The article has one independent source, in Finnish. Fails WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My searches here, here and here found no good solid coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm looking into finding better sources this week. I can tell you that there are hundreds if not thousands of articles about Ferratum Group, I'm sure I can find some that justify the nobability of this article. (I'm an employee) This is a big company with an over half a billion market cap. Warlime (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — Warlime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - web and news searches turn up press releases picked up by the financial newspapers, company advertises a lot and is apparently expanding, but nobody else talks about it. Kraxler (talk) 01:03, 17 June 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 2003 in Pride FC. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines and a reasonable redirect has been suggested. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Total Elimination 2003[edit]

Pride Total Elimination 2003 (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:EVENT. Purely a results listing. And a qualifying event for another event LibStar (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has no sources and my search just produced routine sports results reporting. The event had some notable fighters, but there's nothing to show this meets WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm more inclined to delete because there aren't good sources aside from finding this and this (Black Belt magazine, three separate pages). I would've suggested moving elsewhere but it seems that's not an option. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per my rationale in the last AFD discussion (i.e. that it meets the WP:GNG). There's an article providing extensive coverage in this issue of *Black Belt* magazine, starting on page 52, and there's several pages' worth of quality coverage in Chuck Liddell's autobiography, starting on page 177. It would also be nice to see someone bother to ask a native Japanese speaker to do a quick search for Japanese-language sources, given that it's an event that happened in Japan in an era from which few webpages still remain online. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee that the (now print-defunct) Kamipro magazine would have a big ol' article. Probably easier to just delete it, though - building an encyclopedia is hard work! -208.81.148.195 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liddell's autobiography is not an independent source and the Black Belt article is just a detailed report on the fights--in other words, routine sports coverage just like a baseball game's play by play.Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pride is notable and as a result this is notable. Article needs to be expanded. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major league baseball is also notable, but that doesn't make every MLB game notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge I would prefer to see this article sourced than deleted. If that doesn't happen i would see a second option to move the data into 2003 in Pride FC. There are a few UFC events that only exist on the omnibus articles for their respective year, for example UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard. To date i haven't seen any controversy with this use of events within the omnibus articles, hopefully i don't cause any by bringing it up here. All the links in the Infobox for the event and the UFC Events template at the bottom of the article work the same as if it were a stand alone article. Kevlar (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2003 in Pride FC I have changed my earlier vote based on the information provided by Kevlar. The basic facts haven't changed--there's nothing to show this was a notable event, the article doesn't list a single source, and all my search found was the usual routine sports coverage. Since the entire contents of this article is basically a list of the results, all of this information is already in the Pride 2003 article. Therefore, I see no reason to keep an article on a non-notable event, especially when all of the pertinent information will still be available on WP. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My initial thought was "What a fight card!" Those are big names. Pride is also a major MMA organization. However, is one event notable by itself? Was there something particularly notable that occurred? I cannot tell from the article or searching online whether that is the case. WP:MMAEVENT probably presents the relevant guideline for analysis.--Rpclod (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Papaursa; otherwise Delete. There aren't any sources that don't involve routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect No significant independent coverage and nothing to show WP:NEVENT is met. Jakejr (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Donkey[edit]

Wonky Donkey (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)

Insuffient evidence for notabilty for this short booklet, written by an undeclared paid editor DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable book by non notable author(s) (no Wikipedia pages). Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Either the book or Smith (but probably not both) merits an article; Smith meets WP:GNG: both have received quite a bit of press coverage in Australia and New Zealand: 5 refs on article plus[1][2][3]. And it did receive a NZ children's book award.[4] Could consider moving to Smith. It might be by a paid editor, but it's hardly an advert. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much as I dislike paid edting this is a good article about a notable book. Both the awards mentioned are fairly significant in NZ. -- haminoon (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. I hope I am not seeing a trend to mark non-British, non-US, anglophone children's literature articles for deletion even when they have won awards (certainly not by a specific editor, but a general Colonial atmosphere). Google searches are VERY US centered, can only search a fraction of the web, and we seem to be depending on them a lot in these discussions, myself included. I am sure there is another venue for this comment, but here I am. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 11:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are a lot of people wanting to keep this article but apart from 'I like it' nobody is citing notability criteria or even suggesting that any awards themselves are particularly notable per Wikipedia. Still fails WP:NBOOK and the authors (if there was an article about them which there isn't) fail WP:CREATIVE - a 'bit' of press coverage doen't cut it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 in NBOOK is major literary award winner. Could you explain about awards being notable per Wikipedia? Awards for NZ books and songs don't get any bigger than NZ Post and APRA. -- haminoon (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I have pointed out in these discussions many times before, Children's Literature is an underrepresented area due to systemic bias and needs expanding at (almost) any cost. That this title is not UK or US is also in play. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Come on! How can a book with a title like this be considered for deletion? Seriously though, this book definitely meets WP:NBOOK being the winner of a New Zealand book award(I have included the relevent award page in article), the subject of numerous press articles (thanks Colapeninsula:) plus here are some more sites that could be incorporated:- [5] - review on Cockburn's (so it has got across the ditch) library's blog - "This book is great fun. Very silly and bound to have the kids (adults too) in fits of laughter", [6] - Queensland newspaper holiday reading list, [7] - in-depth article about author (could also be used for author article - sorry Colapeninsula but there are others which may make him articleworthy?) and development of book, [8] - Sally Smith of Aussie Reviews - "Kids will love the silliness of this fun to read aloud picture book" and "Great for classroom use..." which is also where it has been used, here are some school pages - [9], [10], [11]. Also, a best seller [12] and [13] - yes I know being a best seller is not used for notability ... yet (see comments by Tokyogirl79 here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Nate Goes for Broke), and did I mention its about a donkey? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (warning possible rant to follow), following up on HullIntegrity and above comments, probably because the award is not US or Brit?, similar to another editor in another afd I was involved in who implied that a book review in the Sydney Morning Herald as not notable as it isn't the New York Times, anyway references to schoolsites that I gave above shows that it meets point 4. of nbook ... oh wait they are not US schools Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns me that we have to waste volunteer time defending this. I don't think anyone would question an academy award or pulitzer. -- haminoon

(talk) 00:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Hear hear! This AfD is a serious waste of editorial time. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riot City Wrestling[edit]

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

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

Small, independent wrestling promotion of limited/dubious notability. The refs used are either primary, i.e. their own website and a facebook page, or a website whose stated goal is to report on every single event in the area, which may be ok for verification but does nothing for notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep RCW has working agreements with Global Force Wrestling and has had notable alumni. Pidzz (talk)

see WP:INHERIT. Having an assosciation with notable entitites does not automatically vconfer notability on a subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just Another Local Promotion. These are a dime a dozen around the world and fail WP:ORG going away. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is nothing there - yes they have a deal with GWF, which has only now held it's first show so who knows what would come of it? And some wrestlers tried out with WWE, says something about the wrestlers more than the fed - and tried out is not the same as got a deal, hundreds try out each year. Not notable, fails WP:ORG etc.  MPJ -US  15:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Washington Fire Company[edit]

Fort Washington Fire Company (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 fails WP:GNG. Is for a tiny department in a small town. (Note that article has been nominated before, in 2005 and was kept.) Zackmann08 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails the GNG and WP:ORG both, and there's nothing here that can't be merged into the main article. The earlier AfD is full of those trash "Seems important" and "Nice article" Keep arguments so typical of 10-year-old VfD/AfDs. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately delete - It's a nice little article neat and sourced but there's not much past that, my searches found several links though here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I nominated this for deletion at the first AfD years ago. At that time I said it was unencyclopedic and not known outside the local area. It still is, and I now note it doesn't come near passing WP:GNG or WP:ORG. No reason to keep this. DES ^(talk) 12:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWater[edit]

OpenWater (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 doesn't state significance of software. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: ...or have any references to show that it is notable or meets WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no references and categories. 333-blue 23:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Of all my searches, browser was the only one that seemed to have found relevant results; no good coverage to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 12 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Aguayo[edit]

Martha Aguayo (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 TV presenter with apparently no full list of credits and even her IMDb has little. With such little information, I still tried to search for sources (I'm a Spanish speaker so I would know how to read) and found nothing significant aside from News (mostly passing mentions for co-hosting with Angelica Rivera) and browser (similiar results, passing mentions for co-hosting) with Books, thefreelibrary and highbeam finding nothing. A look at the history here and here show the article had more unsourced information which was trimmed. As it seems she may have been best known for Alcanzar una estrella, the article can be moved there where she is mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - she did some of this and a little of that. She interviewed one famous person. The references are primarily front pages of online magazines with no reference to the subject. No notability is shown.--Rpclod (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete run-of-the-mill TV worker, article doesn't indicate why she should be notable, three of the four "external links" are not about the subject, web search turns up social media, news search yields nothing. Kraxler (talk) 01:13, 17 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza Yucatán[edit]

Nuestra Belleza Yucatán (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 preliminary round for a national pageant. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 19:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be a non-notable local pageant. No reliable sources are provided, much less any indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for article deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ronald Shapiro[edit]

Dr. Ronald Shapiro (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)

Academic may not be notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. The article (and the sole reference) seems mostly to want to promote the subject's technology. I did not find any coverage on Dr Shapiro except for directory entries. ubiquity (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, fails WP:GNG, no sources to show actual notability, only to promote his technology. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional. (My band (no article on Wikipedia) used to have a practice space next to the offices of a "Dr. Ronald Shapiro" who would come complain about the noise. We dedicated our album to him.) It's a bad sign that the article is named "Dr."; that indicates already that we're looking at a commercial entity rather than a biography, and the article text confirms this. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there were evidence of notability, we could clean up the promotional material, but he doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 13 June 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. Overall consensus in this short discussion is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1607 Mavis[edit]

1607 Mavis (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Part of two lightcurve studies on small groups of asteroids [14] [15] and one large physical modeling study [16]. Also part of a small spectrographic survey of Kirkwood gap asteroids [17] aiming at discovering parental relationships among asteroids. I think this is enough coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: I struggle with these minimal entries really adding any value to Wikipedia. The skeletal listing, without any discussion of why the subject is important, seems to show a lack of notability. Is WP:NASTCRIT really met for this entry? I am not an astronomer, so I really don't know and figure I probably should not vote on this one, especially given David Eppstein's strong recommendation in favor of keeping it.--Rpclod (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am also not an astronomer. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: the information that is there is pretty meager, but perhaps sufficient to build an article of modest size. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1590 Tsiolkovskaja[edit]

1590 Tsiolkovskaja (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I found two lightcurve studies [18] [19] and a paper that cites a third one from 1977 [20], putting it among the first 100 or so asteroids whose spin rate was determined (according to the citing paper). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 28 May 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 Life extension. (or wherever). There's consensus against keeping, and most seem to believe that either deletion or a redirect (w/one mention of a "keep or merge") is appropriate, so I just rounded to redirect. The article's history is preserved for merging any contents, and if the redirect's target is disputed (or anyone feels it's simply not needed at all), it can be listed at redirects for discussion. slakr^\ talk / 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longevism[edit]

Longevism (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)

Apparent neologism with no third-party verifiable evidence of noteworthiness or currency. The sources listed mostly do not in fact use the neologism, and much of the article text is about people who support a concept something like the neologism but never actually used it. The article was previously speedied as a duplication of longevity; the single-issue-editor creator just created it again. I PRODed it, the creator removed it. So AFD it is. Creator's apologia, which doesn't address that the RSes either don't use the neologism or don't use it with the meaning posited here. Zero Google newspaper sources, zero JSTOR hits, zero HighBeam hits, one scholarly usage which isn't this meaning. - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a suitable redirect would also be fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although there appear to be few academic sources that use the term, the subject material is a bit beyond my grasp and it is not clear to me that they are referring to an ideology. This might simply warrant a redirect to Longevity. For what it is worth, I also stumbled across the term "prolongevism" and noticed in Wikipedia that Prolongevity redirects to Life extension. - Location (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to life extension would be OK by me too - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. I have included in my post below some evidence that longevism is indeed an ideology. In any case, I would be fine with replacing the word ideology with something more bread. Maybe we could instead say that it's "the search for" long life, "a subculture" devoted to it, or "the idea" that it is desirable. Removing everything seems a bit harsh, though, doesn't it? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Life_extension#History_of_the_life_extension_movement - the article life extension covers the movements and ideologies already - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for letting me know. However, it should be inconsequential to this discussion. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline, the subject is to be presumed suitable as its own article, assuming its criteria are satisfied. Therefore, to follow Wikipedia's own guideline, you or someone else must demonstrate that either the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as clearly defined by the guideline) or that the guideline is somehow inappropriate, if you are to delete or redirect the page. If my analyses of the sources below are incorrect, then please show me where and why; otherwise, removal of the article is unwarranted. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No OED entry. No evidence that this is a term in widespread use outside of a particular webpage and some scattered mentions which may be referring to something else entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not think that the term is a neologism. Longevism has been used in the way described in the article since at least 1998, as shown in the book 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era.^[1] Note that the author indeed uses the word longevism to mean the trend of extending lifespans using advances in medical science during the time period covered by the book, thus supporting the definition used in the article. Further, the term longevist has been in use since at least 1824, as shown by a perennial calendar published that year.^[2] Here, it describes a man known for his old age. ^{[nb 1]}

In my "apologia", I clearly showed the noteworthiness of the topic by demonstrating the satisfaction of each criterion in Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The guideline states that such adherence means that the article should be presumed suitable. The sources I used for demonstration both used the term longevism, in fact, and they used it as the article does, as I will prove below.

The first source, Hughes's chapter on transhumanism in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook,^[3] even includes the term in a section heading, "Transhumanism, Singularitarianism, and Longevism". Throughout his chapter, he describes how scientists have worked to prolong life (as I have summarized in the article), and the section under that heading is of particular note: Hughes says (with my emphasis added),

In his 2004 history Rapture: A Raucous Tour of Cloning, Transhumanism, and the New Era of Immortality, Brian Alexander tells a story of the convergence of two communities —transhumanist longevists and genomic scientists. The book chronicles how, on the one hand, the longevity subculture—another movement that substantially overlaps with transhumanism—was gradually drawn away from pseudoscience and medical quackery to the actual science of longevity emerging from clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and genetics.

Not only does this establish the use of the term, but it also establishes longevists as part of a "subculture" and "movement". The other source I used, The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis,^[4] has this to say (also with my emphasis added):

Medical consumerism – like all sorts of consumerism, only more menacingly – is designed to be unsatisfying. The prolongation of life and the search for perfect health (beauty, youth, happiness) are inherently self-defeating. The law of diminishing returns necessarily applies. You can make higher percentages of people survive into their eighties and nineties. But as any geriatric ward shows, that is not the same as to confer enduring mobility, awareness and autonomy. Extending life grows medically feasible, but it is often a life deprived of everything, and one exposed to degrading neglect as resources grow over-stretched and politics turn mean.

What an ignominious destiny for medicine if its future turned into one of bestowing meagre increments of unenjoyed life! It would mirror the fate of athletics, in which disproportionate energies and resources – not least medical ones, like illegal steroids – are now invested to shave records by milliseconds. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the "abolition" of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation. To air these predicaments is not anti-medical spleen – a churlish reprisal against medicine for its victories – but simply to face the growing reality of medical power not exactly without responsibility but with dissolving goals.

Note that these are both sources scholarly uses of the term (not just the "one scholarly usage" claimed above).

Additionally, I would like to point out that most of the sources referenced on the page do use the term longevism or longevist, or both, and many more can be found with a simple Google search.

Finally, I want to object to Mr. Gerard's attempt to discredit me. A perusal of the page for longevity makes it quite clear that longevism is not the same as longevity, so the speedy deletion was obviously unwarranted. Sure, I recreated the page after it was removed, but I addressed every point made by the deleter, and he has not tried to repeat his mistake in the month since his one and only attempt. I particularly object to being described as a "single-issue-editor creator", as I have been editing Wikipedia for years without using an account, and my Contributions page even shows a few recent edits on unrelated topics.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above comment is from the article creator.

• Redirect to Life extension - I don't see any indication that "longevism" is distinctly different than this article, which already mentions "longevists." It could be speedily deleted as article duplicates existing article, but a redirect seems like a good idea. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wikimandia: The life extension page is about a "science", "medicine", or "gerontology" rather than a set of ideas. The page describes longevists as wanting to live indefinitely, which is not how most of the sources of the longevism page describe them. Are you sure that these concepts are the same thing? Do you think we should add a section on longevism to the life extension page? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Haptic-feedback: Based purely on the article and looking at the sources, the claim that the word longevism belongs to an ideology of transhumanism is simply not supported. According to the longevism article itself, longevism is defined as "extension of the human lifespan and life expectancy within the limit of the opportunities increasingly offered by biological and physical sciences;" This is from the "Italian transhumanist manifesto" article that has been translated into English. The original, obviously, is in Italian, and as anyone can see, not only does it NOT refer to the word "longevism" it uses the word "longevità," which is the Italian word for longevity, and not "longevismo," which is the Italian word for longevism. (It's used as a category here, and these articles are about medical science). If the original author of the manifesto wanted to use a word that meant something different than longevity, it would have been possible to do so by using the word longevismo. So the translation is complete crap and highly sketchy. Another claimed "source" is the Psychology Today article, which does not define longevism as anything, but lists longevity (NOT longevism) along with other "meaning of life" pursuits/principles like altruism and hedonism. Only under the entry for sensationalism does it use the phrase longevism ("Quality of life, not quantity: totally opposite to prudent, careful longevism: boring!"). The other sources, from what I can see, fail to define it in a radically different way than similar terms like "life extensionists" in a way that warrants a separate article. I don't doubt there are transhumanists who embrace longevism, but the question is whether they have done it in such a way that the word itself is now associated with their ideology. IMO the burden to prove longevism as an ideology, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, has not been met. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wikimandia: I would like to point out that the article makes no claim that longevism is an ideology that belongs to transhumanism; rather, it claims that it is an ideology that is sometimes associated with transhumanism. I don't know a lick of Italian, so I can't defend the translators' word choices with much confidence. I also admit that citation of the Psychology Today article may be poor. But these uses are still both in the same sense as in the longevism page and therefore support it, if only lightly. Besides, there are other sources that associate longevism with transhumanism, such as Hughes's work. Further, you do not address the sources that are used in my arguments (here and on this page) that do give the proof of "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". To be clear, the sources are Cope's 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era,^[1] Dormandy's The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis,^[4] and Hughes's chapter "Transhumanism" in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook.^[3] Please see the quotes given on this page, and please note the definitions of significant, independent, and reliable given by Wikpedia's notability guideline. Now, what about these sources are not significant, independent, or reliable? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to transhumanism, I'd say: The article claims to be about an ideology. Now, I have more doubts about this ideology than you do, whoever you are, but ideology can be defined too many ways to completely disprove that the . . . people . . . nattering on and on (and on) about "transhumanism" aren't tantamount to an ideology. As for this article, it's an unsupported neologism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information: I know the Kevin Cope article, and he's not talking about this at all. He's a scholar of 18th century history and ideas who has been particularly interested in the development of ideas during the critical "revolution" in philosophy of the 18th century. How did people view the Bible's discussion of people who lived to 800-900 years? How did that change? See the reference to Brobdignag in there? He means the Strulbugs. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hithladaeus:I take it that you mean Cope's book does not talk about longevism in the sense given by the Wikipedia page, but I don't see why. I don't have access to the full text, but the previews that Google Books gives me when I search for longevism all point to the same meaning. I will quote each of these previews here:

An important study of longevism within the history of ideas is G. J. Gruman, "A History of Ideas about the Prolongation of Life", Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 56 (1966), 3–102.

Here, we can see he includes longevism under "Ideas about the Prolongation of Life". Given that an ideology is a set of ideas by definition, this supports the longevism page's description of the subject.

[...] different schools of longevism framed their contexts and characters in different ways, they nevertheless shared the common view that since the Enlightenment people have been living longer, and that their longevism has narrative as well as historical significance.^{[nb 2]}

Here, we're shown that there can be "schools of longevism", as in schools of thought, again supporting the claim that longevism is an ideology. The talk of living longer in the Enlightenment, that era of science and reason, supports the page's definition further.

He was indeed in a very small minority of skeptics. The more pervasive view was the sunny optimistic one, based on wonder and miracle as much as anything else, the view that life was getting longer and the marvel that it was. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: [...]

This passage seems to refer to longevism as a view that marvels at life getting longer, corroborating even more the longevism article.

Could you please elaborate on your reasons why Cope here is "not talking about this at all"?

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cope is using the word as a backformation off of "longevity." In other words, he's using the word as a nonce formation rather than in reference to an ongoing or postulated ideology. "Longevity-ism" is the sense of the word in his passage. I believe he was dealing with the question of "progress" and the eternal question of optimism/pessimism in the age and the repercussions of empiricism.

He has been interested both in the reactions to Malthus and to the development of probablistic reasoning. (The last time I heard him speak, he was talking about how important Huygens's objections to inductive reasoning were and how the early 18th century had begun taking unknowable propositions and dividing them up into greater and greater likelihoods as a means of solving problems. That was . . . a few years before the publication of this book.)

The general problem we have to deal with is the stereotype of "enlightenment." Is the 18th century a time of cheerful faith in Science, or was it a time of vicious skepticism about the insidious effects of nascent capitalism, enclosures, uncertainty, and doubts about man's essential nature? Most of us know that the answer is actually "both, at the same time." Hithladaeus (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hithladaeus: I agree that the word longevism is a backformation with a meaning like "longevity-ism". He surely uses the term to mean a belief, favour, trend, or something similar of longevity. But this is what I meant for the longevism page to be about. Where we disagree is on your point that his use of the word forbids future usage in the context of another time frame. Clearly, the term was adopted by others to refer to views in other periods, and the longevism page even shows how the concept has evolved from the era covered by Cope. What brings you to the conclusion that Cope pre-emptively limited the definition of the word? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No word can been pre-emptively limited to one definition; however, saying a word can take on a new meaning is not the same as saying it already has. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into Life_extension#Ethics_and_politics_of_life_extension. The article life extension is 66 kilobytes,[21] and a size split is justified when the articles passes 50 kb. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split. There is also justification for a content split. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Content_split. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to life extension, per Wikimandia. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)*[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:NEO, I think redirect or delete would be most appropriate for this article. I agree that life extension is the most natural fit and that article could probably use some paring down itself. jps (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability as a separate subject from life extension. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost never used WP:Neologism, article is a WP:Coatrack with tidbits of wisdom out of context, to support this proposed concept. Kraxler (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory A. Sandfort[edit]

Gregory A. Sandfort (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 business executive, all the sources show he exists but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN; the sources in the article are not just WP:ROUTINE, but appear to be mirroring one another. Current news sources are just more routine PR stuff, and a rather expensive house sale. — Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vorderline notable at best, promotional purpose, promotional sources, written by known undeclared paid editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 June 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move to Tractor Supply Company as he is the current CEO. My searches found nothing to suggest he has good independent notability here, here, here and here. I'm simply suggesting the move because it's an alternative and of all the companies he's been with, the only one that actually mentions him is Tractor Supply. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lalika[edit]

Lalika (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:NOTABILITY. I am partially hampered by only reading English, so decided AfD was a fairer option than prod. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think they exist. I'm not saying it's a hoax but.... the Urdu phrase refers to Laleka, which is a village (see Urdu article here: لالیکا). There's no reference to any Lalika or Laleka tribe or people anywhere. Article creator was banned long ago for copyright violations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree, my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or redirect to List of Saraiki tribes. The Lalika tribe belongs to Laleka village mentioned by Wikimandia.  sami  ^talk 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Samee, thanks for your input. Do you have any reliable sources to verify that it is notable, or that this tribe is a Saraiki tribe or form this village? I'd be happy to change my vote if such things could be established. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources, impossible even to establish the existence of this tribe. Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Betts (psychic)[edit]

Jason Betts (psychic) (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)

Reason: See my comments in (brackets) regarding the introduction of the article.

Dr. (not a doctor) Jason Betts is a psychic (no comment) and IQ test author (nothing notable) from Tasmania, Australia. He is the founder and editor of the World Genius Directory, a voluntary directory of geniuses from around the world listed by IQ (not a notable website, but a personal one).[6] He has won numerous awards as a psychic (??????) and also appeared on Season 1 of The One[7] with Andrew Daddo and ABC's Unbelievable.[8] (guest, and extra? Not really notable.) He was recently referred to by Today Tonight as "Australia's Top Psychic."[5] (not an award) He is the Abbot for the Order of the Mystic Rose[2] (?????) and a member of both Mensa International,[3] the Triple Nine Society[1] and the Prometheus Society.[4] (IQ society memberships does not make one notable).

WP:ANYBIO It reads like a article created by the person the article is on, mentioning any detail that could possibly be a claim to fame, often linking to his own youtube videos. Autumnox (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found some media coverage[22][23][24][25], but it's all very brief, and much of it regional/local. Psychics can be notable if they get enough press coverage, but despite that minor award he hasn't. Not notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find anything about him to meet GNG. Couldn't he foresee that this article would be deleted? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is neat and sourced but solid notability is not there (my searches found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-promotion by non-notable self-promoting psychic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surender Singh Narwal[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Does not appear to have actually won election to legislative office, though he does appear to hold an intra-party post. PROD declined by article creator, who has indicated that he is the subject of the article. Safiel (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Autobiography of a non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He was simply a candidate as my searches show which also found nothing significant here and here (I searched more but this is the best I found). SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 June 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. Nominator is a confirmed and now blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheth N L High School[edit]

Sheth N L High School (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:SCHOOL & WP:N PawanAhuja (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are notable. Also I fail to see how WP:School applies. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High schools are considered inherently notable, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Safiel (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Disruptive nomination by a  Likely sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 9 June 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 International Socialist Organization. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Chretien[edit]

Todd Chretien (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)

Chretien was a minor (Green Party) candidate for United States Senate in California at the time of previous AFD (closed as no consensus). The argument for deletion was that he was non-notable and lacking reliable secondary sources. The argument for keeping was that he was an active candidate. 10 years on, there is no claim to notability. He is a failed candidate for political office and a political activist of no apparent or sourceable notability. Searching on his name produces stories in Socialist Worker, a fringe publication put out by the International Socialist Organization with which he is affiliated, so it is not an independent source. He has been mentioned in other fringe outlets, for example, in Indymedia, here:[26] where he is quoted ("said Todd Chretien of the International Socialist Organization.") He has written opinion articles for other fringe publication, including Counterpunch. Only RS on the page documents that he participated in a student strike at Columbia way back in his student days. Have searched for and not found substantive coverage in mainstream sources, not even when he was a candidate. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.

• Redirect to International Socialist Organization, as he writes frequently for their publication. He seems to pop up in the news fairly regularly so he could become notable again for his bourgeoisie-crushing efforts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time of the original deletion discussion, WP:NPOL hadn't been codified as thoroughly as it is now — while it was never standard consensus, there was a significant viewpoint that non-winning candidates should be considered eligible for Wikipedia articles for being candidates. But that's definitely not the standard that applies now; under current wikistandards, nothing here qualifies him for a standalone article. Redirect to International Socialist Organization per Wikimandia. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somepalli_Venkata_Subbaiah[edit]

Somepalli_Venkata_Subbaiah (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)

Is not notable in his own way, there is nothing specifically special. The article was written by his own son, however it does meet WP:NPOV LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 15:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I waited to comment so any people familiar with this could comment but I'll go ahead and say my searches found no good coverage. Although the article is neat and sourced, there's no target for moving elsewhere so delete for now I suppose. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Tadeka Geetam. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet our standards of notability. Huon (talk) 23:54, 11 June 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. As no evidence of significant coverage or playing in a fully professional league has been found. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Zin Lwin[edit]

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

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Da Drewster (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – He played in Myanmar National League, a fully pro league per this list. He is notable due to his goals at 2015 SEA Games. JackHoang (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JackHoang: Do you have a source to confirm he's actually played in the national league? Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although he is on a team in a fully professional league he still hasn't played or made an appearance for them. Because of this he still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Drewster (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. MbahGondrong (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. Could be re-created if subject meets WP:NFOOTY requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Ko Oo and Phạm Đức Huy should also be deleted due to the same criteria. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them play in a fully professional league, so they are VERY NOTABLE. It's no use deleting these articles. JackHoang (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JackHoang, Phạm Đức Huy is a member of Hanoi F.C., which is in V.League 2 (only V.League 1 is considered fully professional). And similarity to Kyaw Zin Lwin there is no source to affirm that Ye Ko Oo actually played for his club. Unfortunately taking part of the Football at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games does not guarantee notability. These articles of course can be recreated if in the future they meet the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY requirements, but for now they do not. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article claims he plays in fully professional league appearing in WP:FPL. We know he's got U23 appearances, and so if he'd spent the last 3 years with a top-level Myanmar team, then one would assume he's got an appearance, and this is an easy keep. But we can't assume. It seems this is easily solved by digging out some match line-ups. But I've failed in about 10 minutes or so of finding ANY match line-ups for this league. Could someone provide some, or at least point to where they might be? Any language will do. Nfitz (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nfitz the club that the subject of this article plays for; Magway F.C., does have an official website here, but it is mostly in Burmese (which I am not fluent in). If anyone is fluent in Burmese and say that the website mentions Kyaw Zin Lwin as having played, then it could be used as a source to establish notability. Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the subjects of these articles have taken part in a regional tournament such as the AFC Cup I believe it would make them pass WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if they played another team from a fully-professional league. But the league play seems like the slam dunk. If only there was some game reports somewhere. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. here is another website that seems to have match stats and reports but once again I'm not fluent. It would help a lot if some Burmese editors were part of the conversation as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am tagging these Burmese editors if they have anything to add to this discussion: @Thihazaw88:, @Min Aung Naing:, @Aungthurahein:, @Yin May Lwin:, @Htoolwinmaung:, @Ekyaw:, @Ladybesttruthful:. Any contribution will be very welcome thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Myanmar clubs do not have their own websites. Even if they do, the pages are not updated for ages. Sources are often not reliable. Therefore, we can only bridge certain info given on the MFF website to Wikipedia. Magway FC website, you mentioned has no info about Kyaw Zin Lwin. Again, web pages for MNL clubs are just for the sake of its existence, not for info. Here in this MFF official page, he is mentioned (in Burmese) as a Magway FC player. This is as far as I can go. (unsigned comment by User:Thihazaw88

Doesn't look like there's been any update on the club website in 3 years. I've searched (for far too long) for match reports in the league, without much success; I found a few odd summaries but only mentioning some goal scorers; ironically the only full match squad I've come across if for a youth league game a couple of years ago when he was 20; one might assume he's been with the main squad - but nothing clear one way or the other. The only possible suggestion that he's anything more than the youth league, is his shirt number is 12 for the main squad - but I can't even find a source for that beyond what's listed at Magway F.C.. I wonder if there is anything in the media packages for the 2015 Southeast Asian Games (I haven't searched). Also, what were these AFC matches? I haven't pursued. Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC Cup and AFC Champions League are professional international competition, the former which often involves Burmese clubs. However if they did participate in such competitions thier stats would clearly show up on a website such as soccerway.com or nationalfootballteams.com. I did a quick search for both Kyaw Zin Lwin and Ye Ko Oo on both sites and only got a blank slate both times. It's looking less and less likely that these articles can pass WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Less likely it will pass AFD, but a youth player 3 years until 22, a low shirt number, and featuring in a national U23 tourament (I assume the current SEA games are U23)? That smells of first team. If we could find match linesups, and he just didn't show, then he wouldn't meet WP:NFOOTY; but with not finding them at all ... my suspicion is that he likely does have first team appearances ... but suspicions count for squat here. Both User:Jogurney and User:Struway2 seem to have been good at finding oddball reports in the past. Do either of you have any insight? Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Probably notable per WP:NFOOTY, but really struggling to find confirmation of this, the comments above suggesting that he essentially probably has played for a team in a fully professional league are undoubtedly correct, but unfounded in the sources available to those not speaking Burmese. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is quite clear that this is a single incident that doesn't need a separate article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Note for Vote Scam[edit]

2015 Note for Vote Scam (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 had redirected this to Revanth Reddy but that decision was reverted. This is an ongoing investigation as well as a BLP matter. WP:CRIME doesn't apply since the subject is already notable and this article is--ostensibly--about the investigation, but it seems to me this is excessive content on an ongoing investigation. Had I noticed that this is all hot off the press, so to speak, I would have gone to AfD rightaway. As it is, I think this article should be deleted, with possibly some content moved to the Reddy article--but judiciously. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), I hope this search is more appropriate for the topic. In that case we can discuss the name of page. Intention of the article is about issue related to bribing in election which is a crime incident in which allegedly elected representatives were present and caught on audio and video tapes and arrested red handedly .Court trails were under progress. I believe this article is important and more info need to be added. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, allegedly. That's not the kind of thing we do. We're not the news, we're an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• what about this article Lewinsky scandal is it alleged or convicted --Rasulnrasul (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia does not record incidents where a politician faces "scam" accusations—per WP:NOTNEWS an article does not reflect current media activity regarding incidents with no evidence of long-term significance, and there is not even a claim that this incident satisfies notability requirements. The affair is important for the career of the individuals concerned, and due material should be added to their articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Deletion. Please check in news Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to understand the notability. Its not just incident, crime incident and case was in court. Its not accusation, he was caught red handedly. It was on the lines of Indian coal allocation scam. see current news to understand effect. In Inian context chief minister (one of accused)is equivalent to senator. More info may need to be added in page for showing notability and vitality of issue. -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS. And of course it's still an accusation. You should probably read our WP:BLP more carefully. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Deletion This was one of the trending news in two states Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. This article can be improved but can't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ved548 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No Deletion. This article is not just about the Reventh Reddy's involvement in Note for Vote scam, but about the complete scenario of Note for Vote Scam in Telugu states of India. As per the news sources & legal case proceedings, there are many people involved in this scam. So this is an important article -- raj808 203.13.128.104 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • _{While closing, I've struck out the user name above as it was added by the IP who signed. —SpacemanSpiff 07:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Johnuniq sums it up nicely, a stand-alone article is not warranted at this time, mention of the arrest is already made at the involved politicians' articles. Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not every political scandal is automatically notable. To allow this forked article to stand alone would make a horrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 17 June 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr.[edit]

Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• There is very little evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references are unfortunately now dead links, but it is unlikely that they would offer much support for notability: for example, it is unlikely that a mere "Alphabetical Locator of Graduates and Former Cadets" contained substantial coverage of individual people included in the list; likewise, a source cited as a reference for the fact that he once received a posting as a second lieutenant is unlikely to provide much support for notability. Other than that, the references consist of a news announcement that he had been appointed as chief of a State Liquor Authority, a news announcement that he had offered "business management" a plan for the protection of industrial plants, and a very short obituary in the New York Times, which is far too short (six sentences) to be considered substantial coverage.

• A previous AfD discussion was closed as "no consensus", but I am unconvinced that the "keep" arguments thee were sufficiently valid in terms of Wikipedia's policies to justify that closure, in light of the "delete" arguments, which were much more in line with policies. The "keep" arguments essentially fell into two types: (1) He did various things which were striking or significant, such as receiving two highly regarded medals, and at one time being the youngest colonel in the US Army Air Force. However, Wikipedia's notability standards require substantial coverage of such things, not the mere fact that they happened, and nobody produced evidence that they had received substantial coverage. (In any case, how remarkable is being the youngest colonel in a force? At any time someone or other is the youngest colonel, and as each youngest colonel gets older and newer colonels are appointed, over the years very many people must take a turn at being the youngest.) (2) It was suggested that the mere existence of an obituary in a prominent newspaper was said by one editor to be "sufficient for notability". However, that is not in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines: substantial coverage is needed, not a mere six-sentence obituary, which is really pretty minimal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't really seem to meet WP:GNG. Coverage does not seem to be that significant. The NYT obit would be a big deal, if he were not a prior holder of a state-wide government job. A job that is not significant enough to confer notability. EricSerge (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; esp. the point about the obituary is well taken. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Based on the claims in the article, he served well, but without the sorts of activities that generate news stories, and then he held a high state government post without generating any controversy before being a teacher. His dedication to serving others is admirable and should be honored, but there is nothing here to indicate that he will be a search term in an encyclopedia. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOLDIER.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above and non notability Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:12, 17 June 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. Nominator is a now blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Subba[edit]

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

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

No coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:BLP PawanAhuja (talk) 13:57, 9 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark MacMillan[edit]

Mark MacMillan (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 college hockey player. Fails WP:GNG - only sources in article are routine, primary or republication of press releases. I'm not seeing substantive coverage from a search of various news sources. Article was clearly re-created exclusively using an awards list. And while creator will likely argue that the NCHC first conference team meets WP:NHOCKEY point 4, that does not remove the burden to demonstrate that the player has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. In fact, going through other recent page creations from the same list, it is becoming clear that simply being on an all-conference team does not result in such coverage. Resolute 13:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: WP:NHOCKEY/LA was written specifically for the purpose that editors would have an objective list of what articles are to be presumed notable. Player was named to the NCHC All-Conference First Team and therefore explicitly meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Please re-read my nomination statement, where I already anticipated and challenged this argument from you. Please demonstrate the existence of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources such that this article passes WP:GNG. And remember, presumed notable is not guaranteed notable. Resolute 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable amateur player who fails to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Aside from that at the time Dolovis strongly opposed NHOCKEY/LA [27][28] -- and it's curious that he's defending it now -- that's not pertinent to the discussion: WP:NHOCKEY is. The intent was that "First Team All-Star" would pertain to minor professional and major junior leagues, which use the term as a mark of the highest honors at their positions, and that "All-American" was intended to pertain to American collegiate leagues, that being the level of highest positional honor for NCAA hockey. Even were the subject to have achieved that, he would still need to meet the GNG no matter what elements of NHOCKEY had superficially been met. "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Ravenswing 02:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1448 Lindbladia[edit]

1448 Lindbladia (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:DWMP: a single light curve study with little more than a rotation period. Most likely non-notable per WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I also found only one study [29] — I thought there were two but the other one was a spurious hit. Anyway, it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 14 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Kaverin[edit]

1976 Kaverin (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing found on Google Scholar. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 14 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1723 Klemola[edit]

1723 Klemola (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect. Significant coverage in one source concerning a stellar occultation event [30] and brief in-passing coverage in two more papers [31] [32]. I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 14 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1324 Knysna[edit]

1324 Knysna (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. One lightcurve study [33], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 14 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1819 Laputa[edit]

1819 Laputa (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. One lightcurve study [34] and brief mention as a candidate for membership in a region of chaotic overlap between two resonances [35], I think not quite enough despite having such a well-chosen name. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 14 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1664 Felix[edit]

1664 Felix (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. One lightcurve study [36], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Faisal Saif. All three !votes following the nomination are for what will ultimately result in redirection, and two of the three are for merging. While AfD closes are not based upon a vote count, consensus herein is stronger for merging rather than just redirection. Only the nominator has opined for straight deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Adults Only (2016 film)[edit]

For Adults Only (2016 film) (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)

Too soon. Principal photography has not yet begun (despite these [37][38] unsupported assertions from the article's creator.) The film was just announced yesterday and this reference in the article implies that filming will begin in September. This reference from yesterday suggests that the director hasn't even approached actors about the job yet, and says explicitly that filming will begin in September. WP:NFF is the prevailing guideline and based on that, it is at least 3 months premature for this article to exist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to director's article —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Faisal Saif for now - News found a few results including possibly casting Kim Kardashian which may simply be gossip. With a December 2016 release, it's unlikely this will become fruitful anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now to Faisal Saif... the director's article where we may use sources speaking about his plans to include and cite information about it's progress. Consider for a return or undeletion when filming begins and this might then meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Until then it is simply TOO SOON for a separate article. If author Kittura wishes it userfied for him to work on until then, fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems only Kim Kardashian parts will be shot in September. The Film maker intends to shoot the film end of this month. User talk:Kittura 15:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittura That's not what the references say, or even imply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the publicist of the movie. Maybe in two days the filming will start and the article will be updated regularly. Still, If everyone else thinks this article to be merged, they are free to do so. User talk:Kittura 04:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we need to wait for filming to commence and the project to gain coverage in reliable sources. Would you like it userfied to you in a draftspace while we wait? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 15 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1622 Chacornac[edit]

1622 Chacornac (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. One lightcurve study [39], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability due to paucity of suitable sources. Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 15 June 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. Nominator is a now blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Monneyron[edit]

Frederic Monneyron (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 dependent over non-notable sources. No valid secondary sources fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR PawanAhuja (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Betts (psychic)[edit]

Jason Betts (psychic) (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)

Reason: See my comments in (brackets) regarding the introduction of the article.

Dr. (not a doctor) Jason Betts is a psychic (no comment) and IQ test author (nothing notable) from Tasmania, Australia. He is the founder and editor of the World Genius Directory, a voluntary directory of geniuses from around the world listed by IQ (not a notable website, but a personal one).[6] He has won numerous awards as a psychic (??????) and also appeared on Season 1 of The One[7] with Andrew Daddo and ABC's Unbelievable.[8] (guest, and extra? Not really notable.) He was recently referred to by Today Tonight as "Australia's Top Psychic."[5] (not an award) He is the Abbot for the Order of the Mystic Rose[2] (?????) and a member of both Mensa International,[3] the Triple Nine Society[1] and the Prometheus Society.[4] (IQ society memberships does not make one notable).

WP:ANYBIO It reads like a article created by the person the article is on, mentioning any detail that could possibly be a claim to fame, often linking to his own youtube videos. Autumnox (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found some media coverage[40][41][42][43], but it's all very brief, and much of it regional/local. Psychics can be notable if they get enough press coverage, but despite that minor award he hasn't. Not notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find anything about him to meet GNG. Couldn't he foresee that this article would be deleted? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is neat and sourced but solid notability is not there (my searches found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self-promotion by non-notable self-promoting psychic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5Zic[edit]

5Zic (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)

Notability not established in third-party reliable sources. Does not meet Notability for music guidelines. Sources are primary, social media or not related to subject. A quick search does not reveal notability. CutOffTies (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was heavily vandalized on 8 and 9 June, and since this nomination it has been reverted to its original pre-vandalism version. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should've checked the history. Withdrawn --CutOffTies (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Literati Quarterly[edit]

The Literati Quarterly (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 deleted after an AfD last year. Recreated now with 1 additional source (a brief article in the San Marcos Daily Record). Keep arguments on article talk page are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. Still does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say the zeal to delete this page considering other less sources pages without third-party sources sighted shows a systemic bias on the part of the person requesting deletion considering that request for deletion was denied less than 24 hours prior. The publication has obviously grown since trying to have a page last year. Again, how is this publication any less significant than others established in the same year? Zarbe2015 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarbe2015 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Please review WP:NPA, thanks. As for the argument that there are other pages that are equally bad, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Perhaps the publication has grown since the creation of that vastly premature article of last year, but that is not reflected in the title. If you want to argue that this is notable, you need independent reliable sources about the magazine. As for the fact that "deletion was denied less than 24 hours prior", that was a G5 request and the admin handling that request judged that the new article was too different from the previous one for G5 to apply, hence this AfD. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How is an independent news article not reliable enough? If Wikipedia is to have these policies they should be applied evenly. You still have not explained how this publication is any less notable than others created in 2014. Zarbe2015 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody says it's not reliable enough (although one may have some doubts for such a local paper). It just is not the in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources that WP:GNG requires. As for the other articles, WP has now almost 5 million articles. If you think those are all high-quality articles, you're dreaming. If you think that I can keep an eye on all of those, you're dreaming even more. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it explains very clearly why the argument that similar articles exist doesn't apply. If it would apply, then we would have no inclusion criteria at all any more. Feel free to propose those other pages for deletion, too, if they irritate you so much. In short, we don't need to demonstrate here that this magazine is "less notable than others created in 2014". What needs to be demonstrated is that this magazine is notable, regardless of any others. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. There is possible sockpuppetry, as User:Zarbe2015 and User:Txcn1987 both are accounts that have primarily edited only this article (e.g. SPAs). The latter created the page in 2014 and the former re-created the page in 2015. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The newspaper article says that the site has "spread like wildfire" but the Alexa stats don't support that - the site is somewhere in the 22 millionth level of web sites. By comparison, my modest personal site is in the 1.5 millionth, and the Iowa City Public Library is 300K. This dampens a bit the reliability of the newspaper article, which shows great enthusiasm for a local project, but may be biased. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Biased, or simply didn't check their facts... --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• From General notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."Zarbe2015 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under G4, nothing changed since the previous deletion. One "source" in the subject's hometown mentioned it, so what? The other 2 "sources" in the article are an advert and the subject's own website. Web and news searches yield nothing. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 17 June 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants of the Berlin International Literature Festival[edit]

List of participants of the Berlin International Literature Festival (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)

Participation in the festival is nto necessarily notable, and a list of the participants violated NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded for the reasons of WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not a directory) and WP:LISTPEOPLE (Lists of people). Smd75jr (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, cannot find any reliable sources, probably why the article doesn't have any. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List has no encyclopedic content, and conveys virtually no info. Mere presence at a literary festival is trivial. Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with Kraxler above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Doctor Medical Journal[edit]

The Future Doctor Medical Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the criteria listed in the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to locate any sources verifying this journal's existence, so this article should be deleted as per WP:V. Additionally, a high school journal without exceptional status does not meet criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BU Rob13 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To me this actually seems a pretty clear speedy delete as G11 (promotional). In any case, this new journal is completely non-notable. It is not indexed in any selective databases, there are no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I declined a speedy on this because it was outside the scope of A7 and converted to a PROD, which was declined. My concern about the subject not meeting the inclusion guidelines stand. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology[edit]

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology (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)