< 5 March	7 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David William Thomas[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being the mayor of the town of Minden, Louisiana (population 14k). That's about it. As none of the references are accessible online, no evidence of significant third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Falls under Local politicians with significant local coverage; could also qualify as an academic and journalist. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard GNG for a local politician. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how anyone could reasonably call to delete this. It is reasonably complete; it is reasonably well written and cited. The subject has been deceased since 1961 - you might not like it, but just leave it alone, it's not doing any harm. Le petit fromage (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator largely bases the argument to delete upon the reasoning: "As none of the references are accessible online, no evidence of significant third-party coverage." This reasoning is in direct contradiction of WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 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 redirect to Good Faith Collaboration. Will leave the edit history intact in case anyone wants to merge anything, J04n(talk page) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Reagle[edit]

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

Apparent lack of sufficient notability to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC Geogene (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I realize he wrote an important book about Wikipedia, but I agree with the editor that created the page (as a redirect to the book) in 2011 that the subject isn't notable. I realize that we tend to have biases here that may make the subject appear more notable to us than, say, an assistant professor in the humanities, and think policy should apply equally. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the book again per WP:BIO1E. Re Geogene's comment about biases: my experience with AfD discussions is that we are usually more critical, not less, when the subject is Wikipedia-related, but nevertheless I don't see any source of notability beyond the one book in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I don't feel strongly as to whether there's a page or not. I do use it for a class exercise so students can check the credibility/verifiability of some of the claims but in that case I'll just make a copy in my user space. For what it's worth, I have another book coming out soon. Also, I wanted to ping User:Anthonyhcole who removed an AfD tag in the past. -Reagle (talk) 17:59, 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 redirect to List_of_reported_UFO_sightings. Am deleting the history as consensus here is to delete. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of observations of solar and lunar transits of unknown objects[edit]

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

This list has been vastly reduced through the exclusion of unsourced cruft, but in the end the unfixable problem is that the title is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. It is an interpretation that these observations were caused by (unidentified) objects passing between the observer and the sun or moon. Beyond that there is the implication that these have anything to do with each other. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I don't feel strongly one way or the other. The list is notable enough, and sourced to real things (not the usual ufo-fan stuff. But the list isn't very interesting or compelling that these observations from 100 years ago have any value other than observations made by what seem to be reputable observers. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seemingly insurmountable WP:SYNTH issues, Second Quantization (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List_of_reported_UFO_sightings Unknown transits are a subtype of UFO sighting, and we have an article for that. Rhoark (talk) 14:04, 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 redirect to Asking Alexandria#Band members. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Cassells[edit]

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

Unreliable source on this article. From what I can tell he can be redirected to his band. Wgolf (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the article a bit and added a couple references, may not be enough to meet WP:GNG, but at least it now meets WP:V. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect as this musician is not notable outside the band Asking Alexandria and lacks coverage. SilentDan (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asking Alexandria#Band members. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Thief (album)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 23:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - True, the article's a mess, but this nomination is a failure of WP:BEFORE. Plenty of reliable sources (per consensus at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT) out there covering this album:

Should the article be kept, it should be moved to just Ghost Thief, the disambiguation is unnecessary. Looks like it was once created at that point, but lazily redirected, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Ghost Thief as suggested above. Enough material exists (the combination of coverage and chart appearances) to support a standalone article. Gongshow talk 23:23, 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 speedy delete. A7 and G11. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaguru[edit]

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

No citation, no encyclopaedic reference, only edits by an account with a similar name. Wikipedia is not an autobiography. Etrigan (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Creator was the one who wrongfully deleted the speedy tag in the first place. --Drm310 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. —teb728 t c 07:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 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, early close per WP:SNOW. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Awakening: A Star Wars Fan Film[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-film. —teb728 t c 21:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no claim of importance. Whenever I see the work acclaim with no reference, I know it is just puffery. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this comes nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG. WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:COI apply as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11, A7, and A11, and tagged as such. A fan film is almost never going to receive reliable coverage, and this one is no exception. There's not even a credible claim of importance. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A7 does not apply to a film (unless it is strictly a web video). A11 does not apply because this is a actual film not something that the author just made up. G11 doesn't apply because if the film were notable, the article could be made encyclopedic without a fundamental rewrite. —teb728 t c 06:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TEB728: From what I've seen, it is a web video. To be specific, it's on Vimeo. And it isn't notable; it hasn't been the subject of reliable coverage, so even if it wouldn't fall under any CSD criteria, it would still fail WP:NFILM. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vimeo is just a 1-minute trailer. But you may be right that it is a web video, for the facebook page has a 38-minute youtube, which I think is the whole film. I don't see now where I got the idea there was some other release. In any case it certainly fails WP:NFILM. —teb728 t c 08:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we might as well let the AFD run its course, since it's already gotten plenty of attention. If nothing else, it'll make it easier to re-delete re-creations. —Cryptic 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once the article is deleted, I recommend that it be seasoned permanently. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll deal with that when and if it's re-created. —Cryptic 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing obvious in the way of reliable sources out there, but more importantly the film would be better off and more successful without a WP page - it'll end in tears. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independently and reliably sourced. I wasn't able to find anything. —Cryptic 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I am somewhat appalled to discover Category:Fan films based on Star Wars. —Cryptic 08:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised in the slightest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was surprised, just appalled. And at least as much at the films listed there that have sources as at the ones that don't. —Cryptic 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. This belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per total absence of notability. Speedy should have gone through, this just exists online, evidently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, it's solely a YouTube video, which would seem to indicate that it's web-only content and thus eligible for speedy deletion. But I guess there's no harm in a full seven day AfD. I don't think anyone's going to find reliable sources for this, though. It looks to have 32 hits total on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry NRP, but A7 does not apply. It may be "web content", but it makes an assertion of notability in its claim to be based upon the Star wars universe. A11 does not apply as thing thing exists and can be watched. G11 does not apply as it simply offering information is not "blatant". Readers could watch the thing themselves and read the end credits. AFD for a "film" failing WP:NF is the proper choice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per being TOO SOON. But, as this was released less than a week ago, I'd opine the jury is not in just yet. In some cases tagging something from an inexperienced nob for a speedy within 25 minutes of it being contributed could be a bit bitey. But at least nominator TEB728 gave this new article a whole hour and 14 minutes. If or when it does gain suitable coverage, we can allow it to be undeleted and returned to mainspace. No need to salt unless it becomes the object of repeated recreations. As there is no such recreation history, salting is unnecessary. I do believe that article creator Kwjones30 is the same person as cinematographer/editor/composer Kevin Wendell Jones, and I would advise KWJ visit WP:PRIMER, pay attention to WP:COI, and respect the consensus reached here. He can ping me on my talk page if he feels it finally gains the requisite coverage to meet WP:NF. @Narutolovehinata5: being an internet-only or being "fan film" does not automatically equate to non-notability... as some such have indeed established suitable notability, and it is just barely possible this might too. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally said it should be salted since it had previously been deleted as A7. Really, I still feel that it does. There's not credible claim to notability in the article whatsoever. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:22, 8 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 Irish language outside Ireland#Britain. Leaving edit history intact. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish language in Britain[edit]

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

Redundant. The subject doesn't merit its own article, and all the content can be covered by other existing articles (see the various discussions on Talk:Irish language in Britain). Note 1: The article has been proposed for merging into other articles for three years, but nothing's happened. Note 2: A proposed deletion ("PROD") notice I added a few hours ago has been removed (so presumably the proposed deletion is opposed). A bit iffy (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see The Irish Language in Britain. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish language outside Ireland#Britain. The existing discussion at Irish language outside Ireland#Britain is better than what we have here, and at the moment I don't see a need for this as a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arxiloxos. There isn't anything here which is not already better covered there. The only reason for opposing delete is that it is a useful redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Arxiloxos and Richhoncho: Northern Ireland is part of Britain and is not "outside Ireland", so it is not covered by that article. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what one's definition of 'Britain' is. Although it is often loosely used as synonymous with the UK, I think many here are taking it as meaning Great Britain, or the UK without NI.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Great Britain is meant by "Britain", then Great Britain should be in the article title and text, and the article should be re-named Irish language in Great Britain. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'Great Britain' would have been clearer, and this was actually proposed at Talk:Irish language in Britain#Move request. However, that proposal was turned down pending resolution of the discussion to merge or delete. But nothing got resolved after three years, and the merge notice was just left there hanging.

It's usual on Wikipedia to use 'United Kingdom' not 'Britain' when referring to the sovereign country, so this is why I've assumed 'Great Britain' is implied.

--A bit iffy (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However we can't make assumptions on Wikipedia; we need to be specific and also internally consistent. That move request was inherently problematic itself because it was made two days after a merge proposal and it requested two different and opposing move options rather than one. As for the merge proposal, the reason it went nowhere is because no one knew it existed -- a merge tag was not posted on the destination article as required per WP:MERGE, nor was the discussion placed on the destination article's talk page as recommended per WP:MERGE. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least preserve the editing history, because Coláiste na nGael was split from this article. LadyofShalott 00:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Figure out what the article wants to be about and then rename it and then decide what to do with it. It should be renamed either Irish language in Great Britain or Irish language in the United Kingdom, per WP:POPE. Then can have a proper AfD if one is still warranted. There are certainly items that can be added to flesh out either topic; whether that is warranted in the first case is debatable but there's no point in wasting our time discussing the fate of an ambiguously titled article, in my opinion. Keep and flesh out with information on the Irish language in Northern Ireland, which is part of Britain. Rather baffling why this isn't yet covered in the article. The presence of the Irish language in Northern Ireland is obviously a notable topic, as it has its own article: Irish language in Northern Ireland. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support renaming it as Irish language in Great Britain first.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Arxiloxos. Speaking as a Gaeilgeoir and consumer of Irish Vicipéid the one thing we should NOT do is change the title to Irish language in the United Kingdom because, ahem, Irish is spoken quite extensively among the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, the element of the United Kingdom that is not part of Great Britain, and scarcely spoken at all elsewhere in Great Britain. (Contrary to what Softlavender says, Northern Ireland is NOT part of Britain.) I am pretty sure that the editors of this article were conscious of the distinction and we don't want to rehash that history here (for the curious or masochistic, see The Troubles). Also, there's a good, well sourced, article entitled Irish language in Northern Ireland as well as the abovementioned Irish language outside Ireland#Britain. There's no need for this article to exist. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Arxiloxos. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Though in loose usage Britain and British relate to UK, in strict usage NI is not part of GB. The present article is a very weak one, basically because the Gaelic language is mainly spoken, even in Ireland, only in a few areas. It will not be spoken by any significant number of people in GB of Irish heritage. I would strongly oppose the UK rename option. If we keep it, it should be renamed to Irish language in Great Britain, but the redoirect option is by far the best however the target article should be amended so that the title is GB not Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 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. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Wireless[edit]

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

Overly promotional article ("ground breaking technologies" etc.) about a startup company for which notability is not shown (all refs are links to press releases). Currently fails WP:CORP; it may become notable but it's way too early for this article now. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ToonLucas22 - Appears to be promo, Better off rewritten imho, –Davey2010^Talk 22:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 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 redirect to Bill Cosby. Numerically speaking this is not the majority opinion but policy based arguments favor this outcome. If anyone wants to merge any of the deleted information I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis Cosby[edit]

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

Falls into categories of WP:INHERITED and WP:1E. As the article states, "Cosby remained a private figure". Content could be redirected to an article about the case itself, but as a standalone article on the son of Bill Cosby being shot and killed, where's the actual notability aside from the one incident? I maintain this article on the individual as an article subject fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a joke right?. Does not fail WP:GNG, or WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a joke at all. Before he was killed and the media made a big deal about the death of Bill Cosby's son, no one had heard of Ennis Cosby. In fact, since the murder and trial, no one hears about him any longer. Both facts cause this article to fall under wp:inherited and wp:1e. Not enough to establish notability. Again, fails GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep when coverage of a crime is sufficiently intense, global, and/or prolonged, the crime passes WP:GNG. Such deaths are usually entitled Death of... or Murder of... rather than, as here, with the victim's name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Such deaths are usually entitled Death of... or Murder of... rather than, as here, with the victim's name" It then seems to me that the article needs to be rewritten, refocused on the murder of Cosby rather than on the individual who was not notable, but perhaps his death was. Speedy keep seems out of place in light of your comments, E.M.Gregory. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It speedily and obviously passes notability. Other discussions belong elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Cosby per WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Notability is not inherited and Ennis isn't notable on his own without family affiliations, though is viable search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with SNUGGUMS. And, apparently since this solution was offered, "Other discussions [don't] belong elsewhere". :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This well-sourced article about the notorious and widely publicized murder of the son of celebrity Bill Cosby was proposed for AFD as part of a batch of deletions in which recently created articles about each of the 4 other Cosby children were nominated for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This well-sourced article about the notorious and widely publicized murder of the son of celebrity Bill Cosby" That's where you're wrong, E.M.Gregory. The article isn't about the murder, it's about the son (otherwise the article would be titled "The murder of Ennis Cosby"). If the article were only about the murder, it might be an article to keep. As it is, the article is about the individual murdered, someone who is "notable" only per WP:INHERITED and the murder (WP:1E). Neither is enough to keep this article as is, an article on an individual who is only known because of who is father is and for one event. Neither is enough of a reason to keep this article written as is and focused on the non-notable individual. I agree with SNUGGUMS, it should be redirected to the Bill Cosby article and a section on the murder of Ennis Cosby created (or updated, if such a section already exists). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree, then, on Keep and move to Murder of Ennis Crosby? The murder was an enduring focus of national attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: No. As I said above, "it might be an article to keep". Other than the fact the victim was Bill Cosby's son, I don't think even the incident was particularly notable. People get killed daily in the manner Ennis Cosby did in L.A. and cities like it with high murder/crime rates. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:09, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 16:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Rogers[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. In addition, it contain unsourced contents that seemed libelous and defamatory. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purported book title had no google hits beyond Wikipedia and Youtube. I blanked all the unsourced BLP material. If it is demonstrated that she is in fact someone who is making her story public and for which there are reliable sources, I'd be willing to change this !vote. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person per WP:BIO. --Drm310 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage - the only source I've found covering her is KPHO, and, according to the article, the basis of her notability is her being covered by said source. Lots of people tell their stories on the news, but that doesn't make them notable. She needs to have had additional coverage at the very minimum. Upjav (talk) 22:15, 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 keep. Neither reason this page was created nor its length is relevant to this discussion. Sources have been provided in this discussion that no one has been able to satisfactorily agrue against their esttablisment of notability for the subject. J04n(talk page) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McMillen[edit]

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

In short: highly questionable that it passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:GNG

Claim: This person has does not satisfy general notability as many of the sources here are not even covering him, or are from personal blogs. He doesn't have any of the achievements or accomplishments under WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR.

I'll go through each source now:

1. It's not available now. Here is a screenshot: http://archive.today/2v308. As you can see it's his own portfolio that he contributed.

2. This article doesn't cover him or his book beyond quotes, it's pretty much just an ad him and for his book.

3. This is an interview about him. But I question the usage of this site as a source. It looks sketchy and unreliable. I'll concede that there are others that may be less stringent in this regard and consider this an acceptable source.

4. This source isn't available right now and doesn't appear to be used. I think it's a page for an event, but there's not much to say without more context.

5. This is a blog and questionable under WP:USERGENERATED.

6. This is a page from the person himself about his book which shouldn't be eligible to establish notability.

7. This source is supposed to be supporting that he wrote reviews in this magazine. I don't think this helps his case for notability as it doesn't help him with regards to any of the criteria.

8. This is an article he wrote himself and doesn't appear to be picked up in another reliable source. WP:USERGENERATED

9. This is an article he wrote himself and is picked up in 10b. By itself, it should not be a reliable source under WP:USERGENERATED.

10a. The first one is a blog of a person, not a article of someone actually working for Kotaku. WP:USERGENERATED

10b. This one talks about the article he wrote under source 9. This one passes muster for me.

10c. This one just mentions that he was on a panel.

11. This one talks about the stuff he wrote about, but does not mention him.

12. Same as 11.

13. This one talks about an article he wrote and seems ok.

14. This is the article mentioned in 13.

15. Mentions source 14 and some emails he wrote.

16. Video can't be found. The context for this source is supposed to be about his appearance on a TV show which may or may not be valid for notability, but I can't tell without the source.

17. A video of a panel the person hosted. This may or may not add to his notability, I'm not entirely sure as of whether it's a big deal to host a panel here.

18. Just sections of his book on another author's site. While the other author appears to be notable, this piece doesn't say anything about the person or his work that would bolster notability.

19. Similar to 17

20. The problem I have with these sources is that they don't help his case with regards to his notability as an author and journalist.

Conclusion: At the very least, notability is questionable. I think that it's not established here. Most of these sources and the content they back appear to be about work that isn't widely regarded in that there doesn't seem to be widespread coverage. There aren't any sources that cover him and his work; sources that show he is notable in his field. For the controversy articles, they just use him to validate the claims. He doesn't seem to have any awards or large wins in his field. He does seem to a competent person in his field, but as far as I can tell, he's just another guy doing his job and we don't write articles on such people. Transcendence (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Transcendence. I noticed that this review [1] of Mcmillen's book (The Sydney Morning Herald) was not in the article when you nominated it. I always think that a review in a big city daily is a strong argument for notability, and just wanted ot point this out. Best.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete this. The page was only written for a piece the author wrote about Wikipedia's lax standards for inclusion. He is not, by any stretch, a notable Australian journalist. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-i-snuck-through-wikipedia-s-notability-test-abfbd15127bc Keeping his page up will only further undermine Wikipedia's project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meherehereiam (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant. How I Snuck Through Wikipedia’s Notability Test -- TOW 19:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was not "only written for a piece the author wrote about Wikipedia's lax standards for inclusion". The page was written for the same reasons I've written other articles: while interacting with someone, I checked to see if they had news coverage, and then put the pieces together. The subject's description of the process is not the complete process. I do agree that the notability is on the fringe. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written as a news archive, not an encyclopedia article.-- Sparkzilla talk! 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that the subject feels he is not notable and "snuck through" does not mean that this is necessarily the case. Please make this deletion debate a fair and honest one rather than rushing to judgement as nothing good can come from a wrong decision in this potentially high profile case. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The majority of references are to his primary sources. He or his work are not described in independent biographies or encyclopedia entries. Wikipedia is not a home page for any author. 58.182.250.23 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just read the article McMillen wrote, and reviewed all the sources cited in his BLP. The Music Business Facts piece[2] is the closest thing to a profile showing notability, yet even that source and its quality falls far short. Historically I am a big inclusionist on this project and probably wouldn't waste my time on this AfD if I perceived the potential BLP risks to the subject to be low, but it requires little subjective thought to conclude he's simply not notable. Do many biography articles like this exist unchallenged? Sure. I have created biographies on many journalists, but I make sure there are at least two articles in top newspapers profiling the subject. So Neetzan Zimmerman and Andrea Peyser qualified, but Andrew would not. It is the same for old dead folks in journalism. William Coleman (editor) and J. David Stern and Frederic Hudson qualify but some random two-time poet for The Century in 1887 would not.

But what fascinates me more is the reverence for Wikipedia implicit in McMillen's piece, and in more and more pieces about Wikipedia in the past few years. When I assisted E.J. Dickson at the Daily Dot on her hoax story last year, I noted with surprise how she felt genuinely bad about her actions. And I've since been attuned to seeing how widespread these feelings are. Even redditors, who can make fun of everything, revere wikipedia -- "Today I Learned" threads there regularly propel weird articles into the weekly WP:TOP25. We have a generation of younger folks now, including journalists, who grew up with Wikipedia. They are generally aware of the risks of using it uncritically, but they consider it an incredible resource built on a model that common sense says simply should not work. Nerdy people always wrote history, we just have a different set of nerds now. The institutionalization of Wikipedia is fascinating to behold.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like Carrite, I advise caution. And like Milowent, I note the apparent respect for Wikipedia and its editors in McMillen's writing. He points out that things can slip through - yes, a quick look at the list of hoaxes will back that up. But, with a few exceptions like Amelia Bedelia, most of them are obscure and survived because gnomes and bots were the only visitors. This isn't a hoax. I regard it as a test page, to see how the system reacts. It probably should be deleted, and this may provide material for a new article (not on Wikipedia) on the fate of the venture. All well and good. It hasn't harmed us, or him. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His book has received some significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (e.g. [3] and [4]) raising the issue of whether he satisfies WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but shorten. Author of a book from a university press which has received some media coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Sparkzilla. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure whether this article should be deleted or not, but what I am sure of is that McMillen's Backchannel piece, and this article itself, should be mentioned or included within pages about Wikipedia's history. This was an interesting look at what we do here, and should be kept somewhere—just not sure if this page is where that should be. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 24.151.10.165 and E.M.Gregory, although I disagree about shortening it. So long as we're now violating WP:BLP does it matter if we inconvenience a few more electrons for this article? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was not created in good faith, but with the deliberate attempt to show case problems in Wikipedia. Articles created for this purpose should not be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intentions behind the article's creation seem irrelevant in determining McMillen's notability, which is the crux of this AfD nomination. 99.239.86.213 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this page was created in good faith. See Talk:Andrew_McMillen in the section "Of Note" Transcendence (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I will reiterate it here: the page was created in good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination; having read through all the sources, the subject does not appear to be notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with what other editors have said. Apparently the person that the article is about has created an article talking about how he fooled wikipedia's notability test. I really think it would be a good idea to check that out if you need any info on how he did it. Apparently some experienced editors helped him with it. Gamermadness (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but shorten drastically to, about 3 sentences: the book, the fact of his being a journalist, and a link to his article on Wikipedia.) User:Gamaliel makes a valid point. A book published with a University Press is not nothing. Here is a serious review [5] in the Herald. And then there is the entertaining, highly flattering (to us) article on Backchannel. He squeaks past WP:GNG, by the skin of his glib tongue. Frankly, deleting the page will merely make Wikipedia look vituperative and petty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. 130.88.52.212 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. His book received significant coverage in his native country, including The Australian [6], ABC Brisbane [7], and the aforementioned review in The Herald [[8]]. I think that establishes notability, albeit by a whisker. If the coverage of his book is enough to establish notability, Transcendence concedes in the AfD nomination that several sources are fine as-is, and I see a couple (#1, #16) that could be good if the original sources were tracked down. The article definitely needs to be pruned, but deleting it outright (particularly in light of the additional sources that have turned up) feels perhaps a bit reactionary. 99.239.86.213 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ironically I ended up here from his article about how he "Snuck through Wikipedia's notabilty system". But in wikirules, clearly fails WP:GNG. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with EoRdE6, this article seems like a collection of non-notable information and not really notable. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article definitely should be improved (and pruned) in various ways, but in my judgement it meets the standard for notability. I basically agree with E.M.Gregory, especially given the appreciable coverage his U of Queensland Press book received in major newspapers, as outlined by 99.239.86.213. I would note also that while the academic-press book is definitely the most significant, it is not the only example of independent reporting covering his work (as acknowledged in the original claim), at least some of it in respected, if niche, outlets like Game Informer. However, more strongly than I think that the scales of notability should tip one way or the other, I think we should be careful not to let our opinions about his Backchannel piece influence the decision. Personally, I thought it was very fair and actually reflected well on Wikipedia, but I can understand how someone would have the opposite reaction. However you felt about it, though, this article is definitely not a hoax or a PR piece (as Transcendence noted in one of their comments), so we should judge it on notability, not our feelings about the subject. LiberalArtist (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His article on Wikipedia is very fine (though I laughed at all the graphics showing people with their article word counts, showing how the obsessive attention to his article made him stand out), but it is hard to write a BLP based on some book reviews. The way this discussion is going essentially shows that McMillen falls into the gray area in the community where notability can be debated. If kept, I agree it has to be significantly pruned, and Andrew can compare himself in word count to Gaelic footballer BLPs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG, Shame it can't be salted tho. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Draftify. The "Snuck" article gives me unusual confidence that every possible source has been scraped. The GNG standard - which I think should be our only standard for notability - is designed to make sure we don't give a completely unrepresentative view of an article subject by requiring we find multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that are about the subject, not just mention him. (Therefore, the subject's writings don't count toward this, nor does content he puts into a directory, for example) To vote to keep I'd need to see two sources advanced as meeting that standard; I don't think you have them but am open to convincing. As I very rarely vote other than Keep, I should note that I see no harm, here or in similar situations, with merely moving the article to Draft:Andrew McMillen in the hope that suitable sources are found or published, rather than deleting it. We save no space by literally deleting it, so why? Wnt (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a WP:CREATIVE just need sources about his work, not person. For example WP:AUTHOR #3 is met with book reviews. There are two review-like sources from reliable sources. Not enough for me, but there you go (since you asked for two). -- GreenC 01:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled by these comments. User:Wnt points to a published profile [9] of McMillan recently added to the page from the Brisbane Times, a blue-linked, commercial, online newspaper that looks to have a staff of paid journalists, the article is aprofile of McMillan, not an article by him. To me, it adds to the argument made by User_talk:Green Cardamom (who added it to the page), that an author passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE when there are multiple, reliable sources about his work.

Salting (User:Davey2010), like deleting, not only ignores the guidelines worked out for notability - and seems vindictive - it opens Wikipedia to mockery. We need to pack away personal umbrage, because deleting this article would issue a gilt-edged invitation to McMillan to sell an article about how absurd the Wikipedia editing process is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely oppose "salting", which is not a normal part of a first AfD discussion and in any case is just really annoying overall. I also will admit I pretty much ignored the specialty novelty guideline because (a) I don't think we should have any, and (b) it's so weasel you can argue whatever you want from it. I mean, Wikipedia:Notability (people) starts by listing the GNG -- then it gives a bazillion exceptions for "significant" awards and "important" figures and so forth -- then at the end it says that if the basic criterion isn't met while additional criteria are, you shouldn't have a separate article anyway! If anyone wants to put that turd of a guideline up for deletion you can count on my vote! Wnt (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the argument to date (A Guide for the Daunted: my good faith effort to produce a short course) The argument in favor of keeping is based on this youngish writer passing WP:CREATIVE by dint of a single book published by University of Queensland Press (a house that publishes both scholarly and trade), and because of two articles about the book and its author, one in The Australian [10], the other in ABC Brisbane Brisbane Times, [11], and one review of the book in The Herald [[12]]. That the case should be based on merit (not on the actions of the subject) and tat deletion might reflect negatively on Wikipedia process. The argument for deleting is that the page (inflated with sourcing to more or less every blog post in which McMillan has ever been mentioned) demonstrates paltry evidence of notability, despite the fact that editors have scoured the web diligently for additional sources. That McMillan's claim to fame boils down to a single book and the fact that he is a working journalist writing for minor, online media sites. The fact that McMillan came to have a Wikiepdia page only because he was writing an article about Wikipedia. How I Snuck Through Wikipedia’s Notability Test. And that allowing stunts like this to result in an enduring page reflects negatively on Wikpedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 16:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Goslin[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being sheriff of a parish (population 250k) in Louisiana. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG not enough significant WP:RS coverage, just obits and passing mentions of him in regards to police actions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fully sourced. Notable under "Local poltiicians" section. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to meet the GNG to me. 10 facts from 10 sources as good as 10 facts from 1 source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billy Hathorn and Richard Arthur Norton. I can't accept "just obits" as an argument for deletion, as some obituaries are written by journalists. James500 (talk) 07:10, 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. Consensus here is that the Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar articles do not confirm notability. J04n(talk page) 16:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhar Chatterjee[edit]

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

The only credible thing this individual has done is start an online website. Sources are entirely primary (mostly interviews), with no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Please note that he is not known as web designer so there is no claims of Web Designing. The child has developed an Ecommerce website and also appointed as CEO of the firm. Please go through newspaper articles carefully. If it was the case of only web designing, I would definitely not work for the article. If Wikipedia can consider designing website on Microsoft Frontpage notable as in case of Sreelakshmi Suresh, then this article definitely deserves a Wikipedia article. Sorry for being too sharp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - <Most references are not reliable (see Abecedare (talk · contribs) comment below) and no claim of notability is given. TheMesquito^buzz 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - with media coverage in The Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar, I wouldn't be quite as quick to dismiss notability out of hand. The main problem, in my view, is that the article is extremely spammy and does not adequately summarize what reliable sources report, and as long as Sanjoy64 (Sanjoy Chatterjee?) edits that article, I don't think that will be significantly improved. Huon (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP | UPDATE~~ Thanks Huon for your comment. I think this article is notable enough and also agree that content of thia article is not proper. However, please help us out in editing the article and I suppose it can be written in a more better way following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.Sanjoy64 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I am not a strong editor and that might be the reason for the language used in the article. However, the citations and sources are many to judge the notability of the article. If editors can help significantly in improving the article it would be great. Sanjoy64 (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP | REQUEST~~ The article is open for any autoconfirmed user to edit. Please help us out in rewriting the article. Sanjoy64 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sanjoy64, please stop trying to impersonate other people when you sign your replies, you've done it in the past and have been warned for it and it only makes you look less credible. (for other viewers, Sanjoy signed his comments "WikiNest" instead of his own username, but I changed them back) Primefac (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to me this seems to be Sanjoy64 changing his signature, and there's technically no requirement that the signature include the username. However, when this leads to multiple "Keep" votes (except this isn't really a vote) in the same discussion, given under different names, it may look as if Sanjoy64 were trying to "stuff the ballot box". Thus I'd ask you, Sanjoy64, to not note additional comments on this page as "Keep" and to indicate at least here on this page that any further comments from you are from the same person who previously commented as "Sanjoy64". Thanks. Huon (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry guys, for my mistake. Please forgive me. I promise not to commit these sort of mistake again. Actually I did sign old comments by typing the whole code but did not knew the shortcode until Primefac tought me to do so via my talk page. Since the time I am using a Shortcode its showing up as "WikiNest". But now I have rectified it. I won't bother you much don't worry. I hope you forgive. Thank You Primefac, Huon, Kelapstick Sanjoy64 (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please help in how can we improve this article. Your sincere help would be very thankful. Sanjoy64 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please help in editing the article. I have few more references like that of AIESEC which I will add shortly when they publish the report on their website. Sanjoy64 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable CEO with promotional language written by person with COI. This is BLP1E at best. Sanjoy, kindly wait until someone with no COI thinks your son is notable and writes about him. Note: I've struck the multiple keep !votes by the article creator as you are only allowed to !vote once. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject has attracted significant reliable source coverage (to write the Times of India off as unreliable is rather silly) and that is all that notability means on Wikipedia. You can argue that RS shouldn't have covered Chatterjee in depth, but they have, and we don't substitute our judgement of importance for that of RS. BLP1E obviously does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in some news story, not used as a catch all for "I don't like it" arguments. There isn't even an "event" here. Also, a COI is never a valid reason for deletion. Any tone problems resulting from the COI can be solved via normal editing. Pinging @Shirik: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still debating this one internally, but I'll have a comment here eventually. I accepted it at afc primarily for this reason - it is arguable that it does meet the notability threshold, and afc is not the place to unilaterally decide what is and is not notable. It was clearly not an A7 candidate and, as ThaddeusB points out, there are valid arguments to be made to suggest the notability threshold is met. I'll decide where I stand on the matter soon, but I do want to stress that while I may indeed come to agreement he is notable, my choice to accept the afc submission was not an indication that I believed the subject was notable; it was only because I believed it was arguable that he was notable. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and kikichugirl. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Special:Contributions/87.66.181.146 seems to be WP:canvassing regarding this case, and may be User:Sanjoy64 who is currently blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Contributions/201.191.161.243 also. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... and Special:Contributions/186.176.25.207 and Special:Contributions/118.103.138.77 too. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see there's already been an SPI request in place since yesterday. I've updated it. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation in neutral form by an unconnected editor. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of Dweller's edits to the article, I withdraw my "Delete" !vote. (I'm not changing it to "Keep", though.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -The subject is minimally notable and from all of this banter you can clearly see there is a COI issue going on here. This is not going to stop because if the article does remain anyone who tries to edit it will continually be under attack by the subjects father. We know this is the father because of the message he left on a bureaucrats page [13]. The article is written like a promotional piece and would need to be revamped to start with. I say delete and let someone else start it back from the ground up and I would have no objection as long as it met notability guidelines. --Canyouhearmenow 11:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed some of the worst excesses of self-promotion, poor English, irrelevance and such like. There may be a stub article that can demonstrate notability here. Or there may not. But we shouldn't tolerate self-promotion even during an AfD. And socks should be reverted and blocked on sight. By the way, thank you for the notification at my talk page - see WP:BOOMERANG. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability has not been established in this article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dweller has rewritten the article. All the above comments saying delete based on tone/COI or delete and start over can safely be ignored as they do not pertain to the current version of the article. Please try to focus on notability now. (The many reliable sources should establish notability - anyone saying otherwise must explain why they feel the sourcing is inadequate.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been discussed previous at WP:RSN local city supplements of Times of India (and other Indian newspapers) are not reliable sources. The two main sources cited in the article are the Vadodara-city sections of Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar and it is clear from reading those pieces too that they are essentially a write-up of the subject's biography as related by him and his family (this is typical for the metro sections). Lacking any independent reliable sources the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone refutes User:Abecedare. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I too agree with Abecedare. The sources do not bring us to any concrete conclusion of notability and seem to be nothing more than repeat biography that might I add has already been edited out of the disputed article. Seems we are going around in a circle over a matter that clearly fails WP:GNG. My decision will remain delete unless they can come up with some better sources than whats been provided. I have already done multiple checks and I fail to find any. --Canyouhearmenow 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant non-trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable independent coverage of notability. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:50, 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. J04n(talk page) 16:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Ann Martine[edit]

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

Subject of the article fail WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages inreliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any additional sources mentioning subject other than those presumably self-published by subject (social media accounts, etsy, tumblr, facebook). Also, article seems to me to violate WP:PROMOTION, in addition to failing to satisfy WP:GNG. --Padenton (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 18:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete new article by new editor who must, presumably, be either a poetry fan or a poet who cannot spell "faithful" or "cemetery". I have not read any of Martine's poems (beyond the line quoted in the article). I did google the name. Perhaps she is very talented and will someday be published , but this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 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 redirect to Djuice. Article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tumi Ki Sara Dibe?[edit]

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

No source which can prove its significance. Rahat (Message) 17:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing available online other than lyric sites and MP3 downloads. Seems unlikely significant sourcing will exist offline. Relentlessly (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 06:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this jingle to Djuice. No evidence of notability for now. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 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 - I very rarely if ever do this but seeing as no admin's turned up I'm simply going to IAR and close this & speedy it myself –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Should I Love You...???[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable book that was likely written by the author as well. Wgolf (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK, author likely has a conflict of interest and the article is in a pretty bad state. Pishcal — ♣ 18:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK –Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and NBOOK. APerson (talk!) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK; should be closed by an admin as per WP:SNOW. Esquivalience ^t 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-dang already tons of delete votes. Wgolf (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, someone please WP:SPEEDY. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close). Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Walsh (designer)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:BIO. No evidence that this person has received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources so as to warrant a Wikipedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - see below. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just from a Google search I found five sources (although two, the designboom and yatzer ones, might not be exactly independent sources): the Irish Independent, The Irish Times, yatzer, designboom, and another Irish Times article. APerson (talk!) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Had not known, as the article does not say, that this is a furniture designer. Searching for this person with that in mind reveals sufficient sourcing. I will withdraw this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Targolyas[edit]

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

I couldn't WP:VERIFY that the subject of this article existed at all, even in planning form. All the WP:GOOGLETESTs of "Targolyas" link to apparent Wikipedia mirrors or forks. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-possible hoax article then? More expert is needed for sure. Wgolf (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Even though Bulgaria's article mentions about the city, it's unsourced and so it is likely a hoax. No images were shown of the so-called "city". Snowager-Talk to Me! 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick internet search brought up no results besides Wikipedia mirrors, no results found when doing a book search or news search. Pishcal — ♣ 13:01, 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. Thanks go to User:Cunard for saving the article by providing reliable sources. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People of Nepal (book)[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:NBOOK. Though the book was published in 1981, and is listed for sale on Amazon, I couldn't find a single review of the book (not even an Amazon customer review). Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep. ~~Like nom, unable to find any reviews. Fails NBOOK.~~ Per Cunard's impressive research, changed vote to "Keep". APerson (talk!) 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (switched vote 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books says (my bolding):
Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions.
Here are some sources I found about the subject:

Egli, Werner M. (2014). The Sunuwar of Nepal and their Sense of Communication: A Study in the Culture, Psychology and Shamanism of a Himalayan People. Berlin: LIT Verlag. p. 31. ISBN 3643801890. Retrieved 2015-03-06.
The book notes:
In the 1950s the doyen of Nepalese anthropology Dor Bahadur Bista accompanied by Christoph von Furer-Haimendorf visited East Nepal. His ethnographic notes were published in the classic People of Nepal (1967). In a separate chapter Bista deals with the Kirati but includes only the Rai, the Yakha and the Limbu. The Sunuwar and the Jirel are subject of a separate chapter and their relationship to the Kirati remains unexplained. Unfortunately Bista places the Sunuwar in respect of their culture, language and physical appearance close to the Magar and writes: "Some believe that they are offshoots of the Magar, others that they came from Simraungarh in the eastern Terai" (1980: 69).
Turin, Mark (2012). A Grammar of the Thangmi Language. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 34. ISBN 9004155260. Retrieved 2015-03-06.
The book notes:
The following year, Dor Bahadur Bista published his immediately definitive People of Nepal, in which the Thangmi get little more than a passing mention: [quote]
Although mistaken, Bista's classification of the Thangmi as culturally similar to the Tamang was destined to stick, and many secondary sources and textbooks published after Bista have perpetuated this error.
Subedi, Salil (2000-07-26). "Dor Bahadur Alive". Nepali Times. Archived from the original on 2015-03-06. Retrieved 2015-03-06.
The article notes:
Dor Bahadur Bista, Nepal's best-known anthropologist, social scientist and activist, disappeared suddenly and without trace a little over five years ago while working on a development project in the remote western hill district of Jumla. The mystery of Dor Bahadur's disappearance deepened with rumours that he had been killed by high-caste villagers who opposed his radical consciousness-raising among the poor. Even his family had given up hope.
Dor Bahadurs work started in the 1950s when he collaborated with the Austrian anthropologist Christof von Furer-Haimendorf on a sociological and anthropological study of Nepal. The result was his seminal work, People of Nepal (1964).
The book is mentioned as a "noted study" in Encyclopædia Britannica's "Nepal" article. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/409152/Nepal/23653/Additional-Reading^WebCite.

The sources call the book "classic", "definitive", "seminal", and "noted". The author, Dor Bahadur Bista, is called "Nepal's best-known anthropologist". Although I did not find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline), I think the book's article should be kept using the guidance from Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books ("how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area"). Cunard (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive research - if you would care to add your findings to the article I will happily withdraw my nomination. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, if you'd prefer, I will rewrite the article to add the evidence you've found. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra10003 and APerson, thank you for your kind words and for reconsidering your nomination and "delete" comment. I have added my findings to the article. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unqle Chriz[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and I can't find WP:RS to back up the claims made of an award, or of the award's notability. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the labels of this artist, which similarly make no indication of notability per WP:CORP or WP:GNG, and for which I can find no significant coverage online from WP:RS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantially better sourcing materializes. The capricornreview article reads like an unedited press release. —Cryptic 23:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as not currently notable. I think perhaps The Annual Blusoul Red Carpet Show should be added to this. --VeryCrocker (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following event, which asserts no notability per WP:EVENTS. It was nominated for speedy twice, but both times the speedy tag was removed without explanation by one of the two WP:SPAs that's been creating this WP:Walled garden of promo pages:

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 (G5) by RHaworth. NAC –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Masks[edit]

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

It wasn't a blatant hoax, despite my initial suspicions (some of the content clearly was a hoax). However, I'm seeing no evidence of notability. IMDB indicates that it won't come out until next year, and nowhere else seems to actually contradict that (most places don't even mention a release date) - and there's precisely 0 evidence of notability right now, either in the article, or in a Google search. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for WP:GNG to be met. It is also worth noting that the article creator was blocked for being a disruptive editor, as they had perpetuated quite a few hoaxes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete-creator is a sockpuppet, which I just put a speedy for. Wgolf (talk) 19:44, 8 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 // 00:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Lunar New Year Cup[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article listing participants and their stats in a competition. Fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence of available sources from which to create prose. - Mr X 12:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I'd bundle in the rest of the individual Lunar New Year Cup articles, because it wouldn't make sense to only have one deleted. ansh 666 23:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'm reluctant to bundle other articles in now that someone has !voted.- Mr X 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "Lunar New Year Cup". STSC (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The stats are not excessive; the article contains "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", as in "Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012". STSC (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is plentiful: a Google search on "2015 Lunar New Year Cup" has 40 results minus Wikipedia's article. STSC (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those results are almost entirely unreliable sources or mere mentions of the subject. Of the two source you added to the article, the goal.com sources comes up with "This webpage is not available" and the newsday.com source is about the New York Cosmos winning the Lunar New Year AET Cup. None of these sources carries significant coverage of the 2015 Lunar New Year Cup as an independent subject.- Mr X 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all "almost entirely unreliable sources" - the burden of proof is on you. From the search on "羊年賀歲盃" it also got plenty of secondary reliable sources. The goal.com link has no problem, and the Newsday link has the video of the match; they are significant coverages of the subject. STSC (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, no, the WP:BURDEN is not on me.- Mr X 03:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you as to why you said "almost entirely unreliable sources". The article is verified by citations; the burden of proof is on you the nominator as to why the article should be deleted. STSC (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [14][15][16]--Antigng (talk) 07:11, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:17, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Borg[edit]

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

The CEO of a notable organization can be notable, but there is no evidence this one is. See also the adjacent AfD on his father. Having one;s wedding in the NYTimes wasp perhaps notable in the traditional days of early 20th century society, but is not nowadays, when they try to include representative people, not just well-known society figures. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Nakon 02:46, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:16, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Borg[edit]

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

Non notable. The CEOs of an organization can be notable, but there is no evidence that this particular one is. See also the adjacent AfD on his son. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Nakon 02:46, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many available sources and therefore meets WP:BASIC:
- Sabik, Cathy A. "The Borg Equation" Business Journal of New Jersey 3.12 (Aug 1986): 56.
- Burgher, Valerie. "The last man standing" Mediaweek 7.31 (Aug 18, 1997): 6.
- Clifford, Stephanie. "A Battle With a Newspaper Backfires" New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 04 May 2009: B.7.
- Pinsdorf, Marion K. Communicating when Your Company is Under Siege: Surviving Public Crisis 3rd ed.: 153-155[17]
- Kurtz, Howard "A bad case of the '80s" Columbia Journalism Review 31.5 (Jan 1993): 38.

This is just a sampling. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:20, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's pretty easy to find articles about his significance as a businessman. I agree here with User:Samuel J. Howard. Moreover, it's not at all the usual business- or journalism- related AFD in which some utterly non-notable dude is hyping his career. The Borg family owns a long-standing, significant (albeit regional) business. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would it make any sense to redirect Malcolm and Steven to North Jersey Media Group? On grounds that there is not much coverage of either beyond "owner of". User talk:DGG, what do you think?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 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 merge to Cycling records. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Osburn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kurt Osburn

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

Is it notable enough for a wiki page to have a Guiness World Record? I would propose merging the sentence into Cycling records Sander.v.Ginkel. ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:01, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 09:39, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found an article about him for another record see here and expanded the article . Perhapgs it's now notable enough to keep the article. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the nominator, although wheelie might be the better target since it's probably a matter of debate whether wheelie records really belong on a list of mainstream cycling records. Guiness is a reliable source for world records but holding one, or even more than one, doesn't automatically warrant a Wikipedia article for the holder. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:12, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 22:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tribeca, Liverpool[edit]

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

This project has apparently not gone ahead, with the only coverage being local. As such this is at worst not notable and at best a case of WP:TNT. Sam Walton (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 09:37, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:13, 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. (Not 100% sure if tommylommykins's withdrawn so closing as such - If you haven't let me know. / per SK1. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Globule (CDN)[edit]

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

This a bulk deletion nomination for all of the articles in Category:Apache_httpd_modules except for List of Apache modules.

These articles are all for plugins for the Apache HTTP server. I think don't think they're notable according to wp:nsoft: They're just modules which provide a particular feature to Apache. Some of these pages are quite short... just a declaration of what the module is and what it does... and I would imagine there probably isn't any more to say about them without the descending into writing technical documentation.

Since we already have a list article that enumerates apache modules, I propose that we delete these articles and merge content as necessary into List of Apache modules.

This deletion nomination follows on from a successful nomination for a single Apache module, Apache Rivet (delection discussion here). The outcome of that discussion was a soft delete after no quorum was achieved. tommylommykins (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full list of nominated articles: Globule (CDN) Mod jk Mod deflate Mod gzip Mod lisp Mod mono Mod oai Mod openpgp Mod proxy Mod ssl Mod wsgi Mod php Mod parrot Mod perl Mod python Mod qos Mod ruby Phusion Passenger SuEXEC

I am concerned that the no quorum status of Apache Rivet's AFD discussion devalues the precedent of that article's successful deletion, but I'm not sure what I can do to raise interest in discussing this deletion proposal. tommylommykins (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no reason why a plugin can not achieve notability in itself. Some plugins are more notable and feature rich than individual programs. I've added a 'reliable' source. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, having seen your addition to Phusion Passenger, I have changed my mind and think it is a notable article. This suggests that I may have raised some of these deletion requests in error.

I still think that a fair few of these articles are undoubtedly non-notable on their own (mod_lisp, mod_parrot, mod_oai..) and should be deleted. Perhaps that is a discussion for a separate AFD (and perhaps I should bring more evidence to back my case in that discussion). tommylommykins (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be aware that the original proposal was for a merge into a list article rather than a straight out deletion. I still feel this is appropriate for the majority of these articles (although again, perhaps that is a topic for a more specific AFD.) tommylommykins (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check every plugin listed, some may be suitable for a list or deletion. Perhaps give each page an individual AfD. Maybe there is a discussion somewhere on how to handle plugins. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general software notability guidelines ought to be good enough here. I don't think the pluginny nature of these plugins will has much meaning here. tommylommykins (talk) 19:19, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - It appears from the discussion above that the nominator, Tommylommykins, wishes to withdraw the nomination. ~KvnG 00:35, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Technologies Limited[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a company. I am unable to find any sources beyond press releases, business listings and mere mentions that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:36, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:12, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent WP:RS sources. Sources provided are PR, incidental mentions of partnership, and company sites. Listing on the Bombay Stock Exchange is not in itself evidence of notability, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 11:28, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H.U.V.A. Network[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 09:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 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 Sailor ^Talk! 08:04, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:10, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aes Dana (ambient group)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 09:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a few sources but perhaps not enough to establish notability: [18], [19], [20]. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 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 Sailor ^Talk! 08:04, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:09, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Robots' Society[edit]

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

An "award-nominated podcast" that was a finalist for several Parsec Awards but did not win any. No other secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple trivial mentions at Locus Online for the Parsec award nominations, but that's about it. Seems fairly popular with bloggers, but I'm not really seeing much in the way of coverage in reliable sources. Maybe it could be mentioned at a list of science fiction podcasts or something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Felicitas of Prussia[edit]

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

Contested prod, this person's only claim to notability is that she is a granddaughter of the last Crown Prince of Germany, notability is not inherited, as she was born after Germany became a republic I question if she can be described as a princess. PatGallacher (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 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 01:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typically, we have covered royal families here on Wikipedia, even those who are no longer the reigning monarchs (Which, in the case of Europe, is what most of them are, as there are are relatively few reigning European monarchies, nowadays). Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was not born until significantly after the Prussian royal family stopped having any power or control. There is nothing about here that makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG due to coverage. p b p 00:05, 5 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources by search engine that are not passing mentions. The article's only link, to google news, fails with a 404.

If notability is established though, there is the question of the name. WP:NCROY is not clear on whether she should be called "princess", given that nobility titles bear no sovereignty anymore. Take that with a grain of salt; it might be my Frenchness talking, and I notice such articles often have the title in English WP but not in French WP (fr:Jean-Christophe_Napoléon vs. en:Jean-Christophe,_Prince_Napoléon; fr:Henri_d'Orléans_(1933) vs. en:Henri_d'Orléans,_Count_of_Paris). Tigraan (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in Debrett. Worst case is that we'd merge up into some other article such as House of Hohenzollern or Prince Wilhelm of Prussia. There seems to be little point in doing that and so it's simplest to leave well alone. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unsure on this case on her actual notability, but about the talk of whether or not to use her title, but I will note that even if they aren't legally reigning anymore the other families do tend to recognise them. The Queen of England, the monarchs of Scandinavia, and the other reigning royalty of Europe regularly attend weddings and other events for these persons and invite them to events such as the Queen's jubilee (where she held a 'monarch only dinner', most of the attendees holding defunct thrones. So, they are still considered 'royalty' by default. JT_dale^Talk~ 12:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, of course the Queen of England will invite 'Princess XXX' and not 'Mrs. XXX' is such a title can be found. I do not think the Queen of England (or any other nobility, whose titles are active or inactive) is a reliable, non-biaised source, though. Conversely, I suppose Dennis Skinner would show the opposite bias. (Which does not prevent the QoE or DS to be reliable sources on other subjects).

The question would better be "what are them called by the media", but then there is the problem that such persons are of interest to the media at least partly because of their nobility. Tigraan (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant member of a significant royal house. I think she makes the notability bar. As to not being a princess, government decree doesn't decide who is and is not royal - that's decided by birth. German royalty still commonly use their titles, whatever their government may say about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 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. No evidence of notability has been presented. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1582–83 defter of the Sanjak of Scutari[edit]

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

Author keeps it a secret where he/she is talking about The Banner talk 15:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would search for either "defter" or "Sanjak of Scutari" you would know what the article is about. I have added an intro, the article will be expanded once I have time.--Zoupan 15:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A7 for failure to assert a claim of notability. I'm not opposed to userfying it pending Zoupan actually writing a credible article here. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 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, Nakon 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add some discussion. I don't see what A7 ahas to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess I missed your rationale there, did you want to post one? And "failure to assert a claim of notability" is pretty straightforward--- what makes a tax record presumptively notable without one? Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:50, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Keri (talk) 18:00, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Financial Trading[edit]

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

Does not meet WIKI:GNG criteria, notablity and claims are serious issue Shrikanthv (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP (as well as GNG, obviously, and I do not think this belongs to academic categories). The only serious claim to notability is the GB&FR award, but the list of those awards is very long, containing categories such as "Most Innovative Program for Graduates & Young Professionals Russia 2014". Getting somewhere on the list must not be too hard, so the award is not really selective. (Note: I did not check the reliability of GB&FR.) Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, also fails WP:GNG, seems self-promotion-y. Snappy (talk) 11:24, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkareem Findi[edit]

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

Not a single reliable source: either COI source (findi.info) or blogs. No indication of notability. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete-I put a prod up earlier but the creator removed it. Wgolf (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Findi may well be notable, but sources are in Kurdish. My understanding is that in order to be on Wikipedia in English, the subject has to have been written about in English-language WP:RS (i.e., that sources in other languages can be quoted for facts, but English-language sources are required to establish notability).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, that is incorrect. Sources may be in any language, as long as they are reliable, independent, and enough in-depth to pass WP:GNG (or any specialty guideline). --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the citations go to one source, which seems to be a private website maintained by one with the same surname (as declared on the footer on website. Educationtemple (talk) 13:10, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hayes-Santos[edit]

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

This is a bio of a candidate for the Gainesville, FL City Commission. The candidate does not appear to be notable for any other reason and the election is of only local interest. The page appears to be self-created solely for purposes of self-promotion. No other articles link to it. Tualha (Talk) 10:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if elected to the city comission Hayes-Santos will not be default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant coverage and fails WP:POLITICIAN. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:39, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird NJ[edit]

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

This article has no reliable independent sources. As far as I can tell, this has always been the case. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present article is bloated with self-promotional cruft that begs removal, but it seems a number of independent sources [21] exist to at least establish the magazine as notable enough for its own (albeit greatly trimmed) article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is provided that the magazine has a very wide circulation, which I doubt it has. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weird NJ and its follow-ups are very well known in the real world, as attested by articles in tons of reliable sources such as the New York Times [22] and the Washington Post [23] and the Associated Press [24][25] and the Boston Globe [26] and the Los Angeles Times [27] and of course Jersey sources such as NJ.com [28] and the Bergen Record [29]. Here's a Chicago Tribune review of the Weird U.S. spinoff. [30] and examples of reviews of others in the series [31][32][33][34] etc. etc. etc. (Search hint: try weird + Moran + Sceurman). -Arxiloxos (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I'm not going to say I'm the arbiter of notability, but I've heard of this. Luckily, Arxiloxos did all the heavy lifting already. There are also hits at usatoday.com, for example this. It's clearly notable outside of the NY and NJ area. Which is actually a little bit surprising to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the extensive coverage in New Jersey media and the national coverage listed above, is the entry for the publication in the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. Do I believe that some road is haunted or that there's a tree in the state that is a portal to hell, but this is the publication that provides the material, which is widely reproduced in the media. It's that coverage that establishes notability; circulation is irrelevant. Alansohn (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recently edited per above discussion, sources added and cruft trimmed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no evidence as to why the page of a once-local periodical, now national icon (re: books on topics across the country) should be deleted without a more extensive explanation other than a lack of sources. Maybe a simple Google search would help with that. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 23:36, 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 merge to Under Plum Lake. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egon (fictional country)[edit]

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

This is weird. A sub-article of the novel Under Plum Lake that is vastly longer than its parent. Possibly a small portion could be merged there. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and condense. The fictional setting is surely but one aspect of the novel. Egon (fictional country) is way too in-universe, and fails WP:GNG. A few sentences should be sufficient as part of plot description. --Animalparty-- (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Under Plum Lake. Artw (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not convinced that the merge target is notable. I get that it was published 35 years ago, but it's trivially easy to find citations for 50 year old children's books when they're notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Saini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No improvement of general notability since the last three times this article was deleted. Blackguard 06:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like I voted in last discussion, the subject is notable but written very poorly like a Fanpage. Here are the citations that I found which easily proves his notability (Some of them are in local language, therefore not readily available to search engines): [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],[44], [45], [46]. However, I do agree with it that it needs to be completely rewritten according to Wikipedia standards. I'll try to improve the article. Mr RD 09:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The personality is quite notable. He has been featured on IndiaToday, Yourstory among others. IndiaToday is pretty much a reputed, reliable news source. Apart from featuring in editorials, the person also has a notable following on YouTube [60,000 subscribers at Unacademy: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Unacademy ] and Quora [16,000 followers]. I completely understand that an internet following doesn't necessarily represent notability. But this guys has kind of both. And by the way, he has also given Tedx Talks. [47]. I have enclosed other references below. Keep This.

IndiaToday article: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/roman-saini-unacademy-ias-aspirants-free-online-coaching-civil-services-exam/1/412600.html

YourStory Article: http://yourstory.com/2014/06/roman-saini-entrepreneur/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akalank (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite notable. Supported by high end reliable citations and sources. Of course, some re-writing as proposed above by other editors would be good. Educationtemple (talk) 13:21, 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 (by moving without redirect to draft space) by Whitney Ford (non admin closure) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's untitled eighth studio album[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Also, notability is not inherited, just because it's a Rihanna album does not automatically make it notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rihanna discography until there is a title, track list, and release date (per WP:NALBUMS, as mentioned by nominator). Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should really be speedily deleted per #G5 because it was created by a sockpuppet of MariaJaydHicky. No need for a redirect as the name Rihanna will bring up her page in the search results. Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is undergoing edits slowly but surely it's coming together Ashantisantos (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Ashantisantos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect - per WP:NALBUMS, WP:HAMMER. Sergecross73 msg me 11:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. Even with the AfD ongoing, Whitney Ford has moved the article to Draft:Rihanna's untitled eighth studio album. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Ford appears to be a Duck Sock of MariaJaydHicky as well. -War wizard90 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense C.Fred I'm on my phone and it didn't show up until after I moved it to the draft; should I have done it or not I'm so, so, so, sorry if I did the wrong thing Whitney Ford 17:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Whitney Ford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Procedural keep as the article as been moved to draftspace. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For what it's worth, there's also a competing draft on the same topic at Draft:R8 (album). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that this article was created in block evasion, and given that there is already a competing draft (which looks a lot better than this one anyway), I say we just delete it and move on, no need to keep. We should probably look at blocking several obvious sock editors on this article though. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well obviously the first order of the day is to file one or two SPIs, if that hasn't been done already. Then after they are closed can figure out what to do with the competing drafts. No one is going to find the AfD to !vote on this further now that the title is a redlink. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Collins "Keurig Girl"[edit]

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

This week's internet viral story du jour. I believe we should wait to see if this story has any effect past the single week's news before allowing an article to exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Collins has already received enough attention and media for a page. Over five articles have been written about Collins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohshaleyeah (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not know what a "du jour" is before this. It means "of the day". Mostly blogs/local press/minor student press coverage [48][49][50], and no lasting effect when coverage stopped before February. I am discouraged to keep at the start already, when Google News search of "Keurig Girl" without quotes does not show her until the 5th result. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can figure out how to merge some of this content into a not-yet-written section of the Keurig article that discusses the public image of the brand. Taken on its own merits, I tend to think Madison Collins is covered by WP:BIO1E and maybe WP:BLP1E. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 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. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pernicious (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with no ambiguous topics listed, only partial title matches. Has previously been redirected to the only full title match, but it should just be deleted since the disambiguation is not required. Ivanvector (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a useless dab. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perniciously defenestrate per nom. The song's the only other legit entry, and I've added that to the hatnote in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this disambiguation page is involved in a redirects for discussion nomination, for that deletion event, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_3#Perniciously -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At RfD it is mentioned that pernicious number is referred to as just "pernicious" per @Siuenti: -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that had been refuted. Does it ever make sense to refer to a pernicious, and have the reader know other than by context that it refers to a pernicious number? Can it be used as a noun, or is it an adjective that modifies the noun "number"? Would we keep a dab entry in that case? Without being followed by "number", the first example in the article reads "[t]he first pernicious is 3, since 3 = 11₂ and 1 + 1 = 2, which is a prime." Is that nonsense? As a counterexample, prime is a noun that refers to a kind of number; is pernicious? I think it is not but I had never heard of it before yesterday so I'm not sure. Ivanvector (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same question could apply to pernicious anemia. The epidemiology section would read: "Pernicious is estimated to affect 0.1% of the general population and 1.9% of those over 60, accounting for 20-50% of B₁₂ deficiency in adults.^{[ref in article]}" Does that make sense? Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in sentences like "even prime numbers are pernicious." Siuenti (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's more in the way of an adjective than a noun, though. "Some cars are green" doesn't mean you'd say "I wrecked my green when I went through a red." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an adjective, but people look up adjectives as well as nouns. Siuenti (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person typing "blue" into the search bar should not expect to find an article about blue cheese. If, however, there was a concept in cuisine called "blue" or "blueness" that was distinct from the colour blue and that was most directly relevant to the blue cheese article, those would be the only cases that including Blue cheese on Blue (disambiguation) would be appropriate. Unless there are valid sources that refer to "perniciouses" or "perniciousness" as a mathematical concept distinct from lethality, then Pernicious number is not a valid entry on this disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't enough valid entries to constitute a proper disambiguation page. A hatnote can easily cover the remainder. Neelix (talk) 15:38, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Koch[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All state legislators, even legislators-elect, are considered notable.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature. Enos733 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above (state legislators get a free pass) and a note of caution to @Winkelvi: that it may be unnecessary to go after every article created by Kbabej and to please check the notability criteria before nominating any more of them. Valfontis (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State legislators are notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:43, 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 Speedy Keep per the snowball clause. Royal broil 02:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Hunkins[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hunkins served in the Wisconsin Territorial Legislature and then in the Wisconsin Assembly. State and territorial legislators are consider notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NPOL. -- Calidum 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above (state legislators get a free pass) and a note of caution to @Winkelvi: that it may be unnecessary to go after every article created by Kbabej and to please check the notability criteria before nominating any more of them. Valfontis (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 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 Speedy kept per the Snowball clause. Royal broil 02:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hastings Hunkins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hunkins served in the Vermont General Assembly and state legislators are notable. Until 1836, the Vermont General Assembly was unicameral when the Vermont Senate was added. Thank you-RFD (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NPOL. -- Calidum 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above (state legislators get a free pass) and a note of caution to @Winkelvi: that it may be unnecessary to go after every article created by Kbabej and to please check the notability criteria before nominating any more of them. Valfontis (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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. Michig (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hunkins[edit]

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

No real notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOLDIER. Like Moses Chamberlain below, to whom he is related, being an officer in the American Revolution (and never being taken prisoner) is insufficient. Ancestry.com is thataway. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, despite interesting write up in the Vermont Gazetteer, I'm not finding anything else on him but lineages and other mentions of the Hazen incident, but being associated with Hazen does not confer notability, which is not inherited. (He might make for a footnote in the Hazen article.) My ancestor served under Hazen as well. That and about $35 bucks will buy me a DAR membership, but that doesn't make him notable either. Valfontis (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any especial notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 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) 07:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Chamberlain[edit]

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

No real notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Being a first lieutenant in the American Revolution isn't enough. His 15 Minute(man)s are up. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If he did anything notable enough to pass WP:BIO the article doesn't show it. I did some looking and the available sources don't show it either. (the person mentioned here (4th item at the top of the next column) as having served in the New Hampshire legislature does not appear to be the same person--the person in the wiki article was placed in New Hampshire categories but there is no mention of New Hampshire in the body of the article.) He served our country honorably like many other ordinary people, including my revolutionary war ancestor who also did nothing notable. Let him rest in peace. Valfontis (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with no real apparent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a sufficiently notable neologism (WP:NEO). Previous AfD from two years ago was closed no consensus, but most of the keep arguments look pretty poor. The article as it is is extraordinary poor and poorly sourced, but this is not a nomination based on the present article but rather due to being unable to find sufficient sources demonstrating that this term is notable. ("Term" is important, as a source that talks about the fear of guns but doesn't use this term is not about this subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I opined for keeping at the last discussion (the extended discussion is there). I don't think the keep opinions were particularly weak, in fact the delete side of the argument contained the WP:JUSTAVOTEs that encouraged me toward the other side. There are sources like this which talk about the term in the context of its listing in Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders (2006), refuting the little bit of WP:OR in the article and without mentioning Cooper. If anything, the term is more widely used and cited now than it was in 2009 from the looks of it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: The thing is, either the subject is about a term or it's about a disorder. Once we choose which the article is about, a whole lot of sources are ruled out. If it's a real phobia, all sources have to meet standards of WikiProject Psychology and/or, depending on the context, WP:MEDRS. Both of those remove Cooper, who is central to the article. If, however, it's a "term" and not a psychological disorder, the psychological disorder sources are irrelevant as they would be about some little-known disorder and not about the term coined by Cooper. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know where you're coming from but I disagree that it needs to be one or the other. It can just as easily be a term that some have argued fits the description of a phobia. It's like the Chalice of Doña Urraca - most agree its a nice goblet, some argue it's the Holy Grail. So we cover both in the article. No reason we can't do the same here. It's not really up to us to decide anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient mainstream RS usage of the term, e.g., the [Pittsburgh paper.] Pax 10:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to be more clear: the article is either about the neologism which is, to take from the opinion column Раціональне анархіст links above, "a tongue-in-cheek neurosis 'discovered' in 1962 by firearms instructor Jeff Cooper to mock those who think guns have free will" or it is a mental disorder, in which case Cooper is not a reliable source and all we have are scant mentions in lists of psychological sources. What we need are substantial sources about the term or about the disorder, and I haven't seen that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As if "Islamophobia" were a legitimate mental disorder rather than a smear. What matters is that it is being used. Pax 13:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept is discussed using that explicit term in:

Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law (2012) ABC-CLIO. According to that source, haplophobia is also discussed in Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders (2006) Handbooks in Health Care, (written by two professors at Emory University and already in the article).

The term is also listed and defined in:

A Dictionary of Psychology (2015). Oxford University Press.

These are reputable academic publishers. The term and concept is also discussed in academic journals, e.g.

"Gun concealment, display, and other magical habits of the body" (2014, Critique of Anthropology, Sage Publications. Quote: "He laments the way pro-gun control Christians misquote the Bible, reasoning, 'But a deeper inspection of the matter will reveal that Christian hoplophobia [fear of guns] is a very recent phenomenon, and that it is largely confined to the theologically and politically liberal wing...'")
"Workplace Violence: The Role of Fear in Paralyzing Modern Business/Corporate Security" (2014, Journal of Applied Business and Economics).

It's also defined explicitly in

"German physicians against war since 1870" (1990, Medicine and War, Taylor & Francis).

So, the term is at least 25 years old. The case for claiming this term as a non-notable neologism is pretty weak. The case for improving the article, however, is very strong. Good quality sources to enable that do exist. The problem is the article currently seems to be a slugfest between editors with differing points of view. Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are mainly about the disorder, but the parts of these sources truly about the disorder, rather than the neologism aren't much more than scant mentions. An encyclopedia about guns, an anthropology journal, and a business journal are furthermore not reliable sources for medical/psychological information. I'm not saying sources don't exist, and I appreciate you bringing these here, but the sources that exist are a combination of unreliable, brief mentions, or about the term. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we need enough material for an encyclopedia article, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources I listed are not mainly about the disorder, they are about the cultural phenomenon and the word used to express it. "Hoplophobia" is not simply a term. It is a concept, one that is widely discussed, whether or not it is a "medical condition". That argues for changing the focus of the article, not for deleting it. It is quite valid to have an article about a concept and the common term used to express it, how it had been used in the literature of various disciplines and at various times, the cultural ramifications of "fear of weapons" etc. You are misinterpreting "not a dictionary", in my view, unless of course you think Islamophobia, Existential quantification, Divertissement etc. should likewise not be articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually look at Islamophobia. It says verbatim "The word Islamophobia is a neologism" and the reason it's included in Wikipedia is because there are so many sources about the subject as "prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim". It does not purport to be a psychological disorder and does not require citing sources which call it as much because it's not that. This, on the other hand, entirely depends on sources which talk about it being a purported mental disorder, including sources you just cited. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no. The first source I gave discusses it in the context of "demonization", a cultural phenomenon, including the use of the term itself as a cultural phenomenon. The article in Critique of Anthropology likewise discusses it as a cultural phenomenon. The article in Medicine and War discusses it not as a psychiatric disorder but in the context of the history of opposition in the German medical profession to weapons of war in themselves, again a cultural phenomenon. Yes, it's a neologism. Yes, it's a cultural phenomenon. No, it is probably not a "medical condition" in the strictest sense. Reliable sources are available for a short article about the cultural phenomenon, the term which has been coined to describe it, and indeed the use of the term itself as a cultural phenomenon. There is no need to write the article as if were a medical condition or to delete the article simply because it is not a medical condition. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to merging some of the information about the term/concept as a cultural phenomenon into another article {if an appropriate one exists, possibly Jeff Cooper?) and turning Hoplophobia into a redirect. As Nyttend points out, it's a term people are highly likely to search for. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator is apparently wrong in saying that this isn't a sufficiently established term, but the whole thing is a dictionary-style entry. We an are encyclopedia, and encyclopedias cover concepts. I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting it, since the article easily demonstrates that people will be searching for it (gun politics would be a good target, but it's a redirect to Overview of gun laws by nation), but deletion would definitely be the best choice if we don't redirect it. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not merely a neologism, but an actual condition for which treatment is provided. The article clearly needs improvement, but the topic needs to be covered. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeff Cooper#Political views. It's still a neologism. Miniapolis 23:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia is a neologism. Would you support deleting it? Pax 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This, as has been pointed out before, is just a word that deserves no more than a dictionary entry and a passing reference in the article about Jeff Cooper, who claimed to have created the term as a pejorative used to insult those who disagreed with his opinions and favoured gun control. It is not a medical or psychological condition and is listed only in any medical/psychological dictionaries as a label for what must be a very rare phobia (the list of phobias is endless). Except as part of the vernacular of the US gun culture, this word has no significance and no importance. It may have found some utility elsewhere as a term but typically still only in reference to the gun culture of the US. It most certainly is not a medical condition; there is already an adequate entry in Wiktionary; and the rest can be covered off in the Jeff Cooper article explaining how he took credit for creating it, and that he created it to berate those who did not agree with his views on gun ownership and gun control.99.242.102.111 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By equivalent rationale, would you agree that Islamophobia should be shunted off into some other article as simply being "part of the vernacular" of Islamist propaganda? It's not a medical condition either. Pax 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Islamophobia is used by people worldwide in correspondence with worldwide extremist terrorism. Its frequency and ubiquity of use would probably make it more than just part of the vernacular of any particular group. It is a neologism and its merits are certainly debatable, however, and it could also be subject to an AFD.99.242.102.111 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: 99.242.102.111 !votes delete on the basis that the subject is not taken seriously as an actual medical condition (there being, at that time, a "Medical status" section in the article largely being used as a coatrack for straw-man fallacy dismissals). I agree that such claims are bullshit, and remove the offending section.. What happens next? He adds it right back in, because, I can only surmise, he needs the article to continue looking ugly in order to entice additional delete !votes. Pax 14:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. No. I am trying to be fair to the others here who do believe it is a medical condition (read here and in the Hoplophobia talk page). I agree that it is not a medical condition. The entry as it is now is equivalent to the Wiktionary entry. I don't think this term deserves its own WP entry and I voted for it to be deleted. If people are looking for "Hoplophobia," a redirect to the Jeff Cooper page should be all that's needed in Wikipedia.99.242.102.111 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - article clearly needs improvements. but that is not a reason to delete a article that clearly is within WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary material. IF a GOOD RS is found connecting it to Cooper, it merits inclusion in his article. Lightbreather (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of RS demonstrating mainstream usage; therefore the article can stand on its own. Pax 04:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy on this: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I've never heard of this term, but it seems little more than that since its not a real phobia and the Wiktionary article seems adequate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's used enough as a term as well as describing a trend to anthropomorphize certain weapons when they are used in crimes or when cosmetic appearance/differences deems them more dangerous. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 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 delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hunkins, Sr.[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any especial notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 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 keep. Speedy keep as withdrawn without arguments for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (video game)[edit]

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

~~Promo of a game under dev. WP:CRYSTAL Staszek Lem (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. The new, remastered version looks like may have a kick. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two new sources within the day, of the new preview: [51][52]. And apparently it was panned for being generally bad at its reveal last year, which needs to be mentioned for NPOV if kept. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:24, 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 03:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hawkes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Received significant coverage in Adam Hawkes of Saugus, Mass., 1605-1672: the first six generations in America and Adam Hawkes, 1608-1672: His life and times. Also received coverage in [53] [54] [55] [56]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hirolovesswords. There is significant coverage in the sources h/she noted above WordSeventeen (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hirolovesswords. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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 keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gottlieb Göttlich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can see, this article already has sources sufficient to establish notability, and sources are evident in the usual searches, such as [57][58][59].--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources, apparent historical significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources Arxiloxos indicates are sufficient. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Wright[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you should be more careful as you rip through Kbabej (talk · contribs) creations, not just tagging everyone single one due to personal dislikes with generic reasons. More importantly it quite impressive how many sources it has considering the subject lived in the 1500's. May I suggest you take a break from this harmful deletion spree for a bit? I agree with quite a few of them but just don't get all carried away. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lecture and "suggestion" from you is truly unnecessary and out of line as well as inappropriate for this forum, EoRdE6. Your assessment of my motives is hardly AGF and is filled with incorrect assumptions bordering on personal attack. But, since you've only been editing barely six months, I can see how someone so new and young enough to be my grandchild would make such an error.

My estimation of the article stands: no notability truly established. Not to mention the article relies almost solely on primary sources. It's a puff piece at best. Being the ancestor of so-and-so, mentioned in a geneology list, and the descendent of another guy doesn't make for notability and falls under WP:INHERITED. What's more, a long list of references is no good if the references are worthless in the scope of making a truly encyclopedic article of a notable individual. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Isnt the point of AfD to create possible deletion discussions of questionable articles?. This does not fail WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, BabbaQ, you've commented on a plethora of AfD discussions today, with about a minute between each. How is it possible you are !Voting 'keep' or 'delete' knowledgeably? With only a minute or so between these comments at different AfDs, it seems impossible for you to have adequately researched the articles in question let alone the references. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not clear at all that this fails WP:GNG. The cited sources, quite ample considering that the subject lived in the sixteenth century, support notability, particularly if Sir John was actually on the "King's Council" (implicitly the Privy Council, though it should be noted that King Henry VIII went through privy councillors as though they were Kleenex. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:41, 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. Michig (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ensa Cosby[edit]

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

No notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ DELETE - Seems to fail GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite: You say it fails GNG, but your !Vote was for "keep". You meant "delete", didn't you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that! Carrite (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete, unless sources can be found proving otherwise, this wealthy daughter of a famous parent appears to have lived a private life. This article reads an an unwarranted intrusion on that life. If she wanted to be in the spotlight, she would have stepped into it. She appears has to have done so, and a mention of her in her parents' articles is therefore sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO as well as being a rather tabloidish and intrusive piece about a low-profile individual. Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 8 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) 07:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Nelson[edit]

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

No notability. Only primary sources used in article. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a GNG fail. Highly doubtful that this passes the SCHOLAR special notability guideline either but I leave that question for others. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With a h-index of 4 (filtering out the other Zachary Nelsons who are in different fields) he fails WP:PROF too. -- 120.17.62.90 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an independent scholar instead of a professor somewhere (as he seems to be, judging from the affiliations on his papers) doesn't automatically mean failing WP:PROF. But with a low h-index and no books, what evidence do we have for scholarly impact? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhosle-Kishore Kumar Pair[edit]

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

We have separate articles on List of songs recorded by Kishore Kumar and List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle aside from the Category:Kishore Kumar songs and Category:Asha Bhosle songs. Also, the article doesn't in even remote sense mention how and why the list of pair's duet songs are notable enough for their own separate article. Also adding following article in same Afd:

Asha Bhosle-Mohammed Rafi Pair §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've made a search on the net. I've found an interview of Asha Bhosle in which she recollects mmemories with Kishore Kumar, that how they were rejected as a duo and then secured a strong career by changing their singing styles. Asha Bhosle says

“

Let me narrate a funny incident that was challenging. Both Kishore Kumar and i, early in our careers, went for a duet recording — the sound recordist rejected both of us because we didn't have 'good' voices. Kishore Kumar was very dejected.He joked we should become street singers since we couldn't make it into cinema. I remember consoling him.We worked with renewed vigour, putting our best efforts into our profession — the rest is history. ^[1]

”

So, this proves that they were good friends and also sang many duets. Mayank Kapadia (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://m.timesofindia.com/interviews/Kishore-Kumar-said-we-should-become-street-singers-rest-is-history-Asha-Bhosle/articleshow/28445712.cms

Keep -Both subjects meet GNG standard. Asha Bhosle and Kishore Kumar have sung together 600 songs and Asha Bhosle-Mohammed Rafi Pair, a thousand, yes, 1,000, in a time span of more than three decades (1950-1987). It was this time Bollywood was on its rise and these achievements are definitely an indication of notability. If one is looking for multiple newspapers on them, they should be aware that Indian newspapers do not keep archives for publications before 2000 (WP:INDAFD), so, that may be a tedious job. There still are however many coverage on them in the mainstream reputed sources published after 2000, few are in the respective articles, one is above my comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the individual duet partners may be notable but the duet partnership itself has to be shown to be independently notable to the extent it needs a separate article, and that hasn't been proven here. Without wanting to trip a WP:OTHERSTUFF alarm, we don't have articles for e.g. Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 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) 02:55, 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 merge to The Conservative Caucus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Roundtable[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:TVSHOW. No sources independent of the show recognize its notabilty. jps (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Conservative Caucus. Not enough sources to stand on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A show with a more than two decade run featuring one of the really big fish in the American conservative movement makes it highly unlikely that this will fail meeting the GNG threshold. Carrite (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Conservative Caucus. While this is a long running production, I can only find passing mention of the program in one book: Mark Oldman; Samer Hamadeh; Princeton Review (25 January 2005). The Internship Bible. The Princeton Review. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-375-76468-4.. No reliable source available online gives the subject significant coverage. There is mention of the subject in published sources such as this ( The Free American!. Clayton R. Douglas. 1999. p. 36. ), however I cannot determine whether it is significant coverage. While there might be off-line reliable sources that show that the subject meets WP:GNG, based on what I can find online, this production is closely related to its producer, and verified content can be merged into a section about the production on its producers article. If reliable sources can be found that show it meets GNG, than I am willing to reconsider.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 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 Deleted as G4. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farman Nawaz. Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nawaz Farman Khan[edit]

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

Lots of articles written by this journalist. Very little written about this journalist to establish notability. Article marked as recreation of Farman Nawaz, but removed by article creator and then another editor. Don't see how this meets any notability criteria - "references" are mainly examples of his work. reddogsix (talk) 01:42, 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. Also of note, the criteria under WP:NMUSIC is a major label, not a notable label. kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorrr[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG and WP:NMG. Λeternus ^(talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: To me, Igorrr is a notable artist/band. According to the notability criteria for music: Igorrr has four albums on Ad Noiseam, a 12-year old label with a roster containing tens of artists and bands who seem to deserve their own Wikipedia pages, which meets criterion 5 in the list: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." A simple Google search gives hundreds of albums reviews and interviews by independent media, including renowned websites, French and international. Here is a list of reviews and interviews for his 2012 "Halleluyah" album alone. 85.171.44.43 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — 85.171.44.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I completely agree, this is nothing more than respecting the Wikipedia's terms.

I wrote a more complete article here, contesting the deletion of the Igorrr page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aeternus David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpolkiujhy (talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Mpolkiujhy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep:Igorrr is definitely a notable artist. Precursor in the electronic scene and a donor of fresh air in the metal music according to numerous reviews such as Les Inrocks, Trax, Rock 'a' Rolla, Side-Line, Sputnik, etc.

His "Chicken's Symphony" made really a buzz and it was diffused in Canal + and the Japanese TV NHK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D4ofrssoUQ&feature=youtu.be Canal+ : http://www.canalplus.fr/c-infos-documentaires/c-ms-l-oeil-de-links/pid7534-l-emission.html?vid=1199284 NHK Tv: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152612560643049&set=vb.241913148048&type=2&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagienna (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Bagienna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Nope, not convinced. YouTube and Facebook aren't reliable sources, and a teensy indie label doesn't become a "major" indie label just because it has some artists whom someone thinks ought to have Wikipedia articles. I appreciate that the band has some fans, and I'm sure they'll do a bang up job of creating a fan site somewhere. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It seems like they're using Facebook or YouTube to make it easier for us to check how popular the band is, but obviously, we can find the same informations on the official sites. NHK : ^[1] and Dour Festival : </ref>http://www.dourfestival.eu/artist/detail/Igorrr/</ref>.

I know about NHK as the biggest TV in Japan and Dour Festival as the most popular festival in all Europe (almost 200.000 people this last years when Igorrr was playing ^[2]). According to the post I see above, Igorrr was apparently interviewed by Canal+, this makes the Igorrr place in Wikipedia definitely relevant to me. 79.194.6.98 (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — 79.194.6.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep:User Nha Trang wrote: 'a teensy indie label doesn't become a "major" indie label just because it has some artists whom someone thinks ought to have Wikipedia articles'. I was saying that this "teensy indie label" has tens of artists who already have their own Wikipedia pages, i.e. recognized as significants artists. Sorry if I did not make this clear in my first comment.

Also, I know that 'YouTube and Facebook aren't reliable sources', but the Facebook link I provided gives, in turn, links to tens of reviews and interviews of Igorrr, some of which you may think are notable. Finally, about the current sockpuppet investigation, I just want to mention that Aeternus, who filed this article for deletion, also launched the SPI when he saw three people coming here to defend Igorrr and Ad Noiseam. In fact, the head of Ad Noiseam posted something on Youtube about hiw the Ad Noiseam and Igorrr pages were filed for deletion, and some of us "fans" came here to defend them. The FB pos was not a call: we fans decided to give our opinion. 85.171.44.43 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — 85.171.44.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a major canvassing and meatpuppetry going on, as someone has apparently made a Facebook call to defend Igorrr's notability. Also, there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation involving users Mpolkiujhy and Bagienna. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:03, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems that the label who released his four albums proved its notability very recently as a major indie label [[60]], so the 5th point of notability criteria for music artists seems to be filled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.85.185 (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — 89.72.85.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 // 01:37, 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi Partners Group[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a small consulting firm. The available sources consist of press releases and trivial mentions. I am unable to find independent sources that in cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the CEO is Erich Joachimsthaler. There is a page here and on German WP of the CEO. I'm not sure if that matters, in terms of the notability of the company. I found very little to work with on Google search, google news, google books. Mostly just press releases, user generated content, and a few very brief mentions of the company, usually as an identifier in an interview of somebody working for the company. Probably can delete, but I will remain neutral for now.--Gaff (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, notability not established, references are either primary or trivial mentions. Gaff and Ged UK both bring up the CEO, Erich Joachimsthaler, having an article, but that article has dubious notability as well, as I brought up on its Talk page. Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable consulting firm. Pax 01:55, 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 redirect to Conchita_Wurst#Singles. (Closing as Redirect - The Keep !vote states it passes NALBUMS but doesn't state which "#" nor are sources present, Not seeing any reason to delete when we can redirect..... ) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Unstoppable[edit]

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

Not WP:NOTABLE and doesn't have WP:SOURCES. Mr. Deletionist (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Obviously passes WP:NALBUMS and has multiple reliable sources. All added after the AfD was begun, true, but wow was this AfD made in terrible haste. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate that the song is well-known enough to have an article yet. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:42, 5 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 // 01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Conchita_Wurst#Singles (and nom may want to give some of the blue-links over there a tire-kick as well). Pax 02:03, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Salathia[edit]

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

I put a prod but the creator removed it. He is a unotable actor with just one role so far Wgolf (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABLE. Mr. Deletionist (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Autobiography. Blackguard 03:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Well, he may not meet the WP:NACTOR standard for not having multiple TV shows and films to his credit, but being an actor, he has received significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, that make him eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Sources, -[61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], etc.

I'm not sure why it is being called an autobiography, creator has identified himself on his userpage as "Jacob Isaac" that is certainly not the subject of the article under discussion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anupmehra-Yeah how is this a autobiography is a good question. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an autobiography because it was originally created by User:Salathiasahil, who recreated the article as "Mrjacobisaac" eight minutes after it was deleted the first time. Blackguard 06:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Is the image a selfie, or will it be a copyright issue? MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:35, 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) 05:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Times of India thinks he is notable enough to write about, what does "only one role" have to do with it? If it was only one role in an Oscar-winning film, still delete? MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Borderline. One RS, one event (role), this probably falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT. I'd suggest mergeing and redirecting to the movie, per WP:TOOSOON. We may likely restore his article in a while when he makes news again, but Wikipedia is not there to promote people who are not notable yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonelli Erede Pappalardo[edit]

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

I have prodded it under the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement". It was deprodded by User:Samuel J. Howard under the following rationale: "here are multiple reliable independent non-trivial sources in the legal press and in the Italian media". Well, the legal press mentions refer to one dedicated article in The Lawyer ([70], closed access so I cannot verify even from my university). There's an unformatted ref to Il Sole 24 Ore ([71]), through I don't speak Italian so I cannot judge its quality. Not sure what other reliable sources are there; half are from beplex.com - company's own website, and other half are annotated as "press room", i.e. promotional self-published press releases. I am not sure if - at best - two dedicated stories make this pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but I am open to further discussion (and preferably, more RS being presented). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wall Street Journal has called Bonelli Erede Pappalardo a "leading Italian law firm".[72]. An article in la Repubblica, a major Italian newspaper, calls the firm "probably the biggest law firm in Italy".[73] The article in The Lawyer cited in the article is free with registration [74] and confirms 100 Million Euros in revenue. There are other articles in The Lawyer [75]. Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's oldest newspapers, covers the firm [76] and runs an article about the firm from Dow Jones Newswires [77].

Let me cite another article from ALM Media's American Lawyer Daily that calls the firm "elite", "top-tier", "leading" and a "powerhouse".[78]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask @Piotrus: to be careful in his deletion of articles about companies. This and his deletion request for Mint.com do not show adherence to WP:BEFORE part D, which require that one look for additional sources before nominating an article for deletion. He extensively analyzes the sources cited in articles, but that is not sufficient. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT. There's almost no useful content in the article, but there is a lot of WP:ADMASQy "...Bonelli enhanced its profitability wth several high profile lateral hires..." style writing. Pax 10:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per sources listed above by Samuel J. Howard, clearly and obviously notable topic. WP:TNT applies for articles which have unsurmountable problems, eg. copyright violations or no meaningful content, not just for minor MOS issues. WP:UGLY is never a valid reason for deleting an article about a notable subject, let alone the current state of the article isn't that bad. Cavarrone 13:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That article was so ugly that, after I took the chainsaw to it, there was only one sentence left. Of the two sources that remained after spam-removal, one Google considered untranslatable, so I pitched it. That leaves an allegedly notable subject in need of one more RS. (Presumably you or Howard or whomever will now add it, we'll close this on a keep or non-con, forget about it, and a year from now all the shaved-off crud will slowly creep back in.) Pax 07:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the removed material restored, sourced material is not supposed to be removed with vague and POV edit summaries such as "chainsawing", nor this interisting article by Il Sole 24 Ore (which basically backs most of the informations included in the article) could be considered "spam" or something "Google considered untranslatable" (???). Chainsaws could be dangerous, they need to be used with more caution. Furthermore, (again) WP:UGLY is never a valid reason for deletion, this is a non-argument. And "allegedly notable subject in need of one more RS" is a blatant nonsense, just read the sources listed above by Samuel J. Howard, then please read WP:NRVE The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable, and notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. --Cavarrone 08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going by what I see in the article as of your last edit six of its nine sources are beplex.com WP:Primary bio puffery of the principles (two of whom are left as "red links"), and do not concern the firm itself. Of the two sources remaining, one is the untranslatable Italian trade paper...but since we can't read it, we cannot be certain that the claims in the table match it (i.e., aren't bullshit). The last source, regarding news of the merger, arguably represents a WP:Routine business announcement - such are useful as backup sources, but they shouldn't carry the entire weight of an article. Basically, this page remains badly sourced with zero useful mainstream RS.

Of Samuel J. Howard's found sources (listed above), the first two (WSJ and Repubblica) are not about the subject. Next is The Lawyer announcing it "smashing the $100 million Euro revenue ceiling" in 2006...which seems impressive until you realize that even its current E130M is nowhere remotely close to getting in the top 100 law firms by revenue (because the world is smothered in law firms, and a quick glance at a few Wikipedia articles of those at the bottom of the list tells me there's a massive iceberg of spam lurking in the deep dark where AfDs fear to venture). The other "coverage" provided consists of one-paragraph boilerplate.

If we're to keep this, there should be something out there concerning this allegedly "leading" firm that is more than passing mentions, head honcho bald-pate-polishing and "NEWS FLASH" regurgitated press-releases (lookin' at you, Corriere Della Sera). Pax 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS (primary sources could be used in an article), WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material), WP:SOURCEACCESS (sources are not required to be online or accessible for free, I myself generally use offline sources - books I own - for biographies of authors, actors, and directors). If you are looking for an interisting article about the firm, as I pointed above, just read the Il Sole 24 Ore article which is already included in the article (Google Translate works fine for me, if it does not work for you just use another traslation program). Cavarrone 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Samuel J Howard and Cavarrone. The biggest law firm in Italy is notable. I have also heard it said that, as a rule of thumb, companies around the hundred million dollar mark typically receive significant coverage (NRVE). James500 (talk) 05:34, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimae Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [79], [80], [81], [82]. Article needs rescue. Large international presence, a number of signed notable artists, long history. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:28, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 78.26 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the largest producers of ambient music, particularly Psybient. Thereppy ^(talk) 23:22, 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. Michig (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billinge Football Club[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability. British football team playing at step 7 of the National League System (level 11 overall in British football). Speedy deletion (nominated by me) was declined and replaced with Proposed deletion, which was declined (without comment) by the article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I can understand to a certain level that you think the club has no notability I would disagree however I understand your perspective. Would then also request that the other clubs with the Cheshire Association Football League are reviewed as we all have been in existence for 80 plus years and all play at the same level of the game with a similar level of credibility. We are Northern Cup champions 3 years running and have had one of our player play for England 6 aside competition at the last world Cup for a team of this level I don't know what else could improve are credibility ? Kind regards Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofabooz (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other four clubs who field their first team in the Cheshire League and have an article have either played at a higher level (Garswood United in the North West Counties League) or have played in the FA Cup, Trophy or Vase (Knutsford, Rylands, Middlewich Town). WP:FOOTY guidelines are that a club should have done one of these in order to have an article, unfortunately Billinge haven't done either as far as I can see............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other grounds on which a club can have an article is if it can be proven to meet WP:GNG by having been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources i.e. major news sites or equivalent. This means that the club itself must be the subject of the coverage and it must be covered in detail i.e. not just passing mentions, routine match results or lists of reports. Might that be the case.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 22 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, Missvain (talk) 06:42, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable football club. JMHamo (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club has never played at a notable level of football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C.h.u.n.k. 666[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Only local. Hard to find good sources. The main source of the article reads like a fan article read here. Someone rode about it here buddies from SCUL, which I also nominated for deletion for the same reasons. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This mutant bike gang meets GNG as the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. This Village Voice article has significant coverage of the New York chapter. I think the Portland Mercury feature also counts towards notability (I read it as snarky and sarcastic, but not a fan article per se). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communicourt Ltd[edit]

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

Delete: This company / organization is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nominator: how is the company not notable? Which guidelines does it not meet? Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Communicourt is said to be one of only two organisations known to provide intermediaries outside the schemes run by the Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice (Cooper, Highs and Lows: The 4th Intermediary Survey, Kingston University, Updated 13 October 2014, p 4, footnote 8), schemes that have not historically provided intermediaries for defendants: [83]. As to the meaning of "intemediary", see Registered Intermediaries and Non-Registered Intermediary. James500 (talk) 04:49, 22 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, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Registered Intermediaries. Seems notable per James500 above, but coverage online is thin, with only two passing mentions in GNews, and one in GScholar. If more coverage can be found, then it can be split out again later to a separate article. Registered Intermediaries and Non-Registered Intermediary should probably also be merged, but that's a separate matter. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four results from BAILII, including judgements of the High Court, which are notable under criteria 2 of WP:CASES: [84]. There is, on Communicourt's website, a page which says it is a copy of a judgement delivered by the Recorder of Leeds, in which Communicourt is discussed. I am under the impression that transcripts of judgements can be purchased from the courts, so presumably this one can be verified with an official copy. James500 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but those court documents only mention Communicourt in passing (understandably), and don't consitute significant, in-depth coverage of the company. I really want to be proven wrong about this: they seem notable to me too, so it's surprising that there apparently haven't been any articles about them in the mainstream press, or reasonable coverage in books. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We shouldn't be redirecting non-notable companies to other articles concerning topics the non-notable company focuses in (i.e., if the New York Times were non-notable, we wouldn't redirect it to Newspaper). Pax 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No policy or guideline supports that approach and there is no reason whatsoever to do that. In this case independent sources confirm that there only two private organisations providing intermediaries and both of them are correctly discussed in the article on intermediaries on the basis of those sources. If the NYT wasn't notable, we certainly would redirect it to a list of newspapers, because bibliography is within the scope of our project and deleting the redirect would break our citations and be harmful for other reasons examples of which are given here and here. Plus which, neither example meets any of the criteria for deletion. James500 (talk) 13:53, 28 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 // 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references provided in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG -Arb. (talk) 14:42, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seal-Bin Han[edit]

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

Questionable notability and significance, and I think there may be an attempt to protect the article with a sock/meat puppet - both Sinan.u.ozdemir (talk · contribs) and Wrecklessasian (talk · contribs) are very new accounts that seem to have a very vested interest in this particular article, so I'd be interested in observing there behavior here before moving to deciding whether or not to move this over to WP:SPI. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that this article does not meet the standards of notability and significant, then it is fair to remove it. However, I will assert that I am not associated with user Sinan and am willing to prove that in whatever way necessary. Wrecklessasian (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Firstly I would like to state that I am giving my concern as per Wikipedia guidelines. Secondly I found two notable links for the subject. Both are from The Huffington Post. More media links should be used to establish notability of the subject. If the subject fails the notability criteria then the article should surely be deleted.^[1]^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethershecim (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at those sources only contributes to my notion that this article is enjoying some kind of circular support. The author of both articles is Jim Luce, and each article reads like an advertisement for his foundation. Furthermore, Seal-Bin Han's only notability appears to be thanks to Luce's 'mentorship' (as it is written in the article). Han's significance seems frankly questionable at best and I agree with TomStar81 that it seems like the article's original author has a mysteriously high interest in the article's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.83 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable for his entrepreneurship, not for scholarship. — Brianhe (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the standards for notable in terms of entrepreneurship and is adequately cited by reliable sources, i.e. The Huffington Post, The Baltimore Sun, Technically Baltimore, and Hamptons.com. Will try to find more sources in the following days in order to improve article. — Wrecklessasian (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Jim Luce. "A Young Global Leader at Johns Hopkins". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 21 February 2015.
^ "World Youth Initiative: Tomorrow's Leaders, Solving Today's Issues". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 21 February 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:44, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma weapon[edit]

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

Basically, I asked for references on the article's talk page but none came.

The whole thing looks like a hoax, though it might just be something real inflated to the extreme, it is just hard to know. As I see it, there are two kinds of "plasma weapons" out there: stuff which relies on lasers, that are themselves created by plasma, which are well documented but not really "plasma weapons", and stuff from Star Wars with no serious evidence of existence ("PEP" or pulsed energy projectiles). I hence recommend to delete the thing - unless evidence appears now, it just fails WP:V. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll have a pole around and see if it's main claim of plasma weapons research at Boeing is supported by anything or just someone daydreaming Plasma weapon (fiction) into real life. There's a couple of other technologies mentioned that are more solid and have cites but don't really seem to be "Plasma weapons" as such. Artw (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsed energy projectile has it's own page and might make a good redirect target, however that page has issues of it's own. Artw (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Boeing considers feasibility of plasma-based weapons could be a source, however it's pretty speculative and it's author is Nick Cook, who later went on to write about how the US was basing it's defence research on captured Nazi UFO technology. Artw (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been serious attempts such as the Shiva Star and we have related technologies such as the H-bomb and plasma torch. It would be silly to have just the title plasma weapon (fiction) without having this one as a high-level summary to point the reader in appropriate directions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be on to something if you can find some solid cites for MARAUDER, which is linked off of Shiva Star. Artw (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator (partly in answer to Andrew D.): the page plasma weapon (fiction) would need to be taken care of if this AfD ends up deleting plasma weapon, but it should bear no weight on the decision at hand. If Andrew D.'s point is that the page should be kept, but filled with entirely different content imported mostly from the "(fiction)" page, I think deletion and recreation is the cleanest way to do it, unless some guideline I ignore states otherwise.

H-bomb is only loosely related, as is every stuff from physics that involves plasma, as far as I can tell - as I wrote, everything that involves plasma is not a "plasma weapon". The plasma torch is not a weapon.

The "serious attempts" such as MARAUDER are the ones that could make it a real article, but I am not sure this was intended to be a weapon. The article does not claim so although it somewhat implies it, and the sources do not say so. I am ready to believe there has been funding into plasma weapons, but if such research failed to produce a working prototype, or that such information is unavailable because it is classified and nothing leaked, it does not seem to deserve an article.Tigraan (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Plasma weapon (fiction). Apart from topics that we already have articles on (like Pulsed energy projectile, Particle-beam weapon, and Plasma weapon (fiction)), there is no actual thing here for the article to be about. -- 120.17.51.232 (talk) 23:11, 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 // 01:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't look like sources that could save this article can be found. I suggest it be deleted, the article on fictional plasma weapons moved to it's location, and then of any real world examples turn up they can be appended to the bottom of that. Artw (talk) 23:33, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gebru[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree, there is a "credible claim of significance" ("Samuel has been recognized as a young leader in Ethiopia and the United States."). Whether it is true and well-sourced is another matter entirely. The fate of that article is probably linked to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethiopian_Global_Initiative, even if notability is not inherited. Tigraan (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Subject received a good bit of coverage for his post Boston Marathon bombing activities. By itself that wouldn't warrant notability, but the subject has contributed regularly to AFP stories and coverage such as [85] both suggests notability and provides enough biographical material to warrant an article. All-in-all I would say the subject is minorly notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted this article at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 24 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, Missvain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To clarify, Speedy Keep if the deletion rationale is taken at face value, as there are many claims to significance in the article. Keep if we assume the deletion rationale concerns notability. I'm actually on the edge of weak keep and regular keep, but regardless, I think the sourcing as it is, without even looking for more, gets by WP:BIO. The article needs some serious editing, though, as while there are enough good sources for notability purposes, many of these sources are primary/poor. I went through and combined repeated refs into named refs to better assess the article, but didn't make any real revisions to the article. I will also be !voting for a selective merge to this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopian Global Initiative. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 1 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 // 01:05, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalika Yap[edit]

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

Claimed to a advertisement article, but there are enough pieces in the page that I think a stub could be created if the article was judged to have sufficient nobility, about which I am still on the fence. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability confirmed[edit]

In terms of meeting notability, Kalika Yap has just been featured as part of global fashion brand BCBG's New Guard campaign featuring "the county's most interesting women." Please see https://vimeo.com/120082676 and http://www.bcbg.com/Online-Magazine-February-2015/magazine-2015-02,default,pg.html (pages 30-35) out this month as reference. Kalika is featured along with Kiva founder Jessica Jackley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Jackley), TechCrunch co-editor Alexia Tsotsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexia_Tsotsis), and CBS journalist Alison Harmelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Harmelin). Please consider removing the delete tag. Siamsens (Talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added more notability for Kalika Yap to the entry. She was a guest on MSNBC. --> In November 2014, Yap was featured as a business expert on the MSNBC show "Your Business" along with Larry Broughton, the CEO of Broughton Hotels, where she answered viewer questions about growing their small business through acquisitions and whether or not the size of your office space really matters. Rex Freiberger (talk) 22:35, 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 // 01:04, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty-seven Articles[edit]

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

Unsourced translation of his "Auslegung und Begründung der Thesen oder Artikel, " I don't think the current standards at Wikitext would permit it there, unless someone can find the source. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As copied from a website that lacks an explicit copyright release statement.

The website is the Christian History website [86] cited as the source in the article. It says this:

The Sixty—Seven Articles of Ulrich Zwingli;” from the Selected Works of Huldrich Zwingli (1484—1531), the Reformer of German Switzerland; translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901). Introduced and Edited by Dan Graves.

There are two editions of the translation by Samuel Macauley Jackson – the original 1901 edition and a 1972 edition, both from the University of Pennsylvania. In both the copyright to the text is 1901, so that part is public domain (copyright expired). But Dan Graves is an editor at the Christian History website, and I couldn't find a copyright release, so the status of his editing of the text is unclear.

Meanwhile, Wikisource apparently would prefer to have a scan of the 1901 text along with the data so that they can verify it. In some cases they will accept data from a source like Project Gutenberg. But it has to be public domain. Since the status of the contribution by Graves is unclear, it looks to me like it doesn't qualify. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send to WP:CP: Here is a source of the original text scanned by the Online Library of Liberty, indicating that the original text is in Public Domain: [87]. As for the article, WP:SCV has this currently due to the copyvio from here. Copyvio report. Also, here is the difference between the original text and the edited version [88], it's mostly edits of "ye olde speak" to more modern text. I believe this should be sent to WP:CP. Tek022 | Comments? 19:35, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page images of the 1901 edition (in the public domain) are at the Online Library of Liberty at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1682 as a "Facsimile PDF" under the heading Edition Used. The Sixty-seven Articles are set out on pages 111-117 of the Facsimile PDF and I have checked the text of the Wikipedia article and edited it to ensure that it is in accordance with the facsimile pages. Therefore there is no issue with copyright regarding this article. Also see the references cited by me in the article. The text of the entire book is available in several formats, from the same place that I accessed the PDF. I am not into submitting stuff to Wikisource but it seems to me that the page images and the OCRd text would be good candidates for Wikisource. P.S. I notice that the page images are also at Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/selectedworksofh00zwin. Collywolly (talk)
Delete - or rather, redirect. I can't see any copyright problem here, the text was published in the United States before 1923, so is in the public domain (I haven't checked that it is word-for-word the same, taking User:Collywolly's word for that). Or am I missing something?

Nor can I see any conceivable reason to host this on Wikipedia. Apart from the original text, there's one sentence there. Better redirect to Huldrych Zwingli, expand it there, split it off if it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 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 // 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Justlettersandnumbers' sound and accurate analysis above. No actual reasons to host the text here, and basically the article has no content outside the text itself. Cavarrone 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion is made on the basis that there is little to the article other than a list of the Sixty-seven Articles. On the Huldrych Zwingli page there is referenc to his Sixty-seven Articles and that reference links to this page. These articles seem to be very relevant in the context of the Reformation and precepts which were being formulated and it would be a shame to see the article deleted, since some effort has gone into getting it to this point. Perhaps they could be set out in Zwingli's article or handled in another way, though I do not know how that might be. My interest in this came about when I noticed that the article was tagged as requiring more links. --Collywolly (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – True, it's an important text. But we don't have to host the data on Wikipedia. For scholarly purposes the original 1901 translation is the best, so it seems like the Zwingli article could just link to one of the versions that you found above, or send it to Wikisource, as you suggested earlier. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That all sounds good to me. I don't know who is meant to do this sort of thing, so did it myself. I have unlinked the Sixty-seven articles from Huldrych Zwingli and added a reference at that point to the book in which the sixty-seven articles can be found at the Internet Archive. I hope that I have handled this correctly. Delete away! --Collywolly (talk) 11:11, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunera[edit]

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

Not notable, at least not yet. The coverage is a blend of purely local coverage, which tends to be indiscriminate, press releases, and routine announcements. Typical of the genre. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is notable within field of cyber security. Experts are frequently cited on the topic of cyber security (see Wired as an example). Notable employees include Chris Sullo, co-creator of the Nikto Web Scanner. Frequently keynote speakers at industry conferences in the hacking/cyber security industry (RVAsec and DefCon as examples). Subject meets all requirements of Wikipedia's Notability guideline (coverage is significant, reliable, independent, etc.), therefore I recommend keeping. Disclosure: Article's creator.Cheetahcasey (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough non-local, non-routine RS. Also, notability is not inherited. Delete or redirect to Cyber Risk Management#Subsidiaries (which, as you can see, isn't an article yet). Pax 09:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [89] and [90] are State, not local sources so can be used to establish notability. ~KvnG 00:39, 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 no consensus. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates[edit]

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

Can we really keep this unsourced list? Is it worth sourcing? List of potentially habitable exoplanets is an appropriate list article (though it is marked as needing updating) , but this is very different. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unsourced. If you go to: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data and scroll down you'll see a simular table of this information. I agree it does need updating, but it can be useful for including unconfirmed planets so that we can create pages for them and when they get confirmed then move them onto the List of potentially habitable exoplanets. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/projectify? It's hard to imagine a list of unconfirmed observations is a viable encyclopedia article, but if an individual user or a wikiproject wants it to keep track of these observations and prepare for confirmation then that sounds reasonable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 24 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, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in some way to List of potentially habitable exoplanets. This list seems to be some kind of sub-list or feeder-list to the other article. Of course the topic itself is tremendously important and interesting. Borock (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable topic, which differs from List of potentially habitable exoplanets in that the latter does not include unconfirmed observations (and would become unreasonably cluttered if it did.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:18, 1 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 // 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(uninitiated) Refocus as Kepler candidate, which is not yet an article or a redirect now, so expanding beyond the list to talk about that concept is also possible. Though from what I see at List of potentially habitable exoplanets, it is sortable by Status and hence easy to group Kepler candidates together, making a pure list of Kepler candidates duplicative. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:15, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Thure Janson[edit]

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

Promotional article created by COI editor on non-notable, obscure Swedish person. Coretheapple (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hästens - which seems to be the only thing why PTJ could remotely be notable; otherwise, delete. Tigraan (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~. Delete (see below). I resent the nominator's implication that being Swedish detracts even further from the (non-existent) notability of an obscure person! But redirecting to Hästens seems the obvious thing to do. Possibly, on a good day, we might "merge" in his vital dates (1864-1926) to where he's mentioned in the Hästens article. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I got mixed up between the generations: there's an article about the actual founder of the company, Pehr Adolf Janson (or there was; not any longer, because I have just redirected it to Hästens) and there's also this article about Per Thure Janson, his descendant. Please delete Per Thure, it doesn't rate a redirect. Per Thure is only parenthetically mentioned in Hästens as being the father of "David" — wait, do we have an article about David? No. Can't think why not. These attempts to inflate the Hästens company into a family of articles are quite pathetic. (I've removed Per Thure from the Hästens article.) Bishonen | talk 00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I was just identifying the chap. I can delete or strike out "Swedish" if you think it wise. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:55, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEM - New Economy Movement[edit]

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

Non notable. Only coverage of the subject by a reliable source independent of the subject (per GNG) is VICE motherboard, all other sources are not reliable, or not independent. The Yahoo Finance reference is paid press release. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the only reliable source may be VICE motherboard, but it discusses the subject at length, so in my view it is enough to pass WP:ORG. Now, one could discuss whether VICE is really a sufficient proof of notability... Tigraan (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Note 4: Cointelegraph source is reliable.
Weak keep - it has a 'reliable' source, ie the VICE article.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a singular reliable source sufficient for notability? I was under the impression that an article must be covered by multiple reliable sources. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - reliable source is provided, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't explicitly require more than one. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources...", so yes, WP:SIGCOV, does explicitly require more than one. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it also notes: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:56, 5 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 // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:ADMASQ. Everybody and their kid brother is marketing a "better-than-Bitcoin" altcoin now (as one of the dubious sources in the article attests), and needs Wikipedia to herd in the suckers for the ol' pump-n-dump. Pax 09:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Unfinished software project by pseudonymous contributors not notable even if it interested a Vice tech blogger. Article was written by new Single Purpose Accounts, and the one notable third party reference mentions the project's history of sockpuppetry... Dtellett (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am one of the people that have been working on the page and you can see that I am not a Single Purpose Account as I have been a big reader and sometimes editor of wiki articles for 9 years. I do realize that the page is weak right now and that the sources aren't that great. That being said, it is a very new wiki page and a lot of people including myself haven't had time to get it to nearly as high standards as I would have liked. I just recently found out it was on the delete list. There have also been some excited people, Wikipedia newbies that aren't familiar with wiki rules that did write it like an advertisement and I tried to take all those parts out with only leaving the facts. I will right now go through the article and try to clean it up some more after posting this if I can find more advertisement material. Additionally, some more news articles from more reputable sources should come at the end of this month. And while it isn't exactly a finished software right now, it has had an open beta testing phase that has been running for more than 8 months, all of that time just working out very small bugs and adding features. All the time the source code has been available for people to review. And before the end of this month it will officially launch. To those points, I kindly ask that instead of just deleting the page right now, that a few weeks are given and by the end of the month if I don't have it cleaned up and up to wiki standards, then I will not contest a deletion. Jeff.t.mcdonald (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and removed all the references that refer to it as "revolutionary" or "innovative". I have removed content where it is compared to other platforms in an attempt to one up them. Lastly I have removed some of the more questionable citations. It reads pretty objectively to me now and just states facts. Again, I am sure by the end of the month, this article can be edited to much better standards if a little bit of time is granted. Jeff.t.mcdonald (talk) 16:32, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gridcoin[edit]

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

Non-notable, only references are from cryptocurrency sites that does not pass WP:RS. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you may not be interested in this cryptocurrency does not mean that it is not notable. This is unsubstantiated. Also I am very confident that just because some sources may be shaky that does not mean "that it will be impossible for the article to be attributed to reliable sources". Following this reasoning we should delete all the articles in [[91]]. "Publications in this part of the world tend to be also recited by the same part." Well I don't quite follow what you mean with this. What world are you talking about exactly? Obviously pages dealing with this subject are (highly) technical but that should be no reason to delete the article. Regarding circular referencing of wiki content on 3rd party sites as wiki sources, I did not find any. I am going to be bold and remove the deletion consideration and just put up a source banner. AlwaysUnite (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies for inclusion, which you may read at WP:N. Part of that means coverage by reliable third party sources. Your comment that my claim is 'unsubstantiated' is strange, considering as it is not up to me to prove a negative. I've searched for reliable sources that cover this cryptocurrency, and have not found any. So what am I talking about? The fact that this topic has not received any coverage from any WP:RS, and hence should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG. Your removal of the AFD manner on the article isn't appropriate and I have re-added it. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does bitcoin magazine qualify as RS? It's used quite a lot on Wiki. -- 104.229.168.62 (talk) 04:47, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:56, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insufficient independent RS. Pax 10:50, 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 redirect to The Monks. Consensus that the topic is non-notable, redirect preferred by WP:ATD and the only view that directly discussed that question. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There She Walks[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Monks. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So miniscule unlikely to be any independent references. A song that sells 500 copies is not going to pass notability. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:56, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ronald Inglis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Nothing notable in here except that he recorded an oral history Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, per WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wellshot Station.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any notability here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, just an ordinary private Kges1901 (talk) 11:35, 5 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 // 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while this late veterans life is well documented, most it comes from records kept by the individual while they were alive (thus WP:PRIMARY) and from public records (thus WP:BLPPRIMARY). The only significant coverage from non-primary sources is this write up, based heavily on primary and blpprimary documents from the State Library of Queensland. It appears that a great deal of work has been done by the State Library of Queensland, which should be commended; the amount of oral history and biographies of veterans on this page alone puts other such programs to shame. Thus brings the question, does every individual who has received as much effort by similar programs notable per WP:GNG? I think this is why we have more stringent notability guidelines and essays which help guide editors to determine whether an article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL or is in fact notable within its field. Based on the detailed records the subject is not notable within the field of military history, having failed WP:SOLDIER and not being mentioned outside of records that fall within PRIMARY or BLPPRIMARY type sources. As for being notable outside of their military experience, the subject has had zero significant coverage while he was alive, therefore likely fails GNG. Therefore, with no disrespect to the honorable service of this late veteran, I cannot support keeping this article at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. I've incorporated material that's relevant into Wellshot Station, but regrettably I can't see any justification for keeping this article. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:08, 8 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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs Declassified[edit]

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

Article about a new television series. There seems to be only one independent source that covers the subject in detail (Toronto Star. Another source merely mentions the show in passing. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network. We do not have any further criteria to distinguish notable nationally-aired television series from non-notable nationally-aired television series; once the condition of being sourceable as airing on a national television network has been satisfied — which it has been here, with a Toronto Star article confirming that the show airs on History already present in the article — the series is automatically an eligible topic for a Wikipedia article, and the only remaining recourse is to flag it for remaining maintenance issues such as needing further referencing improvement. Keep and flag for ((refimprove)). Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. An essay written by a few editors should never trump a community endorsed guideline. At best, it can help to give examples of how to identify subjects that are likely notable, but we should still defer to WP:GNG. Of course you are welcome to propose that we elevate WP:NMEDIA to a guideline, but until that happens, a program that has not been noted by at least a few reliable sources is only worth a few lines in another article such as History (Canada).- MrX 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What community-endorsed guideline is WP:NMEDIA contradicting? GNG doesn't trump subject-specific inclusion standards either — if a topic objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion test, then it's still includable whether the article is already in a GNG-satisfying state or not. For instance, if a politician who didn't already have an article gets elected to a state, provincial or federal legislature which puts them over WP:NPOL, then the article is automatically creatable, and must be kept, as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been declared elected — while of course we still want additional sourcing, and the article can be tagged accordingly, the fact that it doesn't already contain enough sourcing to satisfy GNG does not make it deletable, because the subject-specific test has rendered them automatically includable. If an actor who didn't already have an article wins a film or television award that puts them over WP:NACTOR, then a new article is creatable, and must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which verifies that they won the award — it does not become deletable just because the creator didn't put more effort into sourcing it over GNG right off the top. And on and so forth. GNG exists as a corollary to subject-specific inclusion tests, not as a trump card that invalidates or undermines them — a topic can get into Wikipedia by satisfying either GNG or a subject-specific inclusion rule, and does not necessarily have to simultaneously pass both tests. Sure, the ideal "good-to-FA quality" state for any article would be that it passed both tests, but the question of basic includability requires only one of the two tests to be passed — GNG is not an extra condition that an article still has to satisfy to become keepable even if it's already satisfied another keepability test. Yes, this still needs additional sourcing — but the fact that it doesn't already have more than this doesn't make it deletable if it's satisfied a subject-specific inclusion rule, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and new sourcing can always be added at any time. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)The first paragraph of the Programming section is an assertion without evidence of wide consensus, thus it's at odds with WP:GNG. However, the second paragraph brings it back into line with GNG by referring to the presence or absence of reliable sources. Your declaration that "All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network." does contradict the expectation that notability is demonstrated by substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, our bedrock test for notability. If this six-week-old program is actually notable, then it should not be difficult to find sources. Failing that, it should not have an article, because the article would consist of little more than plot summaries and air dates.- Mr X 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to claim that there is such a thing as "a subject-specific inclusion rule" and I am claiming that there is not. An essay simply does not accomplish that. GNG dovetails into WP:V, which is policy. Anyway, it seems we have very different interpretations of this, so it's probable not helpful to continue filling this page with debate, and I think we have both made our points. I suggest that this discussion should be taken up on WT:N to get wider input.- Mr X 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failing a particular inclusion criteria, like WP:GNG is not a cause for deletion. I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat that this should be included per WP:NMEDIA. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, it meets WP:NMEDIA and that should warrant inclusion. I've also added two sources but it really could do with more. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:12, 5 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 // 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous arguments and per common outcome that is "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." With this in mind I NAC'ed the discussion as "keep", but nom has requested it re-opened to allow other editors to comment so that there is a clear consensus. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:47, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HonorSociety.org[edit]

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

While I don't have access to the deleted version to check if the content is exactly the same, this new article shows no signs of conquering the notability flaws that got it deleted in the previous Articles For Deletion discussion. Still sourced vastly to first-party references, other references are not indicators of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources referencing this page are universities such as Eastern Michigan University, American Red Cross, and organizations with notable wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.1.217 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Cross page is merely a page set up to create a branded fundraising effort to get money for the Red Cross. No indication of notability. The EMU page is a press release, which is not an indication of notability. The Better Business Bureau listing is a database. The iReach and PRWeb pages are press releases. The NCHC page is just a list of member institutions, and all that means is that they paid $600 dues. The "Dream Careers" and "Think Impact" pages are just the listing of a discount for club members. And as noted in the last deletion, the MBAcrunch page is an obscure blog that did nothing but promote HonorSociety.org that year. None of these indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The type of notability discussed is scarce in this segment category. Look at the references of Golden Key International Honour Society or National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Virtually all of their articles are directly firsthand onsite references. For that matter, look at any Honor Society wikipedia and you will see much less large-scale notability. The fact of the matter is that the organizations are in themselves notable by virtue of their scope, affiliations, and membership. They are not actively noted in third-party resources however, generally because they are not actively news-worthy. This organization is notable to its constituency and has active member base as can be seen by their 1 million followers on Facebook, or active YouTube and Instagram followers. While the page, and segment category in general needs improvement I think it is clear they all deserve a wikipedia entry to be expanded on by the community. Further, and further exacerbating the issue of notability, is that for borderline notable entities not having a Wikipedia page limits further notability by third party sources. It's not a clear cut solution, but the page has enough weight to stand on its on legs and be expanded on. Notability is enough currently IMO, but will be expanded and built upon by allowing a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.244.70 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook "like" counts are useless, as likes can be purchased. We have guidelines on notability of organizations at WP:NORG; this is failing them. I can understand that the organization wants to promote itself; I see no reason that Wikipedia should be party to that. If all we're doing is reconveying the information that's on their website, then this page is unneeded, as people can find the information they seek on their website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability isn't established on Wikipedia by page views, FB likes or stuff like that. It's established by being covered in significant detail by multiple reliable, published, third-party sources, and the anon IPs' arguments seem to boil down to ITSIMPORTANT. "They are not actively noted in third-party resources however, generally because they are not actively news-worthy" is an IP's statement, and that says it right there: since this outfit is not newsworthy, it doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Happily, the outfit can promote itself over its own website. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify how Golden Key International Honour Society or National Society of Collegiate Scholars is considered more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.54.13 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for discussing the notability of those subjects and their viability as Wikipedia articles. If you would like to see those deleted, you are free to nominate them for deletion. If your goal is to suggest that this article should not be deleted because those other have not yet been deleted, please realize that that is on our list of "arguments to avoid during deletion discussions", for reasons you'll see here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NORG: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

In terms of national or international scope, the organization has conferences in Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles this year. In terms of coverage by multiple sources, the article is sited by Eastern Michigan University (not a press release) and NCHC (national recognizing body for honors programs) and the American Red Cross (partnerships are vetted and notable).

Looking at these claims:

The EMU piece is indeed a press release. That's why its in the "news releases" section of their website, why it has contact information in the piece. Even the URL tells you that it's a release.
The NCHC listing is neither significant - all it is is a mentioning of the name - nor is it independent; HonorSociety.org appears to have paid $600 to be on that list.
The Red Cross page is not significant (all it says about the organization is that it's trying to raise money for the Red Cross), and it is far from independent - the page exists based on the belief that the group will funnel money to the Red Cross, and the page represents itself as actually being HonorSociety.org's website (referring to itself as "the HonorSociety.org website for the American Red Cross.")

So we' re still left looking for those sources that would indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added, including United States Federally Registered Trademark of HonorSociety.org, and third-party neutral posts from Baruch College, and North Carolina Central University.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevans24 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on our general notability guidelines, "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." The added references are:

Crunchbase - a user-edited database, and thus no indication of notability.
the trademark listing at Justia is also a database, and thus not an indication of notability
CollegeBudget - a partner with Honorsociety,org, as noted on the page, so not independent
Doctors Without Borders - another page just giving a place for members to give the source money, so not independent
The same six-sentence blog post on BaruchHonors and NCCU is about as insignificant as one can get - a teeny item aimed at a very local audience (the student bodies) denying school involvement with some emails.

So, no, no notability found yet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very strict and narrow to say no notability. This page has more notability on it than virtually any honor society, and currently possesses the scope to be a valuable article. Instead of deleting the page, I would suggest adding the "Needs more sources" and "Written like an advertisement" tags and let the page stand. This will allow the community an opportunity to add neutral input, link to notable topics, and enhance the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevans24 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I'm sure you'd like to see us keep the ad page you put up for a group that - well, have you reviewed WP:COI to see if you have a conflict of interest regarding this page? But an honor society can have the sort of references that establish notability, like this honor society's article has this lengthy Wall Street Journal piece on the group as a source. That's quite a bit different than the sort of thing you've been pointing to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:37, 6 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 // 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Does not fail all measures of WP:CORPDEPTH and provides enough neutral content to justify existence. Page can be improved, but should not be deleted. Pages had justifiable content and neutral sources, and more than virtually all articles in the honor society category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.244.70 (talk) 11:49, 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 no consensus. I can't find consensus for deletion, but significant discussion arose around the fact Calculords may be more notable than Seanbaby himself, and a repurposing of the article to focus on the apparently notable game might be a solution (which can be discussed on the talk page since it is not deletion). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seanbaby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable writer/personality; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR / WP:ENT. Previous 2006 AFD is amusing to read- editors (really, fans) claimed notability due to his minor writing/TV appearances, not citing significant coverage or policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seanbaby is (or, at least, was) one of the more popular Internet-based comedy writers. For example, in this interview, Patton Oswalt cites Seanbaby as one of his favorite writers. His video game Calculords got significant coverage, according to a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. But I don't see too much for him personally in a cursory search for sources. I'll do more searches later. It would surprise me if he were non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow, the nom was right: what a bullshit lot of Keeps in the last AfD, which threw up a whole lot of "This guy is so important on the interwebz!!!" without bothering with so much as one shred of proof of it. And that's the issue here. I'm seeing a number of sources quoting or citing him, but not a single one that discusses him, and as the relevant guidelines explicitly state, a quote from a subject can't be used to support the notability of the subject. Come up with some interviews or articles in reliable sources about Seanbaby, and I'm happy to change my mind. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've got these two: [92] and [93]. Not sure how good they are. I guess I'll look more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pre-2009 AFD, and Wikipedia in general, was rather different. The discussions were a lot less in-depth, as witnessed in the first nom. Anyways, similar to NRP above, I also find it somewhat hard to believe he's not-notable, with the numerous mainstream publications he's written for. It may be harder to justify, since his writing is so over-the-top and satirical, but he may satisfy something like WP:JOURNALIST or something too... Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it stands, the sources provided by NinjaRobotPirate hardly contain the appropriate significant coverage required to keep this standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. Crave Online would be a reliable source, but doesn't really discuss him in much detail. Not sure about the "Mancave" source. I'll see if I can dig up anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's some source I've found. They're not the most detailed, but they do discuss him, and what he's known for (Writing for Electronic Gaming Monthly, Cracked.com, making video games, etc.)

His game Calculords seems to have quite a bit of coverage here, and isn't mentioned in the article. It should probably be expanded to include that using these refs. Artw (talk) 14:55, 6 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 // 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these sources seem to be significant coverage of the game, not its creator. Yes, there are questions/answers about himself, but it's still hardly enough coverage to merit an article, in my view.. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by NinjaPitateRobot and Sergecross, also WP:ENTERTAINER 2. Artw (talk) 16:27, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. The references are either fight announcements or results, which is routine sports coverage that is insufficient for meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:KICK. No significant coverage and no outstanding results.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:46, 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 // 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine reporting of sports results so fails GNG. Has none of the accomplishments necessary to show notability as a kickboxer at KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 19:12, 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.