< 4 March	6 March >

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

The result was speedy delete as ((db-g7)). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Jack[edit]

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

Possible hoax, I can't find any evidence for this person's supposed tennis career Grahame (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found validating information on the career of [Luke Jack], and the trouble Grahame may have found verifying the information was probably due to the subjects inability to participate after injury; the article expresses affiliation, but doesn't make claim to any false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalen33 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no evidence for this players existence. There are no profiles on the ATP or ITF sites, has not entered the 2008 grand slams or olympics as claimed. Nowhere near meeting the notability criteria of WP:NTENNIS. Looks very much like a hoax to me, delete. Fazzo29 (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's got a Google Plus and YouTube account. Beyond that, it looks like Google never heard of him or the citation that supposedly authenticates his career. Sorry, kid. Keep practicing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. The claim to being in the 2008 Australian Open, and 2008 US Open are completely bogus as the draws for the AUS, and US clearly show no such person. The claim for the Olympics is couched vaguely as "involvement with Team Australia" without specifying what that involvement was but clearly it was not as one of the athletes. Note that the first references to CArnegie Mellon Today is also bogus. It references page 24 of the Jan 2015 edition. You can view that edition here and verify fo yourself that page 24 has nothing to do with a Luke Jack, nor does anything in the entire magazine. I don;t have acecess to the Tennis Week magazine reference but given all the fakery, there's no doubt that it is also a bogus reference. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Bbb23 (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simio[edit]

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

Speedy tag repeatedly removed by author. Subject to WP:G11 and WP:A7. Buffalutheran (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Guardino[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Moonboy54 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage/achievements to pass WP:BIO, as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silicon Valley Leadership Group; fails WP:BIO as above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN 2: "2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage":

Gilroy Dispatch 2/21/07 Governor appoints Carl Guardino to State Transportation Commission

Though I haven't tracked it down, the above article suggests there should be additional coverage of his political work in the 90's and early 2000's.

San Francisco Chronicle 05/13/07 ON THE RECORD / CARL GUARDINO
LA Times 4/3/11 Carl Guardino wants to improve quality of life in Silicon Valley
LA Times 3/10/12 Patt Morrison Asks: Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley's big wheel
San Jose Mercury News's Silicon Beat 1/14/13 Is Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Carl Guardino headed for Comedy Central?
Politico 3/24/13 Carl Guardino rallies tech execs for immigration fight
San Jose Mercury News 7/1/13 Carl Guardino to chair California Transportation Commission
San Jose Inside 6/15/14 Mayor’s Race Imperils Carl Guardino’s Transportation Tax

A redirect is inappropriate to Silicon Valley Leadership Group as it should just as reasonably go to California Transportation Commission the dual role reflects his importance.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Subject has been mentioned in passing by multiple non-primary reliable sources (normally in his leadership roll of the SVLG), but I have not found any reliable sources which give significant coverage or explore the subject in-depth. Therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. However, the subject is the CEO of a notable organization, which has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Therefore, I support redirecting the article to the article about the organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a number of the articles I have posted above he is the subject of the article, not just mentioned in passing. Besides his involvement in SVG he has received substantial coverage as a state appointee.

Another source is:

Richards, Gary. "Local leader Guardino's new gig could give BART plans a boost" McClatchy - Tribune Business News Washington. 14 Feb 2007: 1. via San Jose Mercury News, Calif. syndication 806 words about Guardino and his impact directly about Guardino in a major newspaper.

(WP:INDEPTH, btw, is about events not people.)

--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listed both INDEPTH & SIGCOV, as both are similar in meaning.

Looking at the Los Angeles Times article provided, I will strike my redirect !vote, and go to Weak keep. The Politico Pro IMHO is more focused on the organization than the subject, as are other articles provided. The Mercury News article appears to be a rather short biography, and not significant coverage (not like that one LA Times article).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage listed above by Samuel J. Howard shows that reliable sources over a wide geographic area think he is important. This is not evident from the article, since most of its history and references have been deleted and revdel'ed. If the result is "keep", the article will have to be reconstructed. I will assist with that process. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, NH[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed by author. Church itself is not notable apart from the Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal which took place in 2011. This article itself is an ad page, which should be redirected to the sex scandal. Buffalutheran (talk) 20:39, 5 March 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) 08:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Mustangs[edit]

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

I am having a hard time finding evidence that they meet GNG. Both external links are down. Don't believe that they were notable nor do they meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to...something (ideally a league article with a table containing them). Team may not be notable, but I can see how the term would be searched for. Pax 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable summer league collegiate baseball team. Media is insufficient to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could see redirecting to Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League, but the current Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League article does not mention this team, and the league's website doesn't seem to list it either, at least not as an extant team. If this is a former team or one that moved, and the Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League article is updated to refer to it, then this would be an appropriate redirect term, but barring that I don't see the point. Rlendog (talk) 15:01, 10 March 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. Other reliable sources available aplenty. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 05:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renera Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of sufficient reliable third-party coverage ([1], [2], [3], etc.) for the WP:GNG thresholds. (Caution: Google Translate is bad at Samoan.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too bad the Times of India cite is too short to meet the GNG (the Times being the largest-circulation English-language newspaper in the world), but the other two cites are good. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Original author blanked the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hangover (book)[edit]

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

Non-notable book - fails to meet the requirements of WP:BK. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn

Agriopoma texasiana[edit]

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

Agriopoma texasiana should be a redirect to [Veneridae]. The only information given is a single source and the information that would already be clear in the Veneridae article. Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Question if you want to merge and redirect this article with a short and inoffensive edit history, why is it at AfD? If there's content here to merge, the article history needs to be preserved, so it can't be deleted. If there's nothing to merge, then you can just convert it to a redirect yourself. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer I don't think there is any information in this article that is not already in the Veneridae article Jcmcc450 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Topic is notable, no benefit to deleting. While there is very little information in the article, the distribution of the species is one fact that shouldn't be presented in the Veneridae article. Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, I was unaware of the wiki standards on species Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted under A7. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mazziotti[edit]

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

Unotable film director with only 2 very unknown credits. Wgolf (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG, This IMHO seems A7 worthy but seeing as IMDB is listed I'll hold off the CSD'ing. –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also nominated for speedy delete A7. Importance is not established, and a lack of notability is obvious. IMDB is not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 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 speedily deleted by User:C.Fred per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnhero[edit]

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

Looks like pure spam. Was unsure if to speedy or go afd which I went with AFD in the end. Wgolf (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G11 Speedy, and so tagged. Pax 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Update[edit]

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

Not a notable WP:TVSHOW as there don't seem to be any mentions of this show in the mainstream sources that are required for WP:FRIND and the fact that the programming is local cable access is a strong signifier that the show lacks notability. jps (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the problems mentioned above, the article is very outdated and features inaccurate information, as it lists Kenny Young as a producer and host. Kenny Young was an Ohio-based ufologist who died in 2005. 2602:304:691E:5A29:5449:1328:DDC2:7569 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 2602. Pax 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood, Arkansas[edit]

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

There's not enough information in the article to determine where this is. GNIS has two entries for Wildwood, in Lonoke and St. Francis Counties, but these are both in eastern Arkansas. Barring further information, this article appears to be a hoax. NE2 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find any information on this. One can normally find information for why most ghost towns came to be and then suddenly ceased to be, but such is not the case for this supposed ghost town. I concur that this looks like a hoax. T C N7JM 16:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unverifiable. Either a hoax or local name given by an obscure group of people. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google doesn't know where this place is. "Wildwood" seems to be a common name for Pentecostal churches in Arkansas, so it's unlikely that this particular one that nobody has written about and doesn't seem to currently exist is notable. Ivanvector (talk) 17:36, 5 March 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 Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfwere[edit]

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

Seems to be a relatively newly invented term associated with fantasy role-playing games. I came across it because it was tagged for WP:WikiProject Mythology; it clearly is not a valid mythological topic. I did a search for relaible sources, and only fantasy gaming sites came back. On Google Scholar, just typos for "wolf were". Unsurprisingly, nothing from JSTOR. Not notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons). Pax 00:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons). This a plausible search term, whose Google search reveals the dominant usage to be in Dungeons & Dragons and closely related RPGs. --Mark viking (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Cheers. - Mattwheatley (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Given this is D&D, it's likely the term will enter common use soon enough since the rest of modern fantasy tends to follow D&D, but for now it's not an independent subject. JT_dale^Talk~ 12:43, 9 March 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. Procedural close - No valid reason / Like any policy - you need to explain why it doesn't pass it..... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WebRangers Entertainment[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY. Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 15:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please check the reference link. Company coverage is in reliable, independent secondary sources & even notable actors have commented in media about the same...Cpavlankar (talk) 00:11, 6 March 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. Procedural close - "Not Notable" is not a valid reason for any page to be deleted. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Mahajan[edit]

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

Not Notable. Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 15:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR#1 and WP:GNG. She has had significant roles in at least Midnight's Children and Feast of Varanasi. See, e.g., [4], [5], [6] and [7]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahima Bakshi[edit]

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

No reliable sources can be found, fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 14:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is sad that a beautiful babe like Mahima is going to be deleted from Wikipedia, I could not find sources documenting her notablility.Terriblechristian (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep please google her name.. she's notable and her article are available on reliable sources...please check reference link Cpavlankar (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, The given references in article are not reliable sources. We need mention of her in mainstream newspapers like TOI, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, etc. Please see what is counted as reliable source at WP:IRS.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 07:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although one or two sources are generally not enough to warrant a stand alone article, the Unique Times and FilmFare Magazine mentions look promising. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of notability. Ch an der 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has enough sources, but it seems that these sources are not reliable. The creator or whosoever who has interest in this article should contribute something on the article, so that the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 16:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 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) 08:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of job cuts announcements[edit]

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

This "timeline" is too ambiguous, what companies would be included. In addition job cuts happen everyday, this would end up being a long, unmanageable list. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS pretty much covers it. This is really just a string of news events. Borock (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good article but not really sure it belongs here. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic Comment The nominator has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. He does little else other than reverting and nominating my edits for deletion. For a recent example see my comments in a previous nomination “discussion”. I have been complaining about his behavior for months now, but it seems that on Wikipedia the victim is automatically at fault. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:40, 13 March 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The medici ring[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NBOOK. No reviews or any real coverage. ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a Kirkus Review and a mention in an annotated bibliography, there just isn't anything out there and if there is, it's not uploaded to the Internet to where we can find this coverage. I say delete but with the opportunity for it to be re-created if/when additional sources can be found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also could not find worthwhile RS coverage. No likely redirect (no author article). Happy to reconsider if sourcing can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:52, 12 March 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dao's theorem on six circumcenters[edit]

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

Yet another [self-]promotional article about a non-notable geometric theorem discovered by an unknown Vietnamese academic/hobbyist/whatever. Just like the previously deleted Dao's theorem, Dao's six point circle, Dao–Moses circle and Dao six-point circle. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (WP:G4) if I am to believe the discussions from the AfD linked by nominator. Even if this is another, different theorem, I feel that G4 ought to apply. Tigraan (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the CSD tag by an IP editor that is active at the same time as Hophap124 looks slightly suspicious, too. Oh well, WP:AGF and all that.Tigraan (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Please see detail: Dao's theorem, Dao's six point circle, Dao–Moses circle and Dao six-point circle can not apply at here because them are differen with Dao's theorem on six circumcenters at here.

There are many subsection in Dao's theorem so them be deleted, and that time David Eppstein's commemt in Dao's theorem that:

There is a little bit of secondary sourcing (the Dergiades paper) but not enough to evaluate the impact of this result nor to pass the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple secondary sources...... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now if we apply David Eppstein's comment above we can keep this article. I would like @David Eppstein: comment again at here.--Hophap124 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because some reason as follows:

First reason, the old article and this article are different: The old article write sum theorems of Dao Thanh Oai with common title is: Dao's theorem, The old article have some subsections: Dao's theorem on concurrent of three Euler lines, Dao six point circle, Dao six circumcenters theorem and Dao eight circles problem. So the old article and this article are different. And the old article Dao Thanh Oai is not enough english language to chat with You. He did not understand what you said that. And he didn't known wiki.

Second reason, enough reliable sources: The old article with subsections, but one subsection had only reliable source. But now this article has engough reliable sources: It has two papers in Forum Goemetricorum, one entry in Kimberling center, and two reviews in Zentralblatt MATH, one topic in Cut the Knot and some communiation of geometers in: Advanced Plane Geometry

Third reseon, not too soon: The theorem appear since 2013,

Fourth reseon, nice: The theorem nice as:

Fiveth reseon, About Dao Thanh Oai is an amateur geometer, but I think he is not trivial why? He has many another results publish in journal in 2014. Publish in 2014 in somes Journal

His generalization of the Napoleon theorem: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m660461

His generalization of the Gossard perspector theorem: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m645553

His generalization of the Simson line theorem: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m527653

--Hophap124 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not care about his many other results or the person, because notability is not inherited. Difference with the old articles are irrelevant for general deletion, it only saves from speedy deletion. Reliable sources do establish the existence of the theorem and its author, but not notability. Anything else? Tigraan (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ok, dear @Tigraan and Tigraan:, because JohnBlackburne comment that Dao Thanh Oai is an unknown Vietnamese academic/hobbyist/whatever !!!--Hophap124 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two papers publish in MathScinet, Nikolaos Dergiades' paper MathScinet, Telv Cohld's paper ; one entry publish in Kimberling center , two reviews in Zentralblatt MATH. I think MathSciNet, Zentralblatt MATH, Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers are repliable sources.--Hophap124 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Let we see some remarks of expert geometers:

Remark 1: The editor-in-Chief of the journal wrote that: We reformulate and give an elegant proof of a wonderful theorem of Dao Thanh Oai concerning the centers of the circumcircles of the six triangles each bounded by the lines containing three consecutive sides of the hexagon.

No, the editor-in-Chief did not write that. That's the abstract of the (uncited) article by Dergiades. -- 120.17.74.76 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank to You dear @120.17.74.76: but, the Editor in Chief of the journal, accepted with Dergiades' remark???--Hophap124 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remark 2: The review in Zentralblatt MATH as follows: Let A1A2A3A4A5A6 be a hexagon, and let the subscripts in Ai be taken modulo 6. For 1 ≤ i ≤ 6, let Bi+3 be the point where Ai Ai+1 and Ai+2Ai+3 intersect, and let Gi+3 be the circumcenter of Ai Ai+1Bi+2. The author of the paper under review proves a theorem that he attributes to T. A. Dao and that states that if the hexagon is cyclic, then the lines G1G4, G2G5, and G3G6 are concurrent. Although the converse is possibly too good to be true, one may wonder about what exactly the hexagons that have this property are. One may also ask whether the point of concurrence has a different and simpler description that does not resort to the ear triangles or to their circumcenters. The proof demonstrates the power of the algebra of complex numbers in handling problems in plane geometry.

The afore-mentioned theorem of Dao seems to be new. At least it does not appear in the beautiful collection compiled by H. Walser [99 points of intersection. Examples – pictures – proofs. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) (2006; Zbl 1112.00006)], where it would fit nicely alongside other points of intersection pertaining to hexagons, such as points 16, 17, 24, 58, and 60.--Hophap124 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short: WP:NOTFORUM (please stop discussing geometry here, we simply do not care) + WP:INDENT (indentation is used to follow who says what, and your layout of pages screws things up very badly) + WP:PRIMARY (papers published by the author do not directly count towards notability - only reviews and other secondary sources do). WP:BOOK can also help (just because something is published does not make it notable). Tigraan (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I really don't understand what you say. I want to say that:

The primary sources, there is one sources: [Another Seven Circles Theorem http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml]

The secondary sources, there are two secondary sources: Nikolaos Dergiades, Dao’s Theorem on Six Circumcenters associated with a Cyclic Hexagon. Forum Geometricorum Volume 14 (2014) 243–246. MR 3260500 and Telv Cohl, A Purely Synthetic Proof of Dao’s Theorem on Six Circumcenters Associated with a Cyclic Hexagon. Forum Geometricorum Volume 14 (2014) 261–264 MR 3267837

The tertiary sources, there are three sources are: "Mowaffaq Hajja,Zbl 1301.51017, 2014 European Mathematical Society, FIZ Karlsruhe & Springer-Verlag". cornell.edu. "zbMATH - the first resource for mathematics". zbmath.org. and Kimberling.C X(3649) = KS(INTOUCH TRIANGLE)

or You mean: Forum Geometricorum is a normal forum??? see: http://www.worldcat.org/title/forum-geometricorum/oclc/487674101 --Hophap124 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hophap124:If you do not understand what I say, you might wish to click on the links I left, which point to wikipedia policies that should be followed when editing here - they go in much greater detail that what I wrote. If you do not understand what they mean, I will kindly but firmly ask you to not edit anymore - competence is required. If you keep disrupting the encyclopedia, bad things could happen to you.

WP:NOTFORUM is not about the use of internet forums as sources; it is about the use of talk pages to go into detailed discussion of the topic at hand. We do not care about the topic itself; we care about writing about it. In a deletion discussion, the details of the mathematical proof of theorem XYZ are not interesting; what is interesting is whether those details or the theorem itself spurred great interest in the mathematical community, for instance. Discussing the content should only be done in relation to writing the article - for instance, "the article states that X, but actually that is incorrect use of a word that means specifically Y in this context".

Best regards, Tigraan (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Tigraan: I want said to you that Forum Geometricorum is not Forum normal. It is a journal, do you known that? If you don't known that, please see: http://forumgeom.fau.edu/statement.html ; http://forumgeom.fau.edu/index.html and http://forumgeom.fau.edu/index.html ; the Forum Geometricorum is a journal of Department mathematical sciences Florida Atlantic. --Hophap124 (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't gotten any more notable since the prior AfDs. Comments in an amateur-oriented almost-uncited online journal are not independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think that two uncited articles in an obscure online journal contribute to notability at all (we do have a Zentralblatt MATH review of the Dergiades article, but I don't think that counts for much). Also, the reasons in the past AfDs all still apply. And what on earth does "two triangles C_{12}C_{34}C_{56} and C_{45}C_{61}C_{23} are perpective" mean? -- 120.17.74.76 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "two triangles ${\displaystyle C_{12}C_{34}C_{56))$ and ${\displaystyle C_{45}C_{61}C_{23))$ are perpective" mean? It is mean: three lines ${\displaystyle C_{12}C_{45},C_{34}C_{61},C_{56}C_{23))$ are concurrent, or three lines ${\displaystyle C_{12}C_{45},C_{34}C_{61},C_{56}C_{23))$ have a common point. see also Seven circles theorem.--Hophap124 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable marginalia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File: Image showing Dao's theorem on six circumcenters generalizes Kosnita's theorem

Thank to Dear @Sławomir Biały: ,But I want let you known that the theorem is not Non-notable maginalia with some reseon as follows:

First reason: This theorem is a generalization of Kosnita theorem. When A2,A1 are the same point and A4,A3 are the same point, and A5,A6 are the same point. This theorem become Kosnita theorem. Could you see reason 1 at: Kosnita theorem and Dao's theorem on six circumcenters and Đào Thanh Oai-Francisco Javier Garcia Capitan, AdvancedPlaneGeometry, message 1717, message 1718

Second reason: If we write result only of the point of cuncurrence (given by the coordinates)> 24 pages to wrote result only

Third reason I think the theorem is nice as Seven circles theorem and difficulte to proof as Seven circles theorem

Delete and add something to mediawiki blacklist. WP:OR Antigng (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP @Antigng: , the theorem is not original result. --Hophap124 (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. @David Eppstein:,

- Could you let me known that: Forum Geometricorum is a journal of Geometry or it is the forum? Some one said that the Forum Geometricorum is a normal forum online.

- Could you let me known that, this Dao theorem is a original research or not is original research, and some notes are reliable sources or are not?

Best regards --Hophap124 (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Some one said that the Forum Geometricorum is a normal forum online." I never said that, and you would know it if you had read my links. WP:NOTFORUM is about not turning a talk page into a discussion of the subject. You know that blue words are actually links you can click on, right? Tigraan (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who name for the theorem?? I didn't name for the theorem is Dao's theorem on six circumcenrs, the theorem name by Nikolaos Dergiades and Telv Cohl, and Paul Yiu(the Editor in Chief of the Journal). The first time, Dao Thanh Oai found and he named the theorem is Another Seven Circle theorem at here Another Seven Circles Theorem. But Nikolaos Dergiades, and Telv Cohl give the proof and publish, they call theorem is Dao six circumcenter theorem. Why I call theorem is Another seven circle theorem? Because it is like as: Seven circles theorem.--Hophap124 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Could You give your ideas DanGong AlleinStein Cheers! Earthandmoon Legacypac Eightcirclestheorem ?--Hophap124 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note Hophap124 has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Eightcirclestheorem.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Ann Harrison[edit]

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

Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article is full of promotional wording that seemed taken from somewhere else, and the text of the article may be a copyright violation of the individual's kickstarter page, as it matches Google's cached version of that page as well as the current wording. Regardless of the copyright issue, the article itself has no independent third-party sources that show any notability. Aoidh (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There is not enough reliable source coverage to meet WP:BIO, nor does working on a notable show necessarily establish notability. Everymorning talk 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "...she climbed the ranks from intern to executive assistant..." *sigh* Closer will have a bit of extra clean-up, as the article creator has been adding links to the episode lists. Pax 01:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bee[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK search of world cat brings up only held by about1/2 dozen libraries, Trove search brings up no OZ libraries, google brings up author site and book sellers only. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs reliable sources (reviews, etc.), which I am not seeing anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 09:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 09:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am not getting much on this one either. Perhaps roll it over to an author page? Though I am not getting much there either. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Author homepage (and it looks like self-publishing): http://bypeterthomas.com/ HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article about the author and his books:
Robidoux, Carol (2002-04-29). "Nashua author making a beeline to success". New Hampshire Union Leader.

here

The article notes:

Just like a bumble bee in flight, Nashua author Peter Thomas makes a daily habit of defying the odds.
...
Lessons he's put to good use over the past five years as the basis for his Billy Bee books -- he's sold more than 36,000 since 1995, mostly through self-promotion.
It's a five-book series he says offers a good message for kids -- encouraging words to help them rise above whatever circumstances might be weighing them down.
Circumstances familiar to guys like Thomas, who grew up in a what he describes as a big, loving, Italian family, raised by his grandmother while his mother worked full time. He never knew his father. In and out of reform schools, Thomas ran with a tough crowd and landed in prison for armed robbery.

Cunard (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability found from a web search. An article in a local newspaper isn't sufficient. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 12 March 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop at 4[edit]

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

A laudable campaign, but of no encyclopedic relevance, as is made clear by the local scope and the paucity of references. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 08:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Local scope is normally not an issue. Choor monster (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: The guideline User:Choor monster alluded to actually suggests the topic is not notable, at least for now. The campaign seems to only have affected the greater Portland area, and while it does seem to have had some impact there, I'm not sure there can be considered "demonstrable long-term impact" just five years after the campaign began. T C N7JM 16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liviu-Mihai Pavelescu[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any biographical info on this inventor; patent descriptions like these ones don't suffice for writing a sound article.--Mihai (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Mihai (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, looks like he's just a guy doing his job. It appears article was created to disambiguate from this person: Liviu Mihai. I considered saying redirect to SympaTex, as that seems to be who he's working for, but we don't know if he still works there. In the meantime, I changed the text of the article to say that he helped invent a waterproof shoe, not the waterproof shoe, as that seems patently ridiculous. Valfontis (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any basis for an encyclopedia article here. Just someone who existed and patented a shoe. Am I missing something? --Michig (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 05:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Castaño Agudelo[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. No independent sources. The Banner talk 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence in the article, that contains only a related source and a wikilink dusguised as source. The Banner talk 13:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of in-depth coverage ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.) sufficient for WP:GNG and consensus appears to be that Next Top Model winners are generally found notable. - Dravecky (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ethically^Yours! 04:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Dravecky and the sources he has noted above. Subject meets WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vijaykumar Patil[edit]

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

I put a prod but "refs" were added, not sure how reliable they are though. Possible COI here also. Wgolf (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Looks like a copyright violation also! http://www.artists-india.com/vocalists/Vijay-Patil Wgolf (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyce Control[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sources given are either company press releases, small mentions in local sources and sources that don't mention the company by name at all. Appears to be a non notable company. Safiel (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. (Googled it.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NCORP + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 5 March 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. czar ⨹ 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manshu Musume[edit]

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

Delete. Article has translation of the song lyrics and fails WP:NOTLYRICS. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ WP:NOTLYRICS is not the biggest problem here: just remove the lyrics part to solve it. Mentioned only here and not having its own jawp article (only redlink mentioned at ja:服部富子), this song not notable enough for an article. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course the article has to be expanded, but the current state of the article cannot be the reason for deletion if there is potential for making it a substantial article (WP:NRVE). This song was a big hit at the time, and it is included in a number of publications discussing prewar popular music: [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. It is also now notorious enough that it is the subject of scholarly study. For instance, Michael Bourdaghs of the Univ. of Chicago discusses it in his article in Sino-Japanese Transculturation: [17]. Michitaro (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not convinced that this song has garnered enough in-depth coverage (more than just being listed in collections of old songs) to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited are not lists, but books. CiNii is listing the table of contents, so this is proof that the song is being treated in an entire chapter or section. I will head out to the library to get some of these sources. Michitaro (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the sources Michitaro found, it seems clear that this song has attracted modern scholarly attention. A Google Books search also found a number of references to the song, suggesting that it made quite a cultural impact in its day. --Cckerberos (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hisashiyarouin and AKS.9955, any thoughts on Michitaro's sources? czar ⨹ 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep with good finds by Michitaro above. Although I do not have access to the full text, they appear reliable as they are stocked at multiple university libraries. Looking forward to the cites being incorporated. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:33, 12 March 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) 08:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of English-speaking road signs[edit]

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

I don't believe such a comparison table adds much value to Wikipdia. Whereas Comparison of European road signs provides a realistic and educational comparison of road signs across an entire continent, this article appears to be completely subjective. It would be best restrict the criteria for these comparison tables to continents/regions, otherwise we could create dozens of tables for all sorts of reasons. Also this article is completely unsourced and was created by the Jermboy sockmaster. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the nomination. My vote may have been different under two conditions, the article was sourced, and it was a list of English-speaking countries (which may have some value). However, as it is, it is unsourced and includes English-speaking places (do they really use different road signs in Ontario than they do in the rest of Canada???). English is spoken in "places" all over the world, theoretically you could justify adding every road sign in the world on this table. I "sort of" understand the intent of the creator (whether a sock or not), but this is simply not defined well enough. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, road signs are controlled by the provinces in Canada so there are some variation, though mostly minor (hope that answers your curiosity). As for the article, my main concern is that this is a slippery slope to comparison tables for any number of qualifiers. Comparison of European road signs was nominated for deletion twice I believe with some questioning it's scope, it's best we keep the criteria narrow so we're not swamped. I have no prejudice towards the article itself, I just see it as superfluous. Glad you agree. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a cherry-picked selection (not sure if this makes it a violation of WP:CHERRY though), but does seem to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVADE, although I am otherwise neutral. This doesn't seem to add anything since the information is available elsewhere, however a comparison of road signs in predominantly English-speaking areas is not inherently unencyclopedic. It would, however, need a lot more columns than this and would likely be unusable for technological reasons. Responding to notes above: since road traffic is the responsibility of the provinces in Canada, it is actually the Canada column that shouldn't be there, but then there could be a column for each of the 13 provinces and territories, and the differences are generally minor. WP:CHERRY refers to cherrypicking sources to exclude reliable information that doesn't support your point of view, and doesn't seem to apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Canadian comparison table is not out of the question in the future, but at this time we only have files for Ontario and Quebec. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll think about that. Images of the road signs should be easy enough to come by. Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I've tried. Quebec has them in EPS format for free download, I need to finish that up some time in the future. Ontario has them in PDF format but those documents are rather old. British Colombia has them in PDF too, but the quality is so poor they're almost useless and they want me to pay 5000 dollars for quality EPS files, and the other provinces just have basic "Know your traffic signs" documents with a sample of the most common signs everyone should know, but not a full catalogue. If you do find something though, please let me know. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a table of this type may be useful and valuable if the comparison is made across a geographic connection — such as countries of a specific continent, states and provinces of a specific country if there are notable variations from one division to another, etc. — but a random comparison across otherwise unrelated countries solely on the basis of a shared language community isn't of much utility. This falls on the wrong side of the distinction between "because useful" and "because possible". Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do road signs speak English? or should this be comparison of road signs in English-speaking countries? Le petit fromage (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No because all of the columns listed are not countries...which is one of the points put forward in this discussion. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society's Finest[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you saying Society's Finest is not notable? Because if so, Many of their members went on or came from other VERY notable bands, Such as Kris McCaddon and Nick Nowell went on to start The Famine. Tim Lambesis went on to start As I Lay Dying (Personally don't care about that one). And Jesse Smith from Zao joined later on. Vocalist Josh Ashworth also toured with Zao. Metalworker14 (talk) 8:13 P.M. 2 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- What I'm saying is that they don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at WP:GNG or those that help at WP:MUSICBIO. They need to be written about, but that has not happened here. Niche genre or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band covered in publications such as Allmusic (biography, review), About.com (review), Cross Rhythms (review), HM (news article), and Exclaim! (review). Meets WP:MUSIC bullets 1 and 6, at minimum. Chubbles (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - these sources are all pretty minimal, and metalcore is not exactly a niche genre - there are many publications covering this genre, and I expect a notable metalcore band to have stuff written about it in detail. Every band has a review on Allmusic. The members who went on to play in other notable bands are still not individually notable (excepting Tim Lambesis). However, the combination of many members who went on to do notable things and coverage (more than trivial, though not by much) which covers a significant time period are indicators of weak notability. I'd like to see more. Ivanvector (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ You have a point on niche genre, but Kris McCaddon would still be notable at least. He started The Famine and Embodyment, and joined Demon Hunter. Jesse Smith also started Zao with the the members. I personally don't care for Tim Lambesis, but yes he would be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talk • contribs)

I moved these comments back down to maintain the order of the discussion after the relist but I kept your strike. Ivanvector (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This band with the aforementioned sources, plus two more from The Phantom Tollbooth and Exit Zine, proves they have had significant coverage of their music.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:G11 -- Y not? 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KPI Partners[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with little or no media coverage. The only claim of significance is the uncited assertion that it was the only company to win the Oracle award twice in a row. Sammy1339 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 08:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potential G4 Speedy candidate. Ever get that déjà vu feeling when you read the lead of a new article being AfD, and realize you've read it before, and recently? ...I couldn't find the original discussion, but the brand-new SPA article-creator's edit commentary refers to it as a "repost", so my suspicion is we're seeing a new sock of a banned user reupping the same article under a new name. Pax 01:47, 6 March 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. After three weeks we have no views in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Discussion re merging can continue on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WordFire Press[edit]

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

Anderson is notable. The firm is not. We do not publish catalogs, neither publishers' catalog nor any other. almost everything is cited from Anderson's blog. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article after reading two Huffington Post articles about WordFire Press; those and the fact that they republished Allen Drury's works make the company notable to me. Plus they have recently released several never-before-published novels by Frank Herbert. Looking at it now, the extensive list of their works does seem crufty and may overshadow the rest of the article, I think I got carried away. Removing the bulk of it would refocus the article on what is notable.— TAnthony^Talk 05:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've slashed the list of selected publications, putting the most notable into prose (with citations). I also have some other references to add.— TAnthony^Talk 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate TAnthony's efforts to make the article more encyclopedic in tone, but to my eye, the most significant issue remains sourcing. The bulk of those sources fall well short of the bar of WP:RS and being even more unacceptable for establishing notability, being both primary sources and blogs. And the remaining three sources all reference the company incidentally. Only one of those three (the first Huffington Post article referenced), actually discusses the Publishers themselves, and then for all of two sentences. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG at present, but I would like to give TAnthony a chance to dig up something more because I !vote delete. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 17:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, can I ask the names of those Herbert novels? Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the input. The first HuffPost article is almost entirely about WordFire Press/Anderson so I'm a little confused why you would think otherwise. Basically what I think makes this company notable at this point (and why I created the article) is its reprint of the Drury works, as well as the old and new Herbert works. Advise and Consent is a hugely notable novel that was out of print for a long time and much in demand, as both HP articles and the WSJ review suggest. The article discussed why WordFire got the deal for the reprints over other publishers. Herbert's new books (High Opp, etc. listed in the article) are obviously notable since he's been dead for 30 years (and the HP article mentions them). The citations from Anderson's blog are just to provide detail for readers, and actually the fact that books exist doesn't really require a citation at all, unless their existence is being challenged LOL. This article is short and to the point, I think the first reference alone is enough to assert its notability so I'm not sure why it's preferable for it to be deleted.— TAnthony^Talk 18:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I read the Drury section in more detail and there is a little bit of substance there. More sourcing would still be nice to establish that the topic is encylopedically relevant. Notability is not inherited so even if Frank Herbert's novels or Advise and Consent are imminently notable, that doesn't mean their publisher is. We establish that by the number of different reliable sources and the depth with which they discuss the topic. Huffington Post is a decent start, but more would sell this better on GNG. As to the Herbert works, I'm not seeing reference to "new" novels but rather reprints of several that were out of print for long period -- that's awesome news, but I'm not sure it's setting the publishing press alight with discussion.

With regard to the blog, those types of sources aren't allowed for sourcing any kind of content; you're quite correct that novels can be their own primary source, but that doesn't mean those sources should stay even if some of the content the currently are (inappropriately) used to support does. And this is just one of the many reasons they are not allowed; they often show up to puff up sourcing early in an article's life so it can survive scrutiny. I'm not saying you knowingly and strategically did that, I'm just saying it's one of numerous reasons we remove them -- to make matters clearer. Anyway, my ultimate opinion on this matter is that an extra (secondary, independent, and reliable) source or two could be the difference between this surviving AfD or not. Do you feel you've exhausted available sourcing? Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 19:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Kevin J. Anderson. The current sourcing is rather short of what is needed for standalone notability and, while I can see some further potential sources, I am not seeing enough substantial ones to clearly surpass that level. However, Anderson himself is notable, there are enough reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post) in this article to make it clear that WildFire Press warrants a paragraph or so in Anderson's article, and there are enough GHits (and, for that matter, incoming links from other Wikipedia articles) to justify a redirect. PWilkinson (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep may just meet WP:GNG, is this a source that can be used "Is the New 'Star Wars' Trilogy the Story of the Solo Twins and Darth Caedus?". as it mentions some books that are published by Wordfire Press. Would it be appropriate for some of the articles info to go to Kevin J. Anderson and the rest being turned into a list article which could incorporate the 30 or so wikiarticles that presently mention wordfire as a publisher of the book/author. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latter suggestion would not be appropriate, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; we don't maintain lists of books produced by particular publishers. But some of the content certainly can be moved into Kevin J. Anderson. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(yes i know this is getting off topic:) why not? have you seen some of the lists wiki has? eg. List of assets owned by Microsoft Corporation or this one List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair brilliant:)), as a wikibooknut i would love to see wikilists of various publishers and in publisher articles lists of wikilinked authors, illustrators and books:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolabahapple (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could always broach the issue at WP:Central discussion, WP:Village pump, or Wikipedia Talk:WWIN, if you feel strongly that this type of content ought to be allowed, but community consensus in the past has always been that manner of information is not encyclopedic in nature, and I must tell you honestly that opening up the floodgates with particular regard to letting companies list their products at length strikes me as just about the very last notion a large number of editors are going to support. But you can always try if you feel you have a compelling new take on this old issue.

Note however that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not relevant to this particular case. (That said, it looks like List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair has been nominated for deletion three times and it seems to me that the closure of the last one as keep was in error, since the vast consensus was to delete on the grounds of WP:NOTDIR. The list of Microsoft assets is entirely viable, as it doesn't violated WP:NOTDIR because the subject is not an arbitrary cross-categorization and it doesn't violate WP:NOTCATALOG because subsidaries and so-forth are components of the company, not products.) Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 03:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards merge I think PWilkinson basically has the right of this; there's content to support mention somewhere in the encyclopedia, but the topic looks like it falls a little short of GNG at present; Kevin J. Anderson is the obvious candidate for merge. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:22, 5 March 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esky[edit]

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

No evidence of notability kashmiri ^TALK 10:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A google search suggests this is the top cooler brand in Australia, and (as the article says) has become a generic term for a cooler. To me, both of those suggest notability. A fair bit of support for the genericised term claim can be found with a google news search: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=esky+cooler&tbm=nws Korruski^Talk 11:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, maybe Merge with Coleman_Company. Not sure the brand justifies a separate article.Korruski^Talk 11:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cooler. The Esky article is basically redundant. The tiny amount of unique information it contains could easily be included in cooler. A complication is that in Australia, Esky is a brand name. It has also become a genericised trademark for any type of cooler. So due to the common quote "Esky is an Australian invention", many Australians believe that generic coolers are an Australian invention (I am not sure that they are since the Esky article gives no inception date for the Esky). If actual coolers were an Australian invention and the first were branded Esky, that would be notable. But if it is only the name Esky that is the Australian invention, while coolers themselves already existed, then Esky becomes less notable. Format (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this page doesn't survive, some disambiguation will need to be created to handle the headnotes at the top of the page. "Esky" was also the name of the original mascot for Esquire magazine; I'm surprised to find no current mention of him in that article, because he was quite well known in his time. See e.g., [18][19][20] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local words for a "cooler" belong to a dictionary (e.g., Wiktionary), not an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia entry should contain encyclopaedic information - which in this article I find nil. Hence nomination. kashmiri ^TALK 01:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliables sources per Talk:Esky#References. Poor article quality/content are not valid reasons for deletion. Hack (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most of the references that you placed there are not accessible online, and those that are, are about a device called cooler (even if using it local synonym), not about something different called "esky". kashmiri ^TALK 12:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their online availability is irrelevant, they all refer to the Esky brand, rather than coolers in general. You may wish to consider familiarising yourself with WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the section WP:OSO. Hack (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uhmm... can you show how the first, third, fourth, fifth one are not about a cooler in general but about the brand? The first one even states explicitly: "The Esky name is synonymous with food and drink coolers", and "Most brands [of the "esky"] offer a choice of sizes, from jumbo-size campers' specials to coolers just big enough to take half a dozen cans." BTW, I have an uneasy feeling that half of the references are actually paid advertisements (their only substance is glorification of the device, and promotion of specific brands). kashmiri ^TALK 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Esky" is what Australians will search for, not "Coleman Company" or "cooler". It's beyond "a generic term" for a cooler here, it is the generic name for a cooler in Australia. In fact the word "cooler" is effectively only used in the context of describing the extent to which you are more trendy than someone else - "I'm cooler than Jeff". "Cooler" is the word generic brands use so as not to infringe on Esky's (now Coleman's) trademark. It's part of the Australian vernacular ([21], [22], [23]). I see no reason to delete an iconic regional colloquialism. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So if it's simply a vernacular for "cooler", why not redirect to the main article? Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. kashmiri ^TALK 11:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "a vernacular" - I said it was part of the Australian vernacular. It's not another word for "cooler", it's the only word for cooler here in Australia. Many Australians would be genuinely surprised to know that other countries call it something other than an "Esky". Just like we use the term "footpath" instead of "sidewalk" and a "thong" is something you wear on your feet, not on your arse. But of course our Footpath article is about nature trails and to find a pair of thongs you need to use the American "flip-flops". Redirecting everything to the counterpart Americanism is not a good solution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are arguing that Wikipedia should have separate articles whenever something is called differently somewhere? An article for "foothpath" and another one for "sidewalk"? I still urge you to read WP:NOTADICTIONARY. kashmiri ^TALK 16:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that Wikipedia should have separate articles whenever something is actually different and reliable sources say so. I'm also arguing that cultural icons (from cultures other than the US) should be covered by Wikipedia because, as an encyclopaedia, that's exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. What next? Merge Yorkie and Mars Bar to chocolate bar because they are all the same thing, just from different cultures? And nowhere is "Mars Bars" the generic, nation-wide term for chocolate bar anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was so much independent coverage of "esky" as it is of Mars or Yorkie, then why not. Currently, except for two sentences on the brand, the Esky article talks about a generic cooler. Hence the suggestion to redirect to cooler. Of course, if you feel like improving the article so that it talks about the brand and not about coolers in Australian, then be WP:BOLD :) kashmiri ^TALK 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit like Kleenex versus Q tips. Both brands and, in the US, generic terms. But because there's some actual notability and something to say about Kleenex (big company that makes multiple products), it has an actual article. On the other hand there's not much to say about Q tips, it is just a brand not a big company, so that is simply a redirect. Format (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the equivalent to the argument here is that Kleenex should redirect to "Facial tissue" because that's what the rest of the world calls them ("tissues") and Kleenex is a generic term in one country only. But that's silly, of course. Interestingly, the Kleenex article points to the fact that the word now features in dictionaries as the generic word for "tissue" as "proof" of its generic use. The Australian National Dictionary (Oxford) does the same with regard to "Esky" in fact it also includes the non-proprietary "esky" (no capital) in reference to it's use as a generic term. And Kashmiri, these discussions are about article potential, not the article as it currently stands. There is no obligation to fix an article in opining for it to be kept. What is in the article now is irrelevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of references with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nearly impossible for non-Australians to understand, but to us, this is like suggesting Twinkie should be redirected to Sponge cake. The refs I added show that the brand is iconic in Australia, it's not just a cooler. The sale was seen as symptomatic of the increase in multinationalism and the decline in Australian owned brands. It's not just a cooler. The-Pope (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one has proposed in these comments that esky be deleted, just merged. If this article esky were to be merged with cooler people searching for esky or directly typing in esky would still be presented with an article that is 100% about eskies/coolers. The article would be named cooler, and esky would be listed among the alternate names. This is exactly the same as what happens when someone searches Wikipedia for "bring a plate" or when they directly type in "bring a plate". They reach an article about bring a plate - it is just that the article is actually named "potluck". However the article does list "bring a plate" as one of the alternate names of "potluck". The footpath example is not a good one, because the actual footpath article is about something different to what an Australian understands a "footpath" to be. A twinkie is not only a brand name but is also a specific item which is not exactly the same as a generic sponge cake. Even without the name, people would still recognise a twinkie. But with esky, take off the name, and an Esky brand cooler is just like any other cooler. It must be said that this article does seem stable and pretty much does stick to describing the actual brand that is "esky". However the company isn't especially notable except for the fact that in Australia "esky" became a genericised trademark. Had that not have happened barely anyone would know or care about the company / brand named "esky". I note there is an article about Igloo Products Corporation. Format (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to give the "generic term" part some context, I found this very interesting article. It's particularly interesting because the "inventors" given coverage there do everything they can to use the term "cooler", knowing that using the term "Esky" would be a trademark infringement. But the journalist, writing in the Australian vernacular, uses the term "esky" (non-capitalised) on several occasions, including in the headline. The only context in which an Australian would use the term "cooler" is with regard to their own trademarked product for which they can't use the term everyone else uses. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has now been expanded quite significantly, making merging into another article impractical. Given the lack of arguments for deletion (as pointed out above), is there any reason this shouldn't be closed by the next passing admin? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Next I suggest someone should split "motorised esky" to a separate article, because - certainly - it is extremely important for the Australian culture and surely must be something entirely different than an ordinary ride-on cooler! Quoting hundreds of "sources" which used the phrase "motorised esky". Seriously, folks, an esky is just a cooler, and its shape, type of plastic, and special fondness for it among the Australians can be nicely described under cooler. kashmiri ^TALK 00:52, 12 March 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kharkiv bombing[edit]

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

This article is a news article on a bombing in Ukraine. Although there are reliable sources saying that event event occurred, there is no indication of why the bombings are notable. Compare this to the Volnovakha bus attack, where there was international reaction to the event. None of the sources have any indication of any international bodies making a statement on the event. Aerospeed (Talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this article for the same reasons as listed above. Aerospeed (Talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither article meets WP:GNG. Pure WP:RECENTISM, plus Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT#PAPER. Does no harm, and is properly cited. § DDima 05:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Notable. Please do not delete. I will ad more references and add more content in time. I support DDima entry. Thank you. --Babestress (talk) KEEP: I have no opinion yet on the 2006 article but I don't really think it's notable. I will continue to edit the 2015 article no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babestress (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a stub yet and should not be deleted. There are thousands of articles like this one and not delete them so i do not understand why this article should be deleted. I translated with google. --Kristijh (talk)

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on notability. Most notably, we have WP:EVENT. None of the WP:EVENT criteria are met. What's more, we have WP:NOTNEWS. Most things that appear in newspapers are not notable. This event has no notability. There have been many bombings in Kharkiv over the past year. None of them are notable. The argument that "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article that does not meet the standards provided by our guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this evaluation, there have been no reliable sources following up on either event since the inception of the articles. No, I see no value in articles surrounding Kim Kardashian's buttock implants, but they've (careful choice of wording, naturally) both instances have recieved an inordinate amount of the 'media'. The parallel may not be intuitive, but it sums up what is relevent and what is hype very nicely. If it wasn't evident earlier in the piece, WP:OTHERSTUFF does exist. Does it have encycopaedic value? A decisive and resounding, "NO". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2006 article as empty; no opinion yet on the 2015 article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fail WP:EVENT, and are a product of news-style reporting. It does do "harm", in that it creates articles that do not meet our policies. These events can be mentioned at Kharkiv, and in fact already are. There is no justification for stand-alone articles. The main article is neither too long, nor is there enough content to justify it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep plenty of sources. given the dysfunction at wikinews, these "newsy" articles have plenty of precedent here. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to our policies, such as WP:NOTNEWS... RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is deletionists best friend, always used even in cases like this when there is clear evidence of all aspects of WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It fails all aspects of WP:EVENT. We don't need more cruft. Try following Wikipedia policies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good sourcing, covers WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to an event mentioned in world media, etc etc.... --BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I say that an article being short is not a reason for deletion. short article does not equal non-notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:RECENTISM may only be an essay, considering that the event is part of a much, much wider series of events (namely a war), I don't see how it could possibly pass the 10 year test. There has been no new articles or details since the event. By your reckoning, this would make thousands of reported events currently in the many timeline articles for current wars, insurrections, etc. equally as dedicated stub-worthy (i.e., WP:CRUFT). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both While I can see a minimal cases for notability, the essential problem here is that Ukraine is currently in an all-but-named war with Russia, and that such bombings are now commonplace. A building being blown up in a decade of peace might be notable; one being blown up in the middle of a war is just another statistical increment. In the 2006 supermarket incident, nobody was killed and the building only slightly damaged. Pax 08:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be worth a line in Ukrainian crisis or similar but not that noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deadly terror attack during political rally in the heart of a great city widely covered in the international press. Meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both or, at maximum, merge the 2015 bombing into one of the relevant surrounding articles (per my earlier comment above). The 2006 bombing simply doesn't add up per WP:EVENTCRIT. A handful of RS reiterating the same initial report with no knowledge of who or why simply places it firmly in the WP:NOTDIARY category. I'm not certain as to why both have been nominated in the same deletion discussion as there's nothing to indicate their having anything in common other than the fact that they occurred in Kharkiv. Whatever the case, the 2006 article is a prime case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The 2015 bombing is related to an ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine, not a standalone article. It's a terrible event, but we don't dedicate articles to every event in the history of conflicts, and I don't see how WP:NOTPAPER is grounds as a defence for grabbing any headline and running with it per WP:RECENTISM because, somehow, WP:ITSIMPORTANT over and above every other event reported on that day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor had two ivotes for delete. thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try counting how many articles are being voted for in the deletion review, Ism schism. My first vote was for the 2015 article; the second addresses both articles. Which article are you !voting for? You've only mentioned 'article' in the singular. No opinion on the 2006 bombing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many reasons. Article clearly meets GNG. NOTNEWS fails here fairly quickly. This event has had a regional, nationl, and international impact on the war, the economy in Ukraine, as well as on its currency devaluation. Also, the subject is part of a series of notable war-related events that, while individually notable, have a profound impact on the foreign policy of superpowers. As for the state of the article itself, it is bare bones, and needs a lot of work to flesh out event, responses, and pact, not to mentiom contextualizing it. Thamls. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 9 March 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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Hot 100[edit]

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

This really seems to be bordering on WP:IINFO. First, the list itself can already be found at List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones#Most number-one singles, while the rest appears (as its a work in progress) will just summarize the Hot 100 performance of each of the songs, rather than putting any context behind the significance of the number and achievement beyond simply chart trivia. And Top 10? What if there's a tie for tenth, and two artists keep moving back and forth - one moves ahead, then it's a tie again, then the other gets another, you just keep taking out and putting back information? This is just a collection of mini-articles for each of the artists, and we don't need these to start being created for every song chart and every album chart for every genre from every country. Wikipedia doesn't need to become what amounts to a "top 10" click bait site. The list within the Hot 100 achievement page seems enough to me. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an WP:OR intersection of two related criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How is this even being nominated? There is no info anywhere else about which songs made by an artist actually hit number one, and the chart facts and records that came with them. Absurd to nominate. List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones#Most number-one singles are the same thing; the former is just a list of when every number one in the last 57 years, year by year, the latter just says how many number ones per artist, not a detailed account of each artists set of number-ones. So you've kinda tripped yourself up there. It's really irrelevant if another artist gets 13 (I believe only two artists have 12, anyway) and that info would be removed and added. Out of everyone on this list, only a few of them are active, and only one actually still has number-ones. So there's another point you've messed up on. You could say exactly the same for the milestones article about adding and removing info all the time. *Double standards*. No one is saying that this list will be created for all charts, so I don't know why you are talking about things that haven't happened/won't happen (WP:CRYSTAL). The list only works when everyone has had double figures, because there are less artists to include, meaning that it won't be as long as a chart where lots of people have had a lot of number-ones, or a new chart which hasn't had enough artists with the most number ones yet. I'm completely baffled as to why this would even be nominated for deletion... — ₳aron 08:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the sourcing could use work, definitely a viable stand-alone list and by no means indiscriminate. Satisfies WP:SPINOFF. As previously indicated, this page goes into detail on each singer's number one songs unlike the general Billboard Hot 100 achievements page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the articles on the songs go into detail about the songs, including chart performance? This just says, her first number one did this, her second number one did that, while the lists succinctly tell one what songs went to number one and for how long. How much more detail do we need than that? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main song articles do go into detail, but this would assess records and such not necessarily mentioned in song articles. Also, the general achievements page doesn't even mention the songs by name. Also, this article would include dates spent at top unlike the first link provided. Prose quality is not a concern when it comes to stand-alone articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Calvin and Snuggums. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SNUGGUMS - Needs improving but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 03:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not arguing about notability here or else I'd nominate List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles too. Although notability wouldn't be constrained to a list of "10". But this is just a series of small summaries of each song's chart performance. The way this is written, you can make the case of making similar articles for each of the individual artists: "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by the Beatles", "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by Rihanna", and just copy and paste the chart performance sections from each the song articles, and it wouldn't be much different than this. This list is simply redundant and extraneous. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha. "Not arguing about notability here." Then what are you arguing? I've never seen someone nominate an article for deletion being it is notable. I really don't see what your argument is here. There's actually no notability in "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by the Beatles", "Number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 by Rihanna", because they would only be three or four paragraphs long. You're clutching at straws I'm afraid. The notability of this article lies in the fact that nowhere else has a comprehensive list detailing this info. Try again my friend. — ₳aron 18:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe I said extraneous and redundant in both my nomination and my recent comment. Your "comprehensive list" is just that. You created something that would be similar to creating Top 10 highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States, adding a paragraph or two about each of the film's box office receipts, when there is already the simpler and much more satisfactory List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - But I haven't created a second list or two lists, so I still don't accept your reasoning. — ₳aron 08:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 12 days. One delete, four keeps. I have a DYK that is being withheld until this deletion nomination is closed. It's quite clearly a keep verdict. — ₳aron 22:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee why the relist ?, This does look to be a clear Keep imho. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're counting, it's 2 to 4, not 1 to 4 (but number of votes is not how these matters are decided. The rationale for keeping is not very strong based on policy, so further discussion seems warranted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rationale for keeping couldn't be more clear. We have all completely discredited your reasoning. This is such a waste of editors time. — ₳aron 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 13:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Gumm[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Does not meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Known BJJ instructor. [24] Well known MMA coach. [25]CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The first source is from a gym that says one of their instructors is a student of Gumm. The other is about the gym owned by Gumm's wife, where he's mentioned as a former MMA fighter. Neither represents anything close to significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG since the only reference is a link to his fight record and that record is insufficient to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and lacks the significant coverage required by GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:03, 10 March 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.