< 30 April	2 May >

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demongelic[edit]

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

Apparently self-published book (series is planned, according to author's website, but not verified in reliable sources) by a non-notable author. The article was apparently created by the author of the book, so there are also WP:COI and self-promotion issues. Prod tag removed by a brand-new account. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A book that might be a series of books is not notable, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come close to meeting WP:NBOOKS after four years of having been released. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted. It is a notable book and while it has been four years since release, it has been exhibited at recent large-scale events including Cornwall and Area Pop Event where the book was sold according to the Cornwall and Area Pop Event website, Bradley Pennell is listed.^[1] The page has also been updated to reflect that it is only one book that has been released in 2011 and has been updated with the printing information verified by the sources provided. It has also been updated to reflect a neutral viewpoint based on the facts found in the credible sources. —SamanthaBlueButterfly

References

^ "Artists". Cornwall and Area Pop Event.

— SamanthaBlueButterfly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. While the book exists (WP:ITEXISTS), there hasn't been any coverage of the book other than a couple of local newspaper articles. It's far from the amount of in-depth coverage that Wikipedia would require to pass notability guidelines. As far as appearances at events go, that in and of itself won't count towards notability unless there was coverage of the event and/or the book (or author) received an award at these events that would be considered a major enough award to give either partial or total notability. It doesn't help that the CPE is just a local comic book convention. However even if it was a major convention it still wouldn't give notability. Coverage of the event would be what would give notability, but I don't see where there has been any coverage of the book or its author beyond the sourcing currently in the article. I don't mean to sound harsh, just that there isn't anything that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines for books, which are pretty strict. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion article with no reliable sources. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Album 4 (Matt Cardle album)[edit]

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

Unnamed and unscheduled album, without any sourcing about a potential release date. WP:FUTURE. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When more detailed information is released, article can be created under the appropriate album title. We're not in a hurry. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 23:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can be re-inserted if and when an album is released.--Rpclod (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Ebyabe. Doesn't even really seem debatable considering there's presently literally zero prose in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bit pointless creating an article with just an infobox - Would make more sense to create it once it's released..... –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Youthwork (magazine)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this magazine. The article fails WP:N because there is only trivial coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references at all to establish nobility. Existence does not prove notability. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability is provided.--Rpclod (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing significant or in-depth and a search Google UK found the same. Considering Christian publications aren't always going to get attention especially if they're independent but considering these links mention them alongside the other magazines and parent company, I would've supported redirect to Premier Christian Media but it can't be done. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Christian magazines do not necessaarily get that much publicity within the mainstream media. My understanding is that this is a specialist non-academic magazine, for church youth pastors and leaders of evangelical churches. With the decline of print media generally and the rise of the Internet, magazines like this are inclined to struggle. The transfer of ownership suggests that this one is also struggling. However I would suggest that it is a significant niche magazine and thus notable. As long as its publication continues, I would suggest that we should keep it. Evangelicalism is mainstream, not FRINGE. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron If you in fact can locate significant coverage of this magazine, say, in unrelated small Christian sources, ping me and I'll take a close look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage. Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Martínez[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Career minor leaguer. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not support WP:WPBB/N criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian 'Tianu' Burduja[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:BIO. What we have for sources is as follows:

I'm afraid none of these really passes the WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV threshold, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not deleteSeveral sources were added (in both English and Romanian). At least 7 different major media outlets profile this person's story. These are not quotes, but full interviews. The criteria for notability are met IMHO, given level of awareness among the Romanian public. Mpopleanu ^Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate notability and does not provide reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His opinion is cited by some news outlets, but he is only briefly described by them. In any event, we're not covering everyone who appears in the news. A lot in the article is exagerated, from his definition as a "public figure" to the "virality" of his opinion piece in "Adevărul".- Andrei (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not deleteExaggerations were corrected. The expression "public figure" still applies, in my humble opinion. He is not simply briefly described by the news articles listed; these are full profile stories. A simple Google search for "sebastian burduja" makes the case for inclusion. I think this is a valid addition to the encyclopedia.[User:Mpopleanu|Mpopleanu]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopleanu (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Mpopleanu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- fails even WP:V. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godinterest[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORP. There was a flurry of churnalist coverage in May last year but nothing in anything approaching a reliable source since. Created by undisclosed paid editors:de:Benutzer:Bouake123/sandbox/PTF SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, unfortunately - This article was good (there are much worse articles) and at least had notable sources but unfortunately that is where it ends. A News search found results mostly recent press releases with a few news links including the May 2014 flurry. Books was not helpful at all but highbeam found some of the same results as well as thefreelibrary.com. Not much for notability at this time, SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this falls under WP:BLP1E. Because There is, in fact, significant ongoing coverage. here [1], and here [2]. As the editors above say, the article is well-written and well-sourced. I have added a bit about the April 2015 launch of a Godinterest Wordpress blogging feature for Christians sourced to Bloomberg. I think it should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about BLP1E? The key words here are the 'significant' part of WP:CORP and the 'multiple non-trivial' part of WP:WEBCRIT. The religion news source is probably the best available, but it's a blog with little evidence of editorial oversight and hardly discusses the site anyway. The second link you've provided is to a press release and the 'bloomberg' link was also a press release. The current article is reasonably well-written, but is sourced terribly, which is why it doesn't belong. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read your reference to the 2014 "flurry of churnalist coverage" as a reference to BLP1E. to me it looks as though there was a second, smaller flurry of churnalist coverage in April 2015, with a Religion News Service blogger picking up on this [3] press release, which was also echoed on Bloomberg and some other places. I think the amount of press coverage last year and this passes GNG. But I see where some might not think so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot believe that a website effectively one-year-old, linked to a denomination with non-orthodox views (such as Seventh Day Adventists), is notable. I do not thinhk that the fact that somnething is heavcily promoted makes it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TNT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al wathba national insurance awnic[edit]

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

A case of WP:TNT. Company may be notable, but if you remove all of the promotional content, there would be nothing left. Written by an editor with a possible COI, advertisement masquerading as articles, doesn't seem to adequately sum up its sources anyway. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support TNT for all the reasons above. The company might be notable, but it's hard to tell without removing the puffery/promotional stuff. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references show any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original author left a very appropriate inquiry at my talk page. I responded at the author's talk page. The author is obviously trying to address shortcomings at the page. If possible, please slow this process to give the author an opportunity to find and reference additional indicia of notability. Any further guidance for the author might also be appreciated.--Rpclod (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another case of the article being promotional and in need of starting anew. A News search found a few results sprinkled here and there (nothing significant and a lexology.com link about a lawsuit against this company), a few links at thefreelibrary and highbeam and Books found mostly listings. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in Reliable sources about the company. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user looks to have been blocked for persistent advertising/promotion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADMASQ - Article is clearly promotional and the author is now blocked for promotion. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect to Kate Josephine Bateman reinstated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bateman[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined, but this is an unsourced BLP about an auctioneer and antiques expert that has made occasional appearances (often not more than a few minutes) in a variety of BBC antiques TV programmes. I can't find any actual news coverage or independent reliable sources about her. If the unsourced biographical and family info was removed, there would be little left of any substance. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are not independent. Notability not indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to one of the TV shows - A News search found a few links, Books found nothing and a browser search found links her BBC bio. Rather than deleting, I think a redirect to one of the TV shows, maybe Flog It (seems maybe she's received a little more attention for that one)? SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a redirect to a TV show is the best idea, since there is an article on Kate Josephine Bateman. Perhaps Kate Bateman should just not be a link, or be changed back into the redirect to Kate Josephine Bateman that it started as. It won't need disambiguation if it doesn't remain an article. - Nunh-huh 19:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Christopher Hayes[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant professor / adjunct professor and attorney. Only claim to notability is "first non-Korean to work for the Constitutional Court of Korea", sourced to the subject's blog (although apparently a copy of an article from the Korean Times, but just to announce he was starting to contribute a column to that paper). The article was created by Sean123ct (talk · contribs) with what seems to be all content-based edits made by that user or Seanhayes74 (talk · contribs). Both of those users' edit histories are solely to promote Hayes or his blog, and given the user names are likely Hayes himself.

Every source in the article is to either Hayes's law firm or Hayes's blog.

Article was PRODded in June 2014 ("not a notable person") and dePRODded (by a non-Hayes editor, I should note) a few days later with the edit summary "probably notable", which I suggest is generous.

I'm not persuaded that being the first non-Korean to work for a particular court is notable. An elected or appointed position, maybe, depending on the position. This is a long way away from Jackie Robinson. I'm likewise not impressed by the assistant professor and adjunct professor positions. "Adunct" usually means a part-time teacher who just comes in to teach an occasional class.

The newspaper columnist position is likewise non-notable. TJRC (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's comprehensive analysis. Charitably I would say he is not 'notable' yet. Sionk (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet any WP:NACADEMICS criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the editor who originally PRODded it. There is no real claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find no evidence of notability. Unless I've missed something, or User:DGG remembers the reason he thought this attorney "probably notable" when he un-prodded it last summer. DGG is usually pretty good at sorting AFD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking back, I should have let it get prodded. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious A7 and borderline G11. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programmingquery[edit]

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

Speedy tag contested by another editor. No independent notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious sock is obvious. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as both A7 and G11. In fact, the article was speedy-deleted once on these grounds earlier today. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four Arms Of Value (FAV)[edit]

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

Clear violation of WP:NOTESSAY- the tone is not NPOV as it uses the first person. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Also, it's a theory created by the creator themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also vetted by prestigious educational institutes and used by many companies so not just a theory but a practical model. Not sure by i am having a discussion with some computer geek about this citing all these clauses that are clearly irrelevantHaqinam01 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article not mention the reviews by the institutes. Has it not gotten any news coverage or journal write-ups? —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please check the linksHaqinam01 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

References

^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2085119

Five of the six "references" are to the creator's own writings; they are not secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:GNG. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. The only source cited in the article not written by the creator of the concept is a passing mention in a list-type blog post. —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY and lacks reliable secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The material is also copied from the creator's company's website, http://lam-inc.com/four-arms-of-value-assessment/. Do we need to consider speedy deletion for spam or copyright reasons? —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done The bot says 98% chance of copyvio, added G12 speedy language. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% chance it came from that site, since they just changed the site to place it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Of course, that also confirms the original research angle. I've removed the copyvio tag. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY and lacks reliable independent secondary sources per Wikipedia:GOLDEN RULE Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches failed to find something good and that wasn't primary. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objects from The Lost Room[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced OR fancruft of a 3 minor mini-series that has gained no long term traction or following Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsessive, under-sourced fancruft. Wikipedia's notability criteria and tolerence of flaky articles as moved on since the last AfD in 2007. Sionk (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is a fan wiki somewhere I'd recommend adding this there, but this is a bit too fancruft for Wikipedia. This was a three episode miniseries that got some coverage but not an overwhelmingly large amount to where we'd be able to rationalize an article for something like the One Ring or even a page like List of Middle-earth characters. The coverage of these artifacts just aren't there and this is already adequately covered in the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish article context. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR: relies entirely on primary sources. Pburka (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Liwanag[edit]

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

PROD was contested apparently on the basis that he is a "full-fledged author on HarperCollins Publishers' Authonomy site". But the subject clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. St Anselm (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially as I literally just created this at the same time as you. Great minds, and all, I suppose...which takes care of you. Now what's my excuse? :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - this is a very strange edit conflict. I'm still working out how to clear it up. St Anselm (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so strange. You're more familiar with the conventions than I am, so you got through the nominating process quicker than I did. I have a suspicion that I started just before you did, but was bogged down in getting it right so that you finished before I did. (I don't come 'round these parts that often.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed (unless someone comes along and says I did it wrong). —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an indication of significance, citing him as "the first Filipino author to write a book on fulfilled eschatology" is a stretch. No relevant coverage found via Google. All the sources cited are by him or are WP:ROUTINE documentation for the assertions in the article. Authonomy is a self-publishing site. Fails WP:N and all of its pertinent corollaries. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The thing about claiming to be the first at something is that it's an insanely hard thing to prove. I've found that whenever someone claims to be the first, odds are that they're not. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone claim to be the youngest writer or filmmaker, only for this to be easily disproven. In any case, I can't find anything to show that this person is ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It also doesn't help that the article is pretty promotional in its tone- this article comes across as a pretty obvious attempt to promote the author. I'd say speedy deletion, but this should go through a full AfD even if it's just to help ensure that this can't be recreated in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure self-promotion. No reliable sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage by reliable sources. Liwanag's standing was published by Allyn Morton, owner of The Fulfilled Connection magazine and contributor to the Fulfilled Covenant Bible. He was equally honored as a pioneer in fulfilled eschatology by WyzAnt's editor Adam Maarschalk.^[1]^[2] Transformium (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call these two blogs reliable sources. Neither is itself of any note; Google comes up with very little for either of them, and virtually none of that is independent and substantial. I don't gather that Allyn Morton and Adam Maarschalk are notable either. Regarding the TFCMagazine site, further, there is no coverage of Liwanag. There are his own writings, and his own personally created profile page. There isn't anything about him, as far as I can tell; even if there were, given that he's a contributing writer to the site, it wouldn't be independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. I'm always suspicious of deletions of Filipino/Pinoy BLPs, but this one just does not make the grade. It's clear from the poor sourcing and red links that he is not a notable scholar, nor in a notable field of study. He and his field are not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RootzWiki[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond number of Twitter followers and acknowledgements of passing references by websites. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources to establish article as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much significant notability about the company with News simply providing links mostly from their website and Books providing nothing useful. Highbeam and thefreelibrary provided nothing significant as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above not notable lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 13001–14000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13551 Gadsden[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect to list of minor planets 13001-14000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 13001–14000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 13001–14000 per WP:DWMP and nominator. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1485 Isa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect to list of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The first Google scholar hit amused me: "Many more historians, manymore archives, manynewquestions, a constant search for new methodsof enquiry, and—naturally, inthe wake ofsuch things— live and vigorousand oftenacrimonious debates: Englishhistory since 1485 isa seething,heaving territory". But I found nothing of interest about this object . —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1561 Fricke[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas institute[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, non encyclopedic, no references. RatRat (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ambiguous advert (schools can't be deleted as A7, but can as G11)- I've put it up for G11 speedy delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close. At the very best this is a neologism and there is absolutely zero coverage of this term anywhere but a blog entry someone made up one day. This may or may not have been done to promote the term via Wikipedia, but either way this just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christoapokalypsisperihopreteriteprotocenturiaworldjewryology[edit]

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

A word one blogger made up today isn't a proper topic for a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:N. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:CSD#A11, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Obvious failure of WP:NOTNEO. I can make up words and post them on my personal website too. Not even a single google search result outside of the article and nom's PROD log. ― Padenton|✉ 19:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kills me is the limitation on the applicability of A11 to things made up by the author or someone he knows personally. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This perhaps sets a record for being the most neo- of neologisms. St Anselm (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Term 'Christoapokalypsisperihopreteriteprotocenturiaworldjewryology' published at The Fulfilled Connection Magazine^[3] Transformium (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The same editor created the article on Tim Liwanag (the author of the blog post) and Revelationism. St Anselm (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - for the obvious reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 24001–25000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24654 Fossett[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect to List of minor planets 24000-24999. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 24001–25000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even though it is a Mars-crossing asteroid, these high numbered asteroids (more recent discoveries) are when re-directs are most appropriate. Re-diecting larger objects makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article. -- Kheider (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3665 Fitzgerald[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; should be deleted / redirected to list of minor planets 3001-4000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 3001–4000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1745 Ferguson[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; should be deleted / redirected to list of minor planets 1-1000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1616 Filipoff[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One lightcurve study [4] isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Specht[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Going again at this AfD because I still don't see how she has her own page.

She fails WP:ENTERTAINER, has done nothing of note, all small roles, most of them nameless such as "Receptionist", "Nurse", "Burger Chick".
She fails WP:GNG, I can't find any significant coverage on her. She has the one ENSTARZ article and the howtobearedhead could be a weak pass for coverage but two sources. Two. Hardly significant when she fails WP:NACTOR. The Mens Health is a mere mention and 2 sentences about her, nothing significant. Starpulse.com is not a reliable source and the New York Times list 4 credits, that's it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Can you respond the following which I have raised in the 1st Nomination by you?

She doesn't or she hasn't any of those to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER as you suggest; can you explain then why;

Michael Bay selected her in the multi-million dollar project?

Where is the source that says he hand picked her for Transformers? And even with the source, you could say that about anyone he has ever hand picked, just because Michael Bay chose her, doesn't make her notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Michael Bay may not have hand picked her but someone else or he himself might be. Though it is not necessarily Michael Bay hand picked one should be popular but all those who act in the film have got Wikipedia pages; I have seen this movie. What is the rationale for Melanie is not qualified for a Wikipedia page? Is she a black sheep among others?Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why even say that Michael Bay chose her when you can't even back up that he did? Just because she was in a popular movie, doesn't automatically make her notable, I think that's what you are confused about. Notable people need to have significant coverage to verify their career and background, otherwise, they don't need their own article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer the "Note to the Closing Admin".Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Men's Health (magazine), the world's largest men's magazine brand, with 40 editions in 47 countries and the the best-selling men's magazine on U.S. newsstands, compared her with other Notable celebrities?

Just because a notable magazine posted 2 sentences about her, doesn't make her notable. Sage Erickson and Holly Sonders on that list and don't have their own article. Just because they are on the list doesn't automatically make them notable. See WP:GNG "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not those two sentences but their comparison with other notable celebrities make her Notable. Sage Erickson and Holly Sonders are notable, but we don't have enough volunteer editors to create their pages only Wikipedia. See the Google News of Sage Erickson and Holly Sonders; hope you will agree with me.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the arguments that celebrity X is notable because celebrity Y is notable for being in the same article. That makes no sense. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer the "Note to the Closing Admin".Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you couldn't answer properly, then she may meet at least one of those you have highlighted, but we are not aware of it.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable at this time, not a single significant or in-depth source despite multiple searches. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You too can respond on the questions which I have raised above.Thanks.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin

The nominator has previously nominated two articles but the results were "Keep";

Please see the discussions below;

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David After Dentist (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Bit My Finger

It is pointless arguing with him; I won't do so.

He has removed two sources and the content just before the discussion on the grounds they are unreliable.

I doubt his overall credibility over the deletion nomination of this article.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He" would be a "she", hence the name Lady Lotus. I've also nominated dozens of other articles that were resulted in "Deletes" so I don't see the point of you bringing up ones from keep. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles are your recent deletion nominations and there is not a single delete vote in both articles; that shows your poor judgment of the nomination and your state of current mindset. I think, your nomination of this article also out of unqualified judgement. We will be only wasting our time discussing with you.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADHOM, you are making an ad hominem claim. Just because there were no delete votes on the nominator's last AfDs doesn't invalidate the argument for deletion and mentioning it is dilatory. Esquivalience ^t 20:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable woman who does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Inother (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to check which topic this was again. One of last year's "hot" women. Did she finish 9th or 99th (it doesn't seem to say)? Are you seriously suggesting I spend my time on Wikipedia editing "Hottest Women"? Laughable (and anyone can check that). --Inother (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The account is a clear spa; it was started on 17th March 2015 and participating deletion discussions out of proportion to its contributions and casting everywhere just "Delete" votes, no quality justifications for those deletes.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been editing for 2 months with nearly 300 edits, they have edited Eduardo Galeano, Portal:2010s/Intro, Portal:Current events/2015 March 30, Michael Murphy, St Joseph's Industrial School, Clonmel, Questions and Answers (TV series), Maithripala Sirisena, Nigerian general election, 2015, Blockupy movement, among others. There are tons of editors who edit blocks of AfD's. Look up WP:SPATG. You are trying to discredit anyone who votes to delete this page. And Inother is right, she doesn't meet WP:BIO so their argument is certainly valid. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still those contributions are out of proportion to his/her monotonous deletion votes; let him come out with his/her own rationale rather than you protect him.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond why your Two recent nominations might not have drawn a single "Delete" vote.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you stated and I quote "We will be only wasting our time discussing with you." so with that, I am done discussing anything further with you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with you some extent, but still you are in discussion with me on other editor's discussion.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability with only a brief Men's Health mention, a few listings in The New York Times, and an "Enstarz" article (which I'm not entirely sure is reliable). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still not sure a news media with these detail is not reliable? Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say that enstarz.com is probably reliable, given that it has a listed editorial department. However, overall coverage in reliable sources is sparse. The NYT citation is from Baseline, a licensed database. It's not an article by the NYT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Chandana. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yogesh Khandke could you be more specific as Chandana hasn't exactly brought up any points to claim her notability LADY LOTUS • TALK 09:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has, also please check this[5] notable enough. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yogesh Khandke, we have actually already discussed those sources, the Westside Today article is about her lawsuit, not her career, can't make an article out of that. And the Moviehole, seibertron.com and Starpulse.com sources are not considered reliable. So if that's your only reasoning for keep, I would suggest you reconsider your vote. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better you read your first deletion nomination, you will get many specific points of mine.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to come in to weigh in on some of the comments here. Offhand here's my statement on things: while Inother has predominantly only contributed to AfDs, that does not make him or her a SPA. The thing about the term "SPA" is that this is most frequently used to describe someone who has a very specific agenda, which usually means that they were brought in to vote in a very specific manner. Most of the time this term is used to describe sockpuppets or meatpuppets that were created for one specific AfD. Offhand I can't see where Inother would fall within the most common use of this term and because of this, I would recommend against using the term to describe them because the term doesn't fit this specific person.

Now when it comes to things like appearances in men's magazines, the general consensus is that these sort of things don't really count as notability giving sources because the coverage is usually very brief and mostly consists of a few sentences along with a photograph of the woman in question. It all depends on the article in question- sometimes coverage from these magazines can be used but in this case it'd essentially be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source since the mention (#96) is all of 2 sentences long. As far as claims about her being hand picked by Michael Bay, unless you can back that up with a RS you can't include it in the article. It's also not exactly a claim for notability even if she was, since being picked for a film doesn't automatically mean that the person is notable. If they end up receiving coverage as a result of their film role then that would show notability, as would coverage about the film role if the role in question is a major one. This last part is something to take into consideration since films can have a lot of minor roles that get little to no screen time. The rule of thumb is to look at what the actor's part is titled- if they were not given a name and were only labeled as a position (ie, "Nurse", "Receptionist", or "Senior Executive Assistant") then the role is considered minor and not one that would give notability regardless of how popular the film becomes.

Now as far as the nominator's past AfD nominations go, I will agree that these two YT videos were notable. However at the same time that does not mean that the AfDs were made in bad faith or that she was wrong with this specific AfD nomination. I will note that she has also made other nominations that were not kept and that she has also made accurate votes at other AfDs. It's not a perfect AfD history (very few of us have one), but there's nothing in there that would cause any true immediate alarm. Even if there was I can still see where her concern was with this article. In this instance I'd recommend against commenting about Lotus's past editing history and instead look for more coverage in reliable sources. Right now the coverage is insanely light and the only real source of note is Enstarz, which offhand looks to be usable since it does have an editorial process. One source is not enough to show notability in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Though I appreciate the time you have taken to study the subject and then comment on it, I afraid whether you are violating Wikipedia:Canvassing. Requesting someone's talk page[6], [7], [8] in a tone could be considered applying undue influence over the editors.

Though you are trying to balance, your comment is some extent biased. You are trying to protect Lotus. Since you are an administrator you should be more cautious. If I am wrong, I will take this issue to clear at a WP:RFC.

Lotus has requested with same tone[9], [10] at User:SNUGGUMS's talk page and he has voted "Delete".

If some one wants to attract others opinion either she/he should have used 3rd Opinion or Rfc or talk pages in a neutral tone.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - I did not canvass anyone. I asked Snuggums to take a look at the page because he has done some of my reviews for GA and has made comments on my FL nominations so I trust his judgement and his opinion. I also asked Tokyo to "simmer" the situation as she is an admin and works frequently on AfD's and I knew that you were out of line with calling Inother an SPA. I don't need anyones protection. So far, you haven't been able to bring up any good points to give Ms. Specht any kind of notability. Your points were countered and you had nothing to respond with. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly people accept their mistakes and you too. You can't be at the same time a lawyer and the judge.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I was canvassed since I was only asked to come in here and try to cool things down. I wasn't asked to vote, which is what canvassing ultimately is considered to be. I'll be completely honest: you're being more than a little aggressive in how you're going after every person who disagrees with your opinion. You've said your piece and it's clear that you want to keep the article, but I'd recommend that you walk away from this AfD. Right now what you're doing is not only borderline harassment of any disagreeing editor (and most certainly Lotus) but absolutely bad faith assumptions on your part. I would highly, highly recommend that you take a break from this AfD. You're not helping your case in the slightest at this point because you're putting a lot of people automatically on the defensive when they come to this AfD since they're going to assume that you're going to automatically go after them if they say anything other than a keep- which seems to be pretty well founded since you did just that with Davey. If this continues then it would be well within Lotus's rights to escalate this to ANI, where you can run the risk of getting temporarily blocked for harassment if you don't back down. I need to repeat this: please walk away from the AfD. At this point all you're doing is harassing each new person who comes in here and some of your assumptions against Lotus can be seen as personal attacks. You're not going to gain any points here by trying to demolish Lotus's credibility (she's been on here for 6 years and other than a few hiccups, has a rather impressive edit history). I'd say the same thing here if the positions had been reversed and it was you that had opened the AfD. I'm formally asking you to stop and walk away from this AfD for the time being. There's nothing more you can say here that you haven't already said and right now you're just resorting to assuming bad faith. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already decided to walk away. I have actually started my Wikipedia contributions in 2005 and closely worked with a number of ArbCom members on highly sensitive geopolitical issues globally here on Wikipedia. I retired on personal reasons and resumed just to contribute on light subjects since I am used to this place. My intention is not harassing others but to keep this article for some time until it gets enough WP:RS at an appropriate time.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However the issue here is that her notability has to be established in the here and now because saying that sources may eventually become available is essentially crystal balling. We can't keep an article on the basis that they may become more notable one day. It's possible that she might gain more notability but it's equally possible that she could sink into obscurity after this. The acting world is pretty harsh like that- sometimes the most promising people can seem like they'll make it big and start gaining a little buzz, only for them to never break through that barrier and distinguish themselves against the other, similar actors. Notability guidelines have also become increasingly more strict over the years to where things that may have passed years ago would not pass guidelines now- the AfD history is full of articles that previously passed notability guidelines at prior AfDs but ended up becoming deleted after guidelines were made more strict. At most all that can be done here is that the article could be userfied. If she'd played a more major role in something we could maybe justify redirecting her article with history to something she's more known for, but she hasn't performed any major roles. At best she's known for a minor one episode role in The Ex List, which was cancelled mid-season. If the 5 Minute Sketch Show had an article that asserted notability I'd support a redirect there, but I can't really see where it'd pass notability guidelines as a whole. Typically when something is redirected it'd be for something like a major role or at least a very visible role that gets more frequently commented on and would be included in a film cast list. The last AfD for this really shouldn't have closed on a keep and should at the very least have gone on for another week- the sourcing we have now in the article is essentially the same as the last AfD a few months ago and it's very, very weak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. I have userfied the article.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources listed are pretty crappy and I can't find anything on her on Google or Highbeam, fails NACTOR and GNG - Also I'd like to point out Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) that just because Lady Lotus had 2 AFDs kept doesn't mean we should keep this - Every nominator here has had AFDs kept and then others deleted after - So to use her last 2 AFDs as a way of keeping this is not only Assuming bad-faith but also quite frankly absurd!. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but for that you don't need to "delete" outright; there is a ((Notability} tag there.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tags can stay from 1 month to 7 years so tagging it is IMHO pointless, If there's no evidence of notability it should be deleted like any other article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC:

[11] - reliability questionable. Also trivial.
[12] - a few sentences on a person is not significant coverage.
[13] - not coverage at all, just an information page aggregated from other automatically-generated sources.
[14] - significant coverage, but questionable source.
[15] - an article on a lawsuit is not coverage on the subject, it's on the lawsuit.

- Esquivalience ^t 20:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. All I'm seeing are bit part roles, with little speaking (if any). Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. The NYT page seems like nothing more than IMDb and provides no coverage. While she has appeared in notable shows and notable films, NACTOR explicitly requires multiple significant roles. Disclaimer: I was told about this AfD by email presumably based on my involvement in some of Lady Lotus's other nominated AfDs. The message was neutral, (though not as transparent as I would like) and did not pressure me nor imply that I should vote one way or another. (Edit 21:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC): As I see canvassing has already been brought up here, I should clarify that it was not sent by Lady Lotus.) ― Padenton|✉ 21:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:BIO. There are a couple sources, but they don't look to be terribly good publications/website (smelling of promotional/paid content, though I'm not sure). I was also contacted by email to !vote, presumably because I participated in the other "note to the closing admin" AfDs. If you have a concern with Lady Lotus's competence as nominator, that's something to bring up at e.g. WP:ANI rather than to include as part of the reason to keep here. As far as I'm concerned, everybody's allowed some mistakes (or, more specifically, judgment that sometimes diverges from consensus). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that both you and Padenton were emailed by Chandana because they probably figured you would !vote "keep" since you both voted keep on my last AfD's. Ironic since I was accused of canvassing by Chandana. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, I've been seeing these two editors voting at AfD recently. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom (even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day) and Rhododendrites. In addition, I wish to note how difficult it can be to decide deletion when (a) there are lots of blogs and model shots of a B film actor, and when (b) we sometimes keep actors whose major role was something minor along the lines of "Rollover Mom" or "Waitress at the diner in Easy Rider". Any attractive actor who's had any roles on TV or film will inevitably get some attention in blogs or film reviews. But they often fail our basic rule of notability. In this case, I can't see how she'd pass that nor the more specific acting rule. I won't scream if this is kept. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Astronomical Society[edit]

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

WP:ORG, WP:GNG. For obvious reasons, a group founded less than two months ago is unlikely to have amassed a sufficient number of independent, reliably-published sources with "significant coverage" – in this case, Google returns only a few tens of hits, most of them directory listings. The KAS's only real claim to fame seems to be that it is the first such society in Kuwait (an assertion not supported by any third-party source). In addition, this article closely paraphrases its primary reference to an extent arguably bordering on copyright violation.

This is the third creation of this article, which the author moved into mainspace from their sandbox despite another user deliberately placing it there for further development (in lieu of speedy deletion). Super Mario Man ( talk ) 18:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, exximos@... is the org's contact address, so this looks like WP:COI.
Delete, give it some time to achieve notability and meet WP:GNG before recreating. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. All I found was a directory listing in Sky and Telescope; I don't think it's enough. I think that being a nation's representative member in the IAU (or, if the member is a national academy, being listed by that academy as the representative body for astronomy) would probably be enough for an astronomical society to be notable, but Kuwait isn't listed there. Incidentally, Category:Astronomy organizations and its subcategories are full of other equally-non-notable organizations, in case anyone wants to make a project of trying to get some of the others deleted as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assault on the Senses[edit]

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

Unremarkable book, article was created by one 'MF022181', it hardly takes a genius to put that with the author, Michael P. Ferrari, combined with his birth date of 21 February 1981 (that is all assumption, but near certain). The book has no coverage in independent sources, and is a bit promotional to boot. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROD contested by the author, but nothing to show evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage exists. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than this review, I couldn't really find anything usable to show notability. The article asserts that the book got a review from Beau Smith, but without the actual review we can't really verify how in-depth the actual review actually was. Was it an actual review? A blurb? This is pretty much why we need to be able to verify the sources- there's a big difference between the two. This may sound too distrustful, but I've seen cases where someone briefly mentioned something (book, movie, etc) in a manner that was clearly not a review, only for someone to try to use it as such. I even came across one instance where a media outlet reprinted a press release and someone tried to use the PR reprint as a review. This is why we need to verify sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siamsinpawlpi[edit]

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

This organization does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, but were not successful. As with all of my nominations, please leave me a message on my talk page should appropriate sourcing be located. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There simply doesn't seem to be any possibility of improvement, a search at News found results for other things with that name and Books found nothing useful aside from this (the continuing page is not available). The article is not very neat so details are hard to use to expand the searches. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rutvik Oza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. A previous AFD argued that the subject had won the Filmfare award for best screenplay, but that is apparently not the case. What can be sourced does not rise to the level of WP:CREATIVE and coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the previous AFDs referred to a mathematician, unrelated to this person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The link at IBNLive had been then active, and thus had been referred to. As old links get obsolete, they are removed. Other similar links at IBNLive have been inactive as well. Link archive found at http://web.archive.org/web/20140302065412/http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/14375-7/photostory.html -- PartheshPatel (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Co-written by Anurag Kashyap, Rutvik Oza is not nearly enough. Assuming you can source every single claim in the article, it amounts to just the person's resume, and there is simply no significant coverage of the subject individually. Even the nominations listed are not individual but as part of a team. This might be assuaged by winning a significant award, however that cannot be sourced either and I'm not even sure why it was used as a keep argument in the previous AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link fixed, if it does any good. PartheshPatel (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not show that WP:CREATIVE criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Brief mentions do not count. Also fails to demonstrate that the subject should be considered notable even in lieu of sources under WP:CREATIVE. Msnicki (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Süper Lig top assister[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a article and I dont know any other assist articles. It is also no source and completely OR, and the football project usually dont like assists as definition change from person to person whatt counts as assists. This AfD is related to this TfD for Template:Süper Lig top assister. QED237 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, the title needs to be changed to one that is in coherent/grammatically correct English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Unsourced OR with no indication of notability as a group. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love Revisited[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. This book quite simply fails to meet the notability requirements for books and the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Authored by Kulvaibhav Kaushik, the book was published in 2015. Neither the author nor the book are notable.
Cunard (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unless foreign language sources exist, I just can't see where this book would pass notability guidelines. A search brought up nothing usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources just aren't out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close, delete and salt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir D Da Realist[edit]

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

This is the third re-creation of this same article. Previously it was speedied twice. Non-WP:Notable person, fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS online either. Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, and the assertions of notability as a journalist are both weak per WP:CRETIVE and unsourced. Reads like an autobiography. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:MUSICBIO. Jbh ^Talk 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability here. All citations are to self-published "radio programs" (podcasts). Claims of being a "journalist" amount to submitting some photoshopped photos to a blog that were quickly debunked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Article essentially amounts to a resume, without demonstrating notability with any reliable sources. Pishcal — ♣ 18:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koryo Gumdo[edit]

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

Nothing to show this is a notable martial art (see WP:MANOTE). My search found no significant independent coverage of this art and the article's only sources are youtube videos.Mdtemp (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been on my list for potential AfDs since it was created with that hope that the article tags could trigger article improvement enough that my concerns be shown to be wrong. The art appears to be an add on to two non-notable organizations and in fact the name and article itself suggest it is just a variation of Haedong Gumdo which itself could do with better sourcing. As per nominator the only sourcing is primary.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A News search found a few links (but it is not in-depth) while Books and browser found nothing useful. Since this has not been covered significantly and in-depth by notable sources, delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet any of the normal required article conventions and in its current format it is hard to find an argument in its favour, while agreeing with many of the points previously made, I'm hoping the articles creator is aware and understands that the article will be deleted if changes are not made but I'm willing to wait a little longer to give the editor the right to reply before I decide. Chunlinc (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I made the page without a full understanding of the GNG policy. I'm going to be looking for more, but the majority of information on this subject is mainly primary source. Superflusive (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC 06:00)

Delete A WP:BEFORE search was very inclusive. Youtube and Tripod websites came up on the first page. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I found nothing to support the claim that this is a notable martial art. Papaursa (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garçon Model[edit]

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

This article does not cite any references. Supdiop (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the possible deletion, I had initially hit Save by mistake thinking that it would save the draft - not publish the document. I have since added the references (20 citations) to the points in the article, and it should be in compliance with Wiki rules and regulations. If it's still missing something, I'll be happy to add or edit so that it fits the Wiki standards.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwmmd (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether the sources which were added to the article are reliable. I want an experienced user to take a look at article to verify the reliability of sources. At the time I added the deletion tag, there were no references. If the sources are not reliable then the article can be deleted. Thank you Supdiop (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company has actually received some attention but I don't think it's enough especially considering the company was founded recently in 2012. A Google News search found some links and an archive search from the past four years found more but nothing notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 22 April 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 01:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources added since the deletion tag appear to be reliable and independent, thus establishing notability. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable per coverage. --Girlishkim (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have blocked this user as an obvious undisclosed paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. As per Google News search found many sources and the sources already added seems enough for notability. Show-reality (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Note: This user's contribs are also suspicuous and I'm about to initiate an SPI. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Confirmed and blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sahota SmartSE (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 6 May 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, Sandstein 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sock puppet editing and sock puppet AfD editing and per SwisterTwister's comment. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ads and press releases do not qualify as reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and the key word beeing substantial coverage. Many crapy mentions don't add up to confer notability to a company. SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jaraya[edit]

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

Kickboxer who fails WP:KICK. He has not fought for a major title and is not ranked in the top 10. Also fails GNG since the only coverage is from the organization he fights for so it's not independent.Mdtemp (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant coverage in any reliable sources. Pishcal — ♣ 15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Neither WP:KICK or WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you believe the unsourced fight record in the infobox, he has a pretty impressive kickboxing. The problem is that there's no source for that, and even if there was it would be insufficient to prove notability. He doesn't meet the kickboxing criteria given at WP:KICK and he also lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. None of the sources mentioned in the article qualify as independent and winning a title for a minor organization also isn't enough. Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Fedynskij[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan-Mughal Wars[edit]

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

Original research - this list and numbering of wars appears to be a concept invented by the creator of this and the related articles. I've deleted several of those for copyright violations, and there is still copyvio in the rest. Most of that is probably just cut and paste without attribution from other articles, but I haven't had time to check every line. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reason - I can't find sources for bunching these campaigns together in numbered wars:

Delete Yes you have deleted 4 articles per G12.[16], [17],[18][19] I had originally watchlisted one of these articles because I had reviewed it. I knew that they are going to end up on AfD. While these remaining articles are not totally hoax. Due to their inaccuracy it was a good idea to bring them to AfD. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REname -- I am not convinced that any of this is a hoax. All appear to have published sources, which suggests they should be kept and improved. However if the numbering is WP:OR, we should rename, by removing the numbers leaving Afghan-Mughal War (1555–1561). I know little of Indian history and am thus unable to comment more specifically. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Peterkingiron, I'm not suggesting this is a hoax. I'm suggesting that these are artificial constructs. Can you find a source for an "Afghan-Mughal War (1555–1561)"? Or even just one ""Afghan-Mughal War"? Note that the linked article Battle of Panipat (1556) doesn't mention such a war. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afghan-Mughal Wars but keep and rename the rest. I agree with the nominator to the extent that the fact that most of the main leaders of the Mughals' opponents in each of these wars could be described as Afghan is almost totally irrelevant to why the wars happened - and thus the grouping, and even more the numbering, does constitute synthesis. But individually, of one ignores the "Afghan-Mughal" description, the articles do each describe groups of campaigns that belong together and are reasonably described as discrete wars. The so-called "Third Afghan-Mughal War" starts with the Suri Empire splitting between contending heirs, and in each of the campaigns, right through to the capture of Chunar in 1561, the Mughals' primary opponent is either one or other of the Suri heirs or Hemu, who comes to power by overthrowing a Suri. After 1561, there is only one Suri heir still in power, in Bengal - he is overthrown a little later by the Karrani dynasty. The so-called "Fourth Afghan-Mughal War" is the campaigns in which the Mughals overthrow the Karrani dynasty and reclaim Bengal. The so-called "Fifth Afghan-Mughal War" is the struggles between the Mughals and, at first, Pir Roshan and, afterwards, his followers, the Roshaniyya. PWilkinson (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PWilkinson, and Peterkingiron again, how is this not Wikipedia creating a topic no reliable sources have written about? How is this not original research? And as I've pointed out, there is a lot of copyvio, at least from other articles, in these. Another issue I know, but who is going to fix it? Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renaming the articles on individual wars to Afghan-Mughal War (1555–1561), Afghan-Mughal War (1573–1576) and Afghan-Mughal War (1580–1630), or something more appropriate (e.g. Afghan-Mughal campaigns (1555–1561)). These conflicts certainly seem to have occurred, but I can see no evidence they have been formally numbered by historians as they have been here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- The merits of the individual articles needs to be the subject of a separate discussion, which may result in them getting a completely different name. For the moment, I will support Necrothesp 's suggestion. Once we have dropped the ordinal, I see no reason why there should not be a series of Requested Moves to provide better individual names. As I indicated my knowledge of Indian history is slight, but an article with citations to reliable sources should not be deleted out of hand, but merged, redirected or renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 21 April 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 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... delete the existing contents and merge the other articles into it, since they have problematic numbering schemes, as others have noted above. Pax 07:14, 30 April 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, Sandstein 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a list not an article, so too little is lost to worry about what's worth keeping. The title alone is too big a problem. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probably~~ delete ~~- but merging all content here might work~~ Fails to meet WP:GNG. In each of these war articles, most claims are made without citing any sources. When sources are cited, it is to support incidental statements and not to establish that any source identified these Afghan-Mughal conflicts as distinct events. There could be a Wikipedia article about Afghan-Mughal conflicts between a date range, perhaps even 1500-1800, but I see no reason to divide all of these wars and name them as they are named here. This seems like WP:OR and no WP:RS is used as supporting evidence to think otherwise.

I checked the talk page of the article creator. It seems that originally, this person copy-pasted some copyrighted content into Wikipedia, and based on the state of the articles now, the lack of citations indicates to me a lack of understanding that citations must be used. I fear that these articles are the result of a misunderstanding that Wikipedia has to reflect what has already been published, and should not present new ideas. I appreciate the effort because a lot of effort and research went into this.

I could be wrong about the deletion. The concept of the conflict is a notable topic and an alternative could be to merge all content from other articles here and to remove the seemingly arbitrary date and numbering system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more, the content which is backed by sources is about 15 sentences among 3 articles. This content alone cannot be pieced together to create a meaningful narrative. Wikipedia is not a place to keep isolated facts, so this set of isolated facts cannot be kept here to establish an article on "Afghan-Mughal conflict". While I do support the creation of an "Afghan-Mughal conflict" article, I do not feel that the content here can be the basis of that. Starting over while having a citation for every sentence would be the easiest way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about possible merger The articles created by this editor were mainly copyvio from external sources, but quite a bit is copy and paste from our articles. I left that for the time being due to the time it would take to sort out where that came from (there's also some unidentifable material which I'd say is almost certainly copyvio as well). If we take this unattributed material, which is in fact a copvio violation even though it is copied from our own articles, and merge it somehow, we are simply making the copyvio worse and much harder to sort out. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1593 Fagnes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP. This one gets a number of mentions in journal studies, but nothing substantial. Praemonitus (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is one of the fifty largest Mars-crossing asteroids. Re-directing larger objects makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article as they will not know how to undo a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1418 Fayeta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I found two early studies of its orbit [20] [21] but the first one says in its first sentence that it's not interesting as an object. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1224 Fantasia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP. Just one study found;[22] nothing much else of substance. Praemonitus (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. I found two studies (the second is "New Elements of (1224) Fantasia", CR Liu, Minor Planet Circulars, 1958) but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1649 Fabre[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1706 Dieckvoss[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18127 Denversmith[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Absolutely nothing about this object found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to [[]]. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1398 Donnera[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3170 Dzhanibekov[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect to list of minor planets 2001-3000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. There's a typo in the nomination: the redirect target should be List of minor planets: 3001–4000. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Adams (television presenter)[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable as television personality. Quis separabit? 14:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no major television roles. Being a weekend newsreader only demonstrates she is not considered a major tv personality. LibStar (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet GNG at this time. Additionally the Authority Control link goes to an entirely different Jennifer Adams. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lt gen aslam shah[edit]

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

Non notable person RatRat (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any reliable sources after a search on google. Perhaps could merge with IV Corps (Pakistan). The article isn't well presented/formatted. Perhaps user could draft the article first and submit it to AfC? RatRat (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Larsen[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR portion of WP:BIO. Even though credited as producer of other notable authors works, no citations specifically address/address the notability of the individual themselves.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody wants to keep it. Sandstein 15:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by coffee consumption per capita[edit]

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

Article should be deleted since:

data is not encyclopaedic in nature
data does not cover enough countries to give a balanced global picture
data is not kept regularly
article relies on only one source
source is not 100% verifiable

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony F. Camilleri (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Discussion page was created without afd2 template or transclusion to daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete Reasons given for deletion are poor: to the creator of the AfD, I'd recommend reading WP:ATA. However, the article in its current state is poor: I'm not sure the one reference is enough to support the article. Pishcal — ♣ 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm typically cautious about outright deletion of any article or section thereof; as I usually try to be supportive, proactive and encourage others to try harder (as I want to be treated myself). After all, a contribution may have good faith, even if it needs citation verification and improvements. Usually when I have an issue, I quickly look the topic up myself and add citations, or make recommendations thereof. Not everyone wants that burden, but its courteous and helpful. The other side of this conundrum is the burden of lost research and contributions that are now out of site and out of mind. And that's ever more harder to recover. So, at least, I suggest merging the work somewhere else. In short, I think we may delete an article, but not the idea itself (unless it's absurd or such). Ca.papavero (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk: I've never used one of these page devices re. deletion. I put my comment at the Talk section, not here. What's proper?Ca.papavero (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments related to this discussion belong on this page, and not on the article talk page or anybody else's user talk page. Pishcal — ♣ 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His comments are on the talk page of this page, but yes, they should have gone here. --Finngall ^talk 22:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I honesty forgot that AfD pages even had talk pages. Pishcal — ♣ 23:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol…okay thanks for the help!Ca.papavero (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Along with my other comment on this talk page, also consider the other places where coffee consumption is discussed. First, there's no section in the article of Coffee itself that's dedicated to consumption, although the topic is interspersed therein. Why would that article include sections for "Cultivation" and "Production" and yet direct to a new page for a discussion about "Consumption." By the way, consumption is not the same as "Sale and distribution." Another article, Economics of coffee, does include a section about Consumption, but starts off with a discussion about " World production." These articles are not developed and corresponding themselves, aside from splintering off to make a dedicated article that's exclusively for "per capita" consumption. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Referenced only to a blog, which does not itself give a reference to anywhere else: Noyster (talk), 12:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DZSS[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ. Prior disputed speedy. Dolescum (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)+[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No evidence of existence.--Cahk (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the most blatant of hoaxes, the page needs to be salted and User:CarlandEllie 991 blocked. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and user blocked Obvious hoax. Also, please salt the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Array Networks[edit]

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

Advertisement masquerading as article. A news search found lots of PR and blog coverage, but not a lot of reliable third-party sources that would sufficiently satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Even if it were notable, it needs to be blown up to start over by someone without a COI as the entire article is unsalvageably promotional. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 17:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and very promotional. Eeekster (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created to article space by COI editor, junked up now and then by other representatives of the company. As nominator says, even if they merit an article, you can't get there from here. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update The new/promotional updates have been removed. Please review this new information and reconsider the deletion. The text that is up now has been live on Wikipedia for many years. rachelamarshall (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, [23], [24], [25], [26], sources found. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no really independent source: of those just listed, #1 is a mention; #2 is an advertorial--read the last paragraph; #3 is another mention; #4 is essentially a press release. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Buley, Taylor (2009-05-19). "Shunning NASDAQ". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  An old Wall Street joke posits that the New York Stock Exchange is saving the tickers “I” and “M”–two of the seven unused single-letter slugs–just in case Intel and Microsoft want to jump ship from the NASDAQ.
  Judging by the experience of Array Networks, one of the few technology companies to go public recently, the NYSE might be holding them for a long time: Today’s market defectors could be heading to China, or at least as close to the country as possible.
  Array Networks is a Silicon Valley hardware company that sells devices that encrypt network traffic. When Chief Executive Michael Zhao thought the security vendor was ready for an initial public offering, his research didn’t point to New York, but to Taipei. Last Wednesday, the company became the first U.S. company to debut on the Taiwan Stock Exchange.
  “We did our research and the three finalists were Taiwan, mainland China and NASDAQ,” Zhao says.
  The IPO was modest in size, according to the Gre Tai Securities Market, which provides information about the Taiwan exchange. Milpitas, Calif.-based Array issued about 54 million shares valued at around $79 million. On its first day of trading, the stock opened at NT$15, about 46 cents, and closed at NT$40, or $1.22. Array is now trading at NT$39, or $1.19 a share, with a volume of 16,000 shares traded.
  Array has 200 employees in China, and, according to consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, the company had 43% market share there in 2007 for its principal product category, SSL VPN devices. That would make mainland China “a natural choice” for an IPO, says Zhao. “However, China does not allow foreign companies to be listed.”
2. Harris, Scott Duke (2009-05-13). "Harris: Milpitas company offshores its IPO". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Finally, the Great Silicon Valley IPO Drought is coming to an end — sort of. This week, more than a year after the last valley tech company made an initial public offering, a venture-capital-backed firm called Array Networks in Milpitas is going public — yet it's not exactly the talk of the town.
  That's because Array, a maker of enterprise networking software, is offshoring its IPO. Today, it will become the first foreign-based startup to debut on the Taiwan Emerging Stock Market, said Array CEO Michael Zhao.
  Array's move is an example of the creative approaches companies are pondering to cope with the globally frigid economic conditions.
  ...
  Array, founded in 2000, is backed by U.S. Venture Partners and H&Q Asia Pacific, a private equity firm founded in 1985 as a joint venture with the now defunct boutique investment bank Hambrecht & Quist. Robert Shen, H&QAP's managing director, is Array's chairman. Another board member is William P. Fuller, president emeritus of the Asia Foundation and a board member of the Bank of the Orient in San Francisco and Orient First in Hong Kong.
  Array's success in landing "marquee customers" in the U.S. — including Oracle, Morgan Stanley and Humana Health Insurance— helped it make early inroads in Japan, Zhao said. In 2004, Array opened a Beijing operation to focus on the explosive Chinese economy. Array now has 200 employees in Beijing, compared with 70 in Silicon Valley.
3. Berndtson, Chad. (2011-03-24). "Array Networks Looks To Build U.S. Presence Behind New Channel Program" (pages 1 and 2). CRN Magazine. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array Networks this week launched a new partner program, in hopes of not only increasing channel revenue behind its application delivery, acceleration, access and SSL VPN products, but also dramatically upping its stake in the U.S. and Canada, where its presence has been limited.
  Founded in 2000 and with headquarters in Milpitas, Calif., the majority of Array's sales come from Asia. The company is particularly strong in China, Japan and India, and had a $79 million initial public offering (IPO) on Taiwan's GreTai Securities Market in 2009.
4. Delevett, Peter (2001-11-27). "San Jose Mercury News, Calif., Wiretap Column". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30 – via HighBeam Research. ((cite news)): Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Now Massaro's taken the helm of a new vessel, Campbell start-up ClickArray Networks, which helps clients manage their Web traffic. On Monday, the firm named Massaro chief executive officer and shortened its name to Array Networks.
  The old name sounded too dot-commy, says Massaro, who worked for Al Shugart at IBM and Memorex before helping found Shugart Associates in 1973. A year later, the firm's board ousted Shugart and named Massaro president.
5. Cheung, Maxine (2011-03-22). "Application delivery networking vendor wants to build channel in Canada". Computer Dealer News. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array Networks has a new partner program to support and attract new partners
  With a new channel program in place, application delivery networking vendor Array Networks is seeking partners in Canada to help deliver its solutions to enterprise customers.
6. Selvaratnam, Subashini (2002-08-26). "All-in-one Web traffic management appliance". New Straits Times.
  The article notes:
  
  Installing a variety of different devices is not only costly but can be a fairly complicated process. To solve this, Silicon Communications Sdn Bhd had introduced Array Networks, an all-in-one Web traffic management appliance.
  Array Networks offers seven essential networking features - server load balancing, clustering, Webwall (firewall), caching, content rewrite, secure sockets layer (SSL) acceleration and global load balancing, available in a single appliance.
7. "Array Networks, a server load balancing co., raises $6.9M". VentureBeat. 2007-03-12. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array Networks, a Milpitas, Calif. provider of SSL VPN and server load balancing solutions, has raised $6.95 million in a third round of funding, according to a regulatory filing cited by PEHub. Investors included H&Q Asia Pacific and Vision Venture Capital.
8. Rashid, Fahmida Y. (2011-02-10). "Array Networks Rolls Out Application Delivery Controllers for Cloud Systems". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array Networks' APV9650 appliance can support over 20 million concurrent connections, and is designed for cloud systems and high-demand data centers. Array Networks announced a 60G bps application-delivery controller that will be capable of meeting increased bandwidth demand in the data center.
  The APV9650 ADC (application delivery controller) appliance has more Layers 4 and 7 throughput and an unbeatable price-performance, compared with that of competitors, Array Networks said Feb. 8. Designed for both private- and public-cloud computing environments, the company's flagship appliance is designed to be both scalable and powerful, Neville Nandkeshwar, director of product marketing at Array Networks, told eWEEK.
9. Hicks, Matthew (2002-05-18). "Array Enhances All-in-One Networking Device". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  The networking startup is beefing up the performance of its caching abilities and adding new security features in its latest release of its network device.
  Array Networks Inc., a networking startup combining multiple IP services into a single network device, is beefing up the performance of its caching abilities and adding new security features in its latest release. Array, of Campbell, Calif., on Monday is announcing Version 3.1 of its operating system for its Array Web Traffic Manager platforms. Available next week, the new version includes Arrays SpeedCache technology for its caching services that company officials say will increase cache utilization by as much as 50 percent and reduce loads on back-end servers. It also incorporates greater SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) features, what Array is calling "SSL on the inside," by adding encryption on traffic flowing from the Array device to the origin server and not just to outside connections, said Steve Shah, director of product management for Array.
  Array first launched its devices in September of 2001. ...
10. Eddy, Nathan (2009-08-07). "Array Networks Launches Remote Access Solution". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array launches the SPX800 Universal Access Controller (UAC), a remote access solution aimed at cost-conscious businesses.
  Secure application delivery specialist Array Networks Inc., announced the launch of the Array SPX800 Universal Access Controller (UAC), a remote access solution aimed at small to medium-size businesses (SMBs). Array said with the SPX800 appliance, SMBs and their employees, road warrior and office worker alike, can benefit from a range of SSL VPN and remote desktop access functionality without making sacrifices in time, effort, budget, or security.
  The SPX800 appliance enables any user to securely connect to internal resources from remote locations, in a user-friendly appliance. For road warriors, the SPX 800 delivers SSL VPN access to the network and all applications from any PC from any location. For users that typically work in an office, the SPX800 provides remote access to the worker's desktop with complete access to his applications. Array claims this enables SMBs to have a single solution for remote access and helps reduce the number of laptop computers businesses need to purchase.
11. Hicks, Matthew (2002-08-12). "Array Security Appliance Scrutinizes Web Traffic". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array Networks Inc. will make available next quarter a network appliance for surveillance of Web traffic.
  Array Networks Inc. will make available next quarter a network appliance for surveillance of Web traffic. The Array Security Reconnaissance Secure Web Traffic Analyzer can scan, analyze and record incoming and outgoing Web traffic, including SSL-encrypted sessions, officials said.
  Array, of Campbell, Calif., is targeting the new device at large enterprises that want to prevent the sharing of confidential information or network abuse, as well as government agencies that need to bolster homeland security while meeting the terms of electronic surveillance laws.
  The stand-alone network device selectively captures and analyzes network traffic by monitoring thousands of traffic flows and recording them based on set triggers. For example, an enterprise could set a specific SMTP e-mail user as a trigger and watch the SMTP traffic in e-mail messages being transmitted by that user.
12. Eddy, Nathan (2011-08-18). "Array, SentryBay Partner on Anti-Spyware for Remote Desktop Access". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  With EntryProtect, Array's solution can now prevent key logging and screen capture on remote devices.
  Array Networks, a specialist in application, desktop and cloud service delivery, announced a partnership with SentryBay to provide SentryBay's EntryProtect anti-spyware capability for Array's DesktopDirect appliance-based remote desktop access solution. DesktopDirect enables secure access to office PCs or virtual desktops from any device and allows employees to work from any location. With EntryProtect, Array's solution can now prevent key logging and screen capture on remote devices for greater security.
  EntryProtect is a multi-layer approach to spyware that is designed to provide end-to-end protection for all users. With EntryProtect running on DesktopDirect, anti-spyware is controlled and maintained by corporate IT in the network and not on end user devices, making sensitive data such as user names and passwords safe from unauthorized capture when entered into Web applications.
13. Claburn, Thomas (2011-08-02). "Array Networks Opens Windows To Android". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Array Networks aims to enable remote desktop access to corporate computers through its DesktopDirect software and appliance. The company has released DesktopDirect for Android, a free client app that allows Android tablets or smartphones to access Windows applications and data on physical or virtualized desktops through its Array SPX hardware. Pricing starts at $3,995 for a DesktopDirect bundle with 25 concurrent users; the advanced client license, which includes iPhone, iPad, and Android client support, starts at $495.
14. Austin, Scott (2009-07-23). "The Daily Start-Up: Sorting Through The Zappos Chatter". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2015-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Taiwan's two stock exchanges hosted a seminar for executives that also included a talk from Array Networks, which in May became the first foreign company to list in Taiwan.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Array Networks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources are available through the Google News link at the top of the AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is an advertorial. Forbes is not immune to PR agents placing articles. #2 is essentially identical; #3 is another try of theirs, with more blatant advertising content--see 3rd para. for the source; #4 a more trivial effort. #5 a longer one. #6 sounds like a straight ad, but I cannot see it in full; #7 is a straight press release; #8 and following are from eWeek. Essentially all eWeek content has always been press releases; similarly for about 3/4 of InformationWeek. I used those two publications a good deal when what I wanted was to see relevant press releases--they do it very well. & in the pre-web days were particularly important for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to discount sources from reliable publications like Forbes and San Jose Mercury News as being advertisements is very feeble. They are not advertisements. Provide proof, not assertions that they are advertisements. Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the third paragraph of #3, the source says:
But according to its top channel and marketing executives, the time has come for a much greater market presence in the U.S. against the many ADC and SSL VPN incumbents, from F5 Networks to Cisco and a host of smaller alternatives.
I believe "top channel and marketing executives" refers to "the company's highest-ranking channel and marketing executives". How is this advertising? This is a journalist reporting on the executives' statements to him. This is very standard in journalism and news articles and in no way means this is a press release.
eWeek and InformationWeek are both technology magazines. They are reliable publications that do not pass press releases off as news articles.
Cunard (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, DGG, Pinkbeast, Joseph2302, Eeekster, I think this source, Forbes, allows the company to passes WP:NCORP and gives the subject significant coverage, and was at one point publicly traded on the Taiwan Stock Exchange, per WP:LISTED should be inherently notable, if I am correct, I maybe wrong perhaps the exchange is not large enough, I believe it is international though. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that exchange no more significant than NASDAQ. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (WP:LISTED) says (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

This "publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion" per the numerous sources I posted above.

Cunard (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately it's up to the reviewing admin - Cunard has dug up an impressive array, but much of it does read like recycled press releases. I wouldn't regard either Keep or Delete as an unreasonable outcome now. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating DGG's unsupported claim that the sources are press releases. In no way can the articles from Forbes, San Jose Mercury News, and CRN Magazine be considered press releases. The Forbes article is from a financial magazine reporting about a Silicon Valley hardware company's IPO. The San Jose Mercury News article is by a regional newspaper's columnist that discusses the company's upcoming IPO. The CRN Magazine article is from a technology magazine profiling the company. All three articles are written neutrally and from reliable publications.

Cunard (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: To examine possible sources in full Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are press releases, either directly or quasi-articles, and do not qualify as reliable sources. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability in spite of its length. Abductive (reasoning) 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am afraid this is incorrect. The guidelines of WP:LISTED apply here. In terms of market listings the Taiwan Stock Exchange is the 19th largest international secondary exchange in the world and is regulated similar to the NYSE and NASDAQ. These are major secondary markets with transactions in the billions daily. That's irrelevant to why listed companies are inherently notable. The regulation required to be listed on these markets means the company is under controlled scrutiny. Balance sheet, reports, earning are all monitors with high regulation and guidelines. Their counterpart is the OTC markets consisting of (Grey markets and Pink Sheets) where regulation is laxer and less monitoring overall. This is where penny stocks trade small companies. These companies are not inherently notable because listed only includes companies in the primary and secondary markets where regulation is strict. This is how the American market operates. The Taiwan market is similar, the major exchange there is Taiwan Stock Exchange (TSE), their penny stock equivalent is the Gre Tai Securities Market. Array Networks is listed on the TSE thus inherently notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The TSE is not the equivalent of the NYSE and even if it was, "notability is not automatic". Notability must still be shown and, from my perspective, it is not.--Rpclod (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe regulation is what gives the company notability not size. It subject to interpretation though. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "...addresses problems related to securely delivering enterprise applications to end users..." Spam. Pax 02:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jadoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches failed to find anything to keep the article. We could move it to the band's but frankly it seems this album is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. Nothing to suggest the album has notability in its own right. Emeraude (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1926 Demiddelaer[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete / reidrect to list of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1686 De Sitter[edit]

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

DOesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete/redirect to list of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ahern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No coverage in outside sources other than an IMDb entry. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 23 April 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, Michig (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actor, Fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An actor with several roles but no notability or significant or in-depth coverage about him. However, News searches found two links here and here. Highbeam also found two links (first two) and nothing at thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fight and Revenge[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only "source" is a clipping on Facebook which may or may not be real (falsifying newspaper clippings is easy these days). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I can't find any media coverage. Unsure if this is a hoax/fake/someone being confused over an unfinished project/released under a different name/or what. While Winters is genuine and so are at least some of his other films, this is questionable. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd like to assume the newspaper clipping is accurate but he even says that there's not much reasonable information about it around the Internet. My searches found nothing good either not even an IMDb so if it exists it must've been a very indie film. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - It may be an indie and forgotten movie but still it has a very known director and quite popular cast (including 90s action star Matt McColm). AngelOfDestiny talk 14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the non-existent significant sources? SwisterTwister talk 16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of lost films and add there -- it doesn't look like the list requires independent notability (and this one does not seem to be notable) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would recommend against including this in any other articles just for the sheer fact that we cannot even prove its existence. The only thing we have is a newspaper clipping that to be quite honest, looks kind of photoshopped. There's just something about it that looks really, really off, like it was put together with a computer program. I can only guess that they're talking about The Sunday Times in the newspaper clipping since that's the only thing that comes up in a search that looks feasible with the name "New Sunday Times", so I'll e-mail the paper to ask if this was an actual story or not. If it is then it could maybe merit a redirect... maybe. I'm not really happy with the idea of the lost film list not requiring some sort of notability for the list since there are a lot of films that could be considered "lost" in some form or fashion and most list articles do require some independent notability since a lot of people have discovered that this is a loophole they can exploit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Sunday edition of the New Straits Times? (The England newspaper would make more sense than one in Malaysia, but I'll make sure to email them.) Either way this just really feels off somehow. A search for the date shows that May 20, 1996 was a Monday. I'll email both papers to find out either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's getting me is that the text doesn't really look like typical newsprint text and the top box containing the headline is blue, like you'd see if someone was selecting a specific section of an image document they were putting together. The text is also somewhat different in the header and the caption under the photo, as the caption is fuzzier than the text of the document, which is far more clear. I might be overthinking it, but I believe that this is what is really bugging me about this image. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4155 Watanabe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; should be deleted / redirected to list of minor planets 40001-5000. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; unable to satisfy notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. There's a typo in the nomination: the redirect target should be List of minor planets: 4001–5000. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tube (upcoming film)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film that appears to be still in the early stages of production, judging by its Kickstarter[27]. Upcoming films need in-depth coverage in multiple sources to be notable, and this project has attracted little media interest. The article could be recreated when the film is released, if it attracts some critical attention. But right now it fails WP:NFILM. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON, No objections to recreation once more concrete sources come up. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Possible it could merit mention at Epic of Gilgamesh as an adaptation? Really too soon, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this book fails WP:NBOOK. Namely: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book 2. The book has won a major literary award. 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. How anyone can seriously claim this book (a series of essays) can meet this is beyond me.AusLondonder (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proposer fails to make any case for deletion: just quoting the rules without explaining how it fails to meet them is pointless. Although it's not widely reviewed in the mainstream press, the article indicates multiple reviews: Asia Times, Publishers Weekly, Midwest Book Review, though some of these are no longer online. There's also coverage in National Review, mentions in other books, and brief notices in Library Bookwatch[28] and First Things[29]. Not all of these are nutty right-wing islamophobic bloggers, and the article offers a balanced account rather than a PR puff. If the sources aren't judged sufficient, it could be merged to Robert Spencer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC

Comment. For criteria 1, it has not received significant non-trivial published works. 2. Obviously it has not won any awards. 3. Nope. 4. Nope. 5. Definitely no. AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Plenty of RS already cited in the article, including influential journals and newspapers like The Middle East Journal and Asia Times. Nom may also have a WP:COI problem by PRODing (on the 29th) five articles [30],[31],[32],[33],[34] on books critical of Islam while elsewhere !voting Keep on obviously less worldly-publicly-visible entities like the Afghanistan International Bank. Also potential sock (two-week-old account whose first edit consisted of creating a large article with multiple sections containing complex forms). Pax 11:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for sticking to the issues and your demonstration of WP:GOODFAITH. AusLondonder (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the first article I created did not contain complex forms. Any forms I have used in any articles have been copied-and-pasted from other articles then edited. AusLondonder (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability established, and no censorship on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 14:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is certainly not established according to the criteria at WP:NBOOK. For the censorship argument, are you seriously suggesting we keep an article that is not notable to ensure false accusations of censorship are not made?AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, still meets WP:GNG. Although the last two afds resulted in keep, see WP:NTEMP "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, ... Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered."Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NBOOK is the relevant criteria.AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. GNG trumps everything else. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am astounded, that as of yet, no editor has used the criteria at WP:NBOOK to justify keeping this article, instead accusing me of bad faith, of being a sock, of having a conflict of interest, using the wrong criteria and using the 'censorship' excuse. What a disappointing deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article The Myth of Islamic Tolerance be deleted, as I believe the article fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. As of yet, no editor has indicated how it meets WP:NBOOK, however consensus cannot be reached. AusLondonder (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You wanted comments, so here's one. All WP:NBOOK asks for is 2 independent non-trivial RS reviews ("The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"), and this book has had more than that. Launching an RFC is forum-shopping, and beating a dead horse. Don't be surprized if people wonder about your motives. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly, I am surprised. What motives are you suggesting I have? A book review does not qualify - are you saying any book to ever receive a book review, no matter how negative, in a credible source is notable? AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing WP:NBOOK, now try reading it. It's pretty clear. What the review says is immaterial. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did not believe it refered to book reviews. If that is the case, virtually every book is entitled to a Wiki article. I'm quite disgusted with how uncivil you've been here AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to AusLondonder (talk). Quote from WP:NBOOK - "A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article." Also, Johnbod's allusion to 'a dead horse' may refer to WP:DROPTHESTICK?:) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it meets WP:GNG much less. By the way, try and remain civil. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article currently boasts what appear to be nine references, almost all of which are exclusively coverage of the book itself. The nominator him/herself quotes WP:NBOOK, which explicitly states that "reviews" are acceptable coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK as per other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, as being reported on and cite, possibly WP:SPA nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You really are a nasty individual User:GuzzyG. How dare you come to this page and throw around those sort of false and malicious allegations in total violation of deletion discussion guidelines. Notice at the top of the page it says 'that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive' - but you ignore every word to spew your lies. How about you check my contributions before you talk such rubbish. AusLondonder (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does calling GuzzyG a nasty individual not violate the very guideline that you just cited? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, the article's references and external links are riddled with book ads, paywalls, and outright dead links. I've tagged them as such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have fixed some of the links so there is now one dead link, and two that require subscriptions - although one is to HighBeam Research with which wikipedia has an agreement (see WP:HighBeam) so should it be tagged as such? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Thanks for working on the links. I think clarifying the HighBeam link with WikiP/HighBeam relationship details (and/or a link thereto) is an excellent idea. Thanks again, --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep What can I say? The sources are there. I looked. I just added one by Bruce Bawer to the page. Case made by Nom adds up to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is why this should be Speedy. Letting the AFD tag stand on the page is a form of harrassment of an unpolular idea.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - unambiguously exceeds the guidelines of GNG and NBOOK#1. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Plenty of sources to show notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Fabrics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Virtually no reliable sources, only really about bankruptcy. See also WP:CORPDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is really important to follow the search links in the nomination before completing your nomination. I will add some coverage that seems significant to External Links. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In its 1998 news obituary for founder L.D. Hancock, The New York Times described this as "one of the nation's largest retail fabric chains". Lots more sources readily visible in the usual searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep usually, if a organization has 266 stores, that's a pretty indicator that it's notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nom has been blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet - creator of inappropriate AFDs. this one probably camouflage for his politically-motivated AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real People Press[edit]

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

This is a clearly non-notable company. See WP:CORP for significant evidence of that. Very few sources exist for company. AusLondonder (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as it stands - would really really need RSes. Though that would require someone hitting newspaper archives, etc - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Andreas, the company's founder (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- His notability is pretty darn questionable too - I see two non-primary sources on his article ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... and while we're at it have a look at Stephen Gilligan too. His not-ability is supported mainly by self-published material on his website. Famous _dog (c) 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nom has been (temporarily) blocked as a disruptive (editor), (Remaining unproven is question he is possible) sockpuppet - creator of inappropriate AFDs. this one probably camouflage for his politically-motivated AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above claim appears to be entirely false - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory - I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not blocked. Despicable lie. AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on AusLondoner's for disruptive editing was temporary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory - please strike your incorrect comments. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ref's are purely existance. No notability is established. Jcmcc (Talk) 08:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talq) 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt is made to cite sources that have this publisher as their subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Francis Price[edit]

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

Non-notable, almost nothing on Google, promotional in tone and sourced only to "our family history records" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that he meets any notability criteria for his running. The fact that the entire article is based on "our family history" means there is no significant independent coverage to meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough for me - my vote is to keep the page and remove the proposal to delete. You don't have to be on google to be notable, especially when you were an international athlete from 100 years ago. Even athletes without an international pedigree seem to get a Wiki page nowadays - does the fact this happened 100 years ago make it less notable ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.233.160 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no supporting evidence for anything, including that claim he was an "international" athlete. Since this is your first post you might want to check the Wikipedia guidelines for notability at WP:N. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article has no formating and broken code, and also no references, etc. No sources found that establish notability. I looked for "Clifford Francis Price" and "Clifford Price" plus Wales, running, etc and no mentions of him at all. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments by the unregistered users or by Lewells2000 do not give evidence that the article meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. The deletes however demonstrate it does not meet the notability guidelines do to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsboro Web Development[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG - the only references are business registration information entries, and the business' Softpedia site. The business does not appear to be associated with any events that are encyclopedia-worthy. Helenabella (Talk) 05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A local firm going about its business, but no evidence that it meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company has provided scholarly and scientific research to prove noteriety and has provided more than one secondary source as evidence. According to Wikipedia Policy this company should Keep Leewells2000 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this company is notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 2 seconds to click the "Scholar" link as provided by this nomination template proves you wrong. How can you say that there are no searches indicating anything notable when the Wikipedia template hand-delivered it for you? Leewells2000 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and get wise. They are not going to make any attempt to find merit; and will act completely blind to merits you present because their vote and this nomination is a canvased conflict of interest. And bad faith? The mere fact that not a single voter has even recognized accredited scientific research presented and the presenter has not moved for a speedy keep, solidifies the claim as there is no justifiable reason inside Wikipedia policy that the page should be removed. It certainly merits a stub tag, but not delete.2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there's not much like news coverage covering this company. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company has published software to both Softpedia and WordPress.org more than was included in the wiki page, also references from government websites. Goldsboro Web Development cites Softpedia which in turn cites Wordpress.org which is verifiable sources that this company has created unique software which qualifies the company for inclusion under the condition of its software being encyclopedic material^[4]. It is more appropriate to flag this as a stub instead of deletion. Out of curisoty to why this was flagged for deletion and not a stub I checked out the innitiator's user profile and found he/she is a web/graphic designer him/herself^[5] and focuses contributions on deletion of web designers. This officially classifies as WP:CANVAS and WP:CONFLICT and should lead to a speedy keep. Company escapes WP:INHERITORG from resources: WOT^[6], Wordpress.org/plugins^[7], Angie's List^[8], Better Business Bureau^[9], and Softpedia^[10]. Company meets Wikipedia:Notability from having 200,000+ websites using their software^[11]. It is also noteworthy that other delete votes are of web designers and developers. This is indeed a WP:CANVAS and WP:CONFLICT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk)

Please assume good faith and do not make unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations against other participants in this discussion. AllyD (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AllyD. In relation to this deletion discussion, I am becoming somewhat uncomfortable with comments from the author on my user talk page, but am unsure what to do about them. I hope that they will bring their comments to this discussion so they can be properly considered. Helenabella (Talk) 06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to you on your user page address your opinion of Wikipedia policy in that you believe that 6+ secondary sources are required to prove both notoriety and reliability. The comments were also very civil and polite. I'm not sure why you would begin to claim that you would be uncomfortable unless you know you are opposing Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia specifically states "more than one" secondary source. I have provided 8 (see the page again). There is no logical reason why a user would harbor an opinion in opposition to Wikipedia when the policies are so clear.Leewells2000 (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special pleading fallacy. See your own comments having assuming bad faith even in the comment you posted on my user page. Leewells2000 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In clarification, I nominated the article for deletion. However, I am neither a graphic designer or web designer (economist, actually), and the majority of my contributions are on vandalism patrol, not on design-related articles. As such, I do not believe any commercial conflict of interest exists. I imagine the above commentator has confused me with another editor. Helenabella (Talk) 06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never mentioned or fingered you personally as being a web designer, though there are 3 commentators here that are. As so their previous revisions would suggest. You do however have quite a few deletion contribs to web designers and developer companies, all of which that I can see where kept Leewells2000 (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Your profile history seems to suggest you are a graphic designer and your hobby is photography. At what point did you become an economist? I've read all the comments here, and sure, while I came across abrasively, the point was clear that you assumed the worst about the page when you made your decision to nominate it. Then as User:leewells2000 stated, you then ask for special pleading in asking people not to have bad faith in you. User:leewells2000 has more than risen to the challenge of vindicating his company and provided multiple verifiable and even accredited sources for his claims that his product is the best. If having a product that is the best is not a qualification for Wikipedia, then I'm officially withdrawing my funding as it would certainly indicate that acceptance into Wikipedia is a popularity contest and not a challenge of merits. And that's that. 2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I referenced Super Captcha in a citation as proof that it is our software. I have yet to create a page for the notoriety of Super Captcha yet. It is a rule on Wikipedia to have Good Faith -- not bad faith which is the action of this nomination. Here is an example of the notoriety of Super Captcha, called the most secure text-based CAPTCHA by research from the University of Wollongong^[12] It takes 30 seconds to search this on Google. Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability of a firm is not demonstrated by business index listings, nor does notability inherit from use of the firm's product(s). Standard searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not locating detailed discussion of Goldsboro Web Development but I'd be happy to revise my opinion above if some can be found. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inherited from USE of our firm's product(s), it is inherited from the RESEARCH of our firm's product(s). There is a very stark difference. Use of product is the popularity fallacy, accredited research is much less fallible. Again it is you who has bad faith here. You're using the ambiguity fallicy and trying to misrepresent the Wikipedia policy. The policy doesn't state that company's cannot be listed by merit of their products, it simply states that use of the product doesn't grant you a ticket. If I show statistics that our product is used on 4 million websites, it wouldn't help. However accredited and independent research to the merits of the PRODUCT is completely diffrent. Else how do indie game companies like Keen Software House make it to Wikipedia, exactly? This meets the criteria for WP:RS under "Scholarship", "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." See https://books.google.com/books?id=Zku5BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA391&lpg=PA391&dq=On+the+Security+of+Text-based+3D+CAPTCHAs&source=bl&ots=neDqfohkoU&sig=Ya5Tey99F5k0Ueo6GmT8l14eeSE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vpRHVe-LGYalgwTvm4GwCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=On%20the%20Security%20of%20Text-based%203D%20CAPTCHAs&f=false http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2363455 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167404814000856 and the list keeps going. Google = your friend. Bad faith = fail. Leewells2000 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per AllyD. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with all of the web designers voting Delete when there is scientific and academic research sourcing this company and their software? Conflict of Interest? Leewells2000 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The author seems to have established verifiable evidence of categoric superiority for his product which is Wikipedia material. Admission to Wikipedia has never been a popularity contest but a measure of merit and it seems the edits to the page has sufficiently satisfied this requirement. 2600:1004:B05F:5512:6BC9:6EED:549D:9744 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Leewells2000, 2606:A000:A5C0:8000:7916:9ED5:A7A:1E91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2600:1004:B05F:5512:6BC9:6EED:549D:9744 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) For all being new editors to Wikipedia, seem to be working from the same page, similar interests, writing styles, timing.... Just a quawinkadink I guess. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem I do live close to this company, but there is no coincidence, as I was pursuing the North Carolina companies for a book report. Keep the tin-foil hat on, brother. 2600:1004:B068:AC2D:E878:84C6:3658:800F (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep but add sources: this company is in my home city and I have seen them in the news papers a few times. Editor: Google will inundate you with results, but there are scattered non-trivial reviews as well as a couple of scientific papers on this company some have been included in this debate others need to be added Jake 2600:1004:B042:9AC1:2CAE:5790:C4E9:2B87 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too many socks in this discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to be insulting? Did you expect that folks wouldn't click the whois? Or do you believe that for some reason that this is a popularity vote. This discussion is going on week 2 and there is only one reason it is still open, not because of the amount of keeps or the amount of deletes, but because I have provided verifiable proof that the article reasonably meets the merits defined in Wikipedia policy and not a single person can challenge it. In fact the only reason it has not closed is because the reporter is too pig-headed to initiate a speedy keep. It seems as if you are defensive that your votes are out-numbered. Allow me to assure you that popularity means nothing. Until someone can show that the scientific research I have offered is invalid, or the reviews I submitted are "trivial", the page meets all requirements to keep under WP:GNG. But by all means, stay your course with your capaign against web designers posting on Wikipedia -- that is wp:canvass.Leewells2000 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 8 sources are cited. 6 of them are about a product and do not factor into the assessment of deletion of this article, which is not about a product. The other two sources do not have this company as their subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Tim Liwanag's Page at TFCmagazine.com". tfcmag.com. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
^ "Fulfilled Eschatology by Tim Liwanag". kloposmasm.com. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
^ Liwanag, Tim. "Christo-Apocalyptics In A Nutshell". tfcmag.com. The Fulfilled Connection Magazine. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
^ "Dictionary".
^ "Wikipedia Profile History".
^ ""Web Of Trust (WOT)"".
^ "WordPress Plugin Support".
^ "Angie's List Listing".
^ "Better Business Bureau Listing".
^ "Softpedia".
^ "Google Search "Secured by Super Captcha"".
^ Susilo, Willy; Chow, Yang-Wai; Nguyen, Vu Duc. "On the Security of Text-based 3D CAPTCHAs". p. 20. Retrieved March 24, 2014.

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Toon05 per CSD A7 (no explanation of the subject's significance (real person)). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

கூரிஸ்ஸோஹம்[edit]

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

Not in English chsh (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not being in English is not a valid reason to take an article to WP:AFD. Instead, it should have been tagged for translation. In this case, the article is in Tamil, and a Google translation shows that it's about someone not making a credible claim to notability. Another editor has already nominated it for speedy deletion A7. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 03:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert & Butler[edit]

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

I found this article while searching for articles that needing cleaning and I don't think it is notable. Recent news results don't find anything significant or notable as well as archived results with only one link here saying it is the best-selling brand in the UK similiar to the 2007 claim in the article. Books results don't find anything good either, Newspapers archive found nothing and a search at British newspapers Telegraph and Guardian found nothing aside from some BBC results. Frankly, as an alternative to deletion, I think redirecting to Imperial Tobacco would be good since it seems Lambert & Butler is best known for that. Any comments? SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why this article takes 1979 as a starting point when Lambert & Butler as a company dates back to 1834 when they were one the UK's earliest cigar manufacturers ([35]). The company had a 67 year history before merging with Imperial Tobacco in 1901. There's clearly scope for expansion here with sources such as [36], [37], [38]. A brand that had 17% of the cigarette market in the UK in 1999 with sales of £1.3billion in 2009 ([39]) is clearly worth including in an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources In addition to what Michig said, this is a stub that is barely changed from its creation in 2005: such an old article requires some careful research at the normal sources before a nomination. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above - Sources for 1800-1980s related articles are generally next to impossible to find which is why leniency is given on these, and plus This is one of the major cigarette brands in the UK, IMHO it simply needs expanding not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Stohr[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reasoning that 'sources could be out there', but there doesn't appear to be much. Stohr looks like a routine career minor leaguer. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Alex being Alex". "Sources could exist" but he won't search for them. I'm the page creator, because he was added to a 40-man roster. He fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N, though, as the sources to establish notability don't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for them. Alex (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before or after you removed the PROD on the grounds that 'sources could be out there'? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Smit[edit]

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

Hoax. The article and first reference, which is non-existent, was created by an IP that was subsequently "globally blocked". A second IP later added more fake stuff, but referenced the material with sources that do not actually mention anyone named "Smit".[40] A third IP later added ELs that do not mention anyone named "Smit".[41] I would recommend speedy delete but it's been around almost 10 years. Location (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if a hoax. Wow, nearly 10 years without being noticed. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 06:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Impressive longevity for a hoax. Has anyone checked the book references, or just the external links? I note that several are tagged 'Willem Smit' in the National Library of Australia's catalogue (although I wonder if it might be a bot that tagged them, based on Wikipedia articles).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenabella (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Helenabella: Yes, I did check all the sources provided prior to posting the Afd. This is what I found: Furgesen appears to be fake as I cannot find any author-book match, Isaacs (cannot search), Kelly (negative for "Smit"), Devlin (negative for "Smit"), Blum (negative for "Smit"), Helmstrom (no book match for the isbn provided by the IP), and Helmstrom (negative for "Smit"). - Location (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not add up and subject seems to fail BIO calcification for notability. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reeks of lingering Cold War propaganda. Pax 04:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mansfield[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan that lacks notability 3gg5amp1e (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best I'd say WP:TNT as there's nothing worth keeping here. Unsourced statements that he wrote for a few publications and was invited (?) to serve in a particular role. Nothing substantial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I googled around a little. Journalists usually have something of a profile. not this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 03:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1980s in science and technology[edit]

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

Only a list of years in science. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shouldn't this have just been WP:PRODed? KDS4444^Talk 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s in science and technology. The topic is valid and encyclopedic, the page needs expansion not deletion. -84user (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basically nothing links to this article except (some of) the other decade pages. (And List of years in science, which itself gets incoming links mostly from the year articles.) Wouldn't this be better handled as a navbox? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies per WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid for Wikipedia articles. This makes it easier for Wikipedia's readers to find content they're looking for. Furthermore, the list is expandable, and a valid rationale for deletion has not been presented in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per precedent of the survival of the 1970s category, which was a "Snow keep". We commonly have such list articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic, just needs expansion. Dimadick (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irini Pappas[edit]

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

Delete: nowhere near the threshold of notability for an actor. Quis separabit? 01:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one hit on Google news and another in Google newspapers, neither of which is more than a WP:TRIVIAL mention. No in-depth coverage anywhere I could find. KDS4444^Talk 01:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - I can't find anything on her, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has had small parts in a number of notable programmes, but that doesn't appear to have translated into substantial coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Hefferlin[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, apparently meets none of the criteria of WP:NACADEMICS. Highest Google Scholar cites are 27. He has however written a lot, which taken en masse might help him to qualify. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 April 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) 00:15, 16 April 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 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The citation record isn't very convincing. But we can point to one significant concept that he was known as a pioneer of — Periodic systems of small molecules — and two obituaries in major national Adventist publications [42] [43]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, many thanks to EricEnfermero, who added referenced information to the article. When I read that I almost came here to withdraw this. However, I found that the mention in the Scientific American is a brief passage in a long article mostly on the periodic table proper. David Eppstein, may I ask if you are sure that periodic systems of small molecules is truly a significant concept (I'm not questioning its notability, btw)? Because the citation record of Hefferlin's articles on the topic seems to suggest quite otherwise, and to show that take-up has been minimal. Redirection of this page to Periodic systems of small molecules might also be an option here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't vote here because I wasn't sure of the significance, but I figured I would add it and let others judge that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the significance of the "periodic systems" concept is purely based on the obituaries, and not on any personal knowledge of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David Eppstein. I did a small amount of reading, including a look at our own article on periodic systems of small molecules (which has a mass of literature and not enough references). It seems that Hefferlin's scheme was by no means the first (which the Scientific American writer fails to mention), though it apparently was the first to use a Kronecker product to generate a multi-dimensional array. The article he published it in gets 20 hits on Scholar. Does that indicate a significant discovery? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been notified in three or four different ways (starting with your ping in this comment, and most recently with a request on my talk page) that you want a response, but although formatted with a question mark the question at the end of your comment looks more rhetorical than genuine. I stand by my earlier comments, and have nothing to add to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Third relist performed per a request on my talk page to allow more time for user response.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is not the subject's list of publications that makes him or her notable, it is the evidence of the discussion of that subject in secondary sources that supports a notability claim. In my search I found virtually no discussion of Mr. Hefferlin proper. His findings may be significant/ notable, and if so then they should be written up in their own article(s). But the man himself does not appear to have received the attention of sufficient independent reliable secondary sources to warrant a notability claim. An obituary alone does not fill the need, and is only WP:ROUTINE news. KDS4444^Talk 02:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yipster[edit]

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

Isn't this something that should be on wiktionary instead of here? Doesn't seem notable as an encyclopedia article. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. See WP:NEO. KDS4444^Talk 02:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - about as WP:DICDEF as it gets. No prejudice against recreation if content is added to make it encyclopedic and sources added to pass WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The source used is even a "neologisms database". Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous Wily D 09:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Padilla Maqueo[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan about a person that isn't neutral and doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of this article appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK with the article on the band to which this person belongs, not about the person himself. A search on Google news and newspapers turns up no in-depth sources when it turns up sources at all. Not enough content or attention to sustain a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 02:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mowlam Healthcare[edit]

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

Advertisement for "Ireland's largest nursing home chain" that is nothing but an unsourced orphan that gives locations and who the owner is and who is in charge and a link to the official website. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an advertising orphan. Bdbdd (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. Could have been speedied. --Dmol (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ϣere SpielChequers declined the speedy request. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no opinion as to whether we need an article on "Ireland's largest nursing home chain", but the article doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria as it isn't written in the sort of promotional tone that qualifies for ((G11)) Ϣere SpielChequers 09:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M2V-MX[edit]

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

Seems to be just a technical specification sheet like an advertisement that doesn't seem to be notable or special in any way. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. Unable to find any sources that talk about this motherboard at all. APerson (talk!) 00:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not seeing any reviews that could be used to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudnine Hospitals[edit]

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

Blatant advert concealed as an article. Anything that has that many awards or pseudo-awards ought to have some meat in it. This has no meat and poor references.

Here is my analysis of the references:

http://leaders.indiamart.com/kishore-kumar.html these Indiamart awards, are they notable? My view is that they are borderline at best.
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/11/05/Cloudnine_Announces_of_its_Team_of_Doctors_Having_the_Millio/ Press release. Fail
https://www.practo.com/bangalore/clinic/cloudnine-hospital-jayanagar-jayanagar-3-block some sort of directory listing. Fail
http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/cloudnine-to-start-five-hospitals-outside-karnataka-113040200555_1.html regurgitated Press release or PR piece. Fail
http://www.csia.com.au/awards-recognition/2014-award-winners Notable award? Borderline
http://awards.vccircle.com list of winners of another award. Borderline
http://forbesindia.com/article/special/11-startups-to-watch-in-2012/31622/1 could actually be a real reference!

Fiddle Faddle 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some unreferenced items have been removed, and some facts, hitherto unsourced, have been either added or sourced. The new sourcing gives me similar cause for concern:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-05/news/32055714_1_maternity-care-founders-speciality-hospital while having the appearance of reliability and independence, feels to be the outcome of a PR exercise. For me this is borderline
http://archive.financialexpress.com/news/matrix-partners-invests-rs-45-cr-in-cloud-nine/831230 has all the appearance of a press release generated piece, albeit from the investor, not the org in question. Even so that does not make it independent. Rather, since the investor is publicising their investment, it makes it a primary source. Fail
http://www.leaders.economictimes.com/winners-2012.php is just a list of winners. Is this award notable? If so then it is useful to the extent that it verifies the winning of the award, but it feels like just another industry junket. Correct me with pleasure. My current opinion is Fail
http://www.worldwideachievers.in/health-care-excellence-awards-2012.html same as the immediately preceding award. Fail
http://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2014/industry/india Who is FastCompany? Is this rating in any way notable? Unless proven to be notable itself, Fail

It's a good effort, but it provides an air of faux-notability, reminding me of WP:BOMBARD Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three new references have been added, all of which are papers by one of the principals and are thus not about the organisation nor are they independent of it nor are they significant coverage of it. I have left a message in general terms on the contributing editor's talk page. I will not itemise those references here since this seems now to be a movable feast. If references that pass WP:42 arrive I will change my mind, obviously, but I see a promotional editor on a poor roll with a load of wallpaper and a bucket of paste. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Cloudnine hospitals is a well known name in maternity hospitals. People in India actually need right information about the hospital where they go for treatment. Wikipedia is a best platform where we can add this notable hospital and give detail information.My suggestion is to improve this article rather than to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhyud (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 April 2015‎ copied here from the talk page. I have interpreted this as a !voye to keep the article. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What people need is not relevant to what Wikipedia will accept as an article. If it is well known then the referencing must verify this. This is what notability is all about. Make that happen and there is no problem with retaining the article. Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 21 April 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) 23:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add to List_of_hospitals_in_India If that is not sufficient, consider creating a list of maternity hospitals in India. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Gupta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, unreferenced BLP; subject fails WP:N _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 April 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, Davewild (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several users said in 2009 that the article could be improved but now it seems she hasn't gotten many roles. News found some relevant articles but nothing solid and Books found nothing. There's more weight on delete rather than keep. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Make in India. Definite consensus for Merge here and Made in India seems the stronger target for the merge. Davewild (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Defect Zero Effect[edit]

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

This should be ~~deleted and redirected~~ Merged ~~to Narendar Modi~~ with Make in India per Winner 42. The slogan does not seem to have enough coverage for its own article. per GNG Jbh (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Edited to support merge. Jbh ^Talk 20:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep A google search reveals several news articles on the subject from reliable sources. Including The Economic Times, The India Times (which was sourced in the article), The Hindustan Times, and Commodity Online. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Make in India, didn't realize that this existed. It definitely would be the proper place for this slogan though.

Comment - All of the news coverage simply note the slogan. So far I see no legislation or long term effect of encyclopedic note. As it stands this is appropriate for comment in a larger article but not for its own article. We do not document every political slogan. If it grows into a notable campaign an article might be appropriate. Right now it is WP:TOOSOON. Jbh (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narendar Modi for now. I think we can reexpand this back to an article once we have enough material for it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 20 April 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, Davewild (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Narendra Modi. There are passing mentions of the slogan here and there. However, not enough coverage to warrant an article of it's own. As stated above, it can be expanded if there are new developments in reference to it. At present, a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Make in India This is a slogan of that notable campaign. Coverage of this slogan is coverage of that campaign. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note that the present version is in fact substantially similar to the previously deleted version, though the English is improved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu sivaraman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one reference, and I am struggling to find anything else other than wikiclones. No indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:50, 16 April 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, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google Translate of the given reference indicates that it is local paper coverage of a school visit, not an evaluative discussion of the subject. While normal searches are not turning up anything, I would be wary that there could be sustainable sources in non-Latin language sets, were it not that the article itself seems lacking in claim of notability and there is an AfD decision to delete a previous version just over a month before this version was created. If someone is able to check whether this article is substantially identical to its predecessor, this could be a CSD G4; it certainly isn't demonstrably addressing previous notability concerns. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voluminous mass of ESL OR puffery that we couldn't keep even if the subject was notable. Pax 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Career Planning in Psychology[edit]

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

Is essentially a summary of the single study in the reference section; is not otherwise notable, and reads like an essay. Is WP:OR TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Pishcal — ♣ 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree/w above. Neutrality^talk 04:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hydride vapour phase epitaxy. Any subsequent mergers/redirects are an editorial decision. Sandstein 15:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy[edit]

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

I've declined the PROD on this as there's a comment on the talk page that I'm going to say is a challenge.

The original PROD rationale was: "A chemistry stub long tagged for notability that almost sounds like a dictionary term"

I've no comment on the article's notability. Ged UK 12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from internet search it seems "vapour phase epitaxy" is something real. See also Metalorganic vapour phase epitaxy. I fail to see how the article at hand meets any notability requirement. The article does not really describe what its subject is, either (you would not have a stub at elephant stating elephants are hunted for their meat without some definition first, like elephants are mammals from Africa and Asia); but I think it evades WP:A1. Tigraan (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This appears to be the same thing as hydride vapour phase epitaxy, with the term "hybrid" occasionally appearing as what looks like a backronym. Searching for the more common term, or just HVPE, makes clear that this is a widely used process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if I was convinced that last article (hydride vapour phase epitaxy) was worth keeping. Seems to me it is worth a mention on the Metalorganic vapour phase epitaxy page, at best. Tigraan (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOVPE and HVPE are not the same thing. This is waaaaaay out of my field, but I'm convinced on checking the usage of these terms that "hybrid" and "hydride" refer to an identical process. It's not clear what it's a hybrid of because it isn't; that's just a common (mis)analysis of the acronym HVPE. Along the lines of whether HPLC is "pressure" or "performance". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Merge Searches of scientific literature show that it's definitely a distinct technique, although what it's a hybrid of isn't made very clear. This is one of those pages that would need someone very familiar with the science to make any quality improvements. If such a person cannot be found I would suggest that it be merged into ether Chemical vapor deposition (where it is already mentioned) or possible Epitaxy. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hydride vapour phase epitaxy, to which it is an apparent synonym. Hydride vapour phase epitaxy gets over a thousand GScholar hits and the "hybrid" variant gets 36. Both are used to grow gallium nitride layers using HCl at high temps with nitrogen or ammonia carrier gases; they look like the same process to me. The hybrid variant is in the literature, however, and is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into epitaxy. The author of this article actually meant to write hydride vapor phase epitaxy, which also ought to be merged into epitaxy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep. Nakon 00:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Nick Jonas[edit]

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

List of mostly non-notable songs, where the recordings (albums) all have articles. No need for this stand-alone article, esp. since as a topic ("Songs recorded by this recording artist") there appears to be no notability whatsoever. So, it really fails NLIST, in spirit if not in letter, and it does not pass the GNG. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I am no longer supporting this candidate for deletion. I cannot, however, withdraw this nom because of Chase's delete vote. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 07:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This appears to be a bad faith nomination. The nominator's article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor, so he seems to be playing a "If I can't have mine, you can't have yours" game here. only (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And thanks for pointing Only. Not only this is a bad faith AfD, he did in a bad way too. Why didn't you notify me MaranoFan? When indeed I created this. Also, I had faith in you, but probably you will never learn... — Tom^(T2ME) 10:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment putting articles up for AFD in a way like this does seem to go against WP:POINT. As for the article itself here, I'm on the fence as to whether two solo studio albums is enough for a list. One solo album alone definitely wouldn't be, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has 2 solo albums and one with the Administration for which he bought the rights of the songs basically making his. Anyways, to be honest, I lost interest in this list. However, MaranoFan's behavior is childish and non-encyclopedic at all, whatever the status of this AfD will be. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination, as noted above by Only; disruptive in nature, and pointy, apparently one of several, and from an editor who never seems to learn. How much longer will the community allow this editor to exhaust our patience? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the bad faith, WP:POINT nomination. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are few, if any, reliable sources which discuss Jonas' entire body of recorded work in detail. We already have a discography article for Jonas. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I should close this as a clear bad-faith nomination, which, as part of an apparent pattern, is really blockable. As an editor, I agree with deletion. Where to turn? Where to turn? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK2 requires both a disruptive nomination and no !votes to delete. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, not NLIST, which is not applicable. It is a list of recordings by the artist, not a list of recordings of a specific artist released by a record label i.e. discography, It serves a totally different function. Whether there should be a "minimum size" for these lists may need to be debated and included in WP:NSONG, but until then, the reasons for delete noted above are not applicable. I shall copy myself into the two other similar nominations. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LISTN and per the fact we already have articles named "Songs recorded by X" which until today I wasn't aware of, Makes sense to Keep IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 13:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With no prejudice to a merge discussion being undertaken on the talk page. At this discussion there is no consensus between keeping or redirecting. Davewild (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List of mostly non-notable songs, where the recordings (albums) all have articles. No need for this stand-alone article, esp. since as a topic ("Songs recorded by this singer-songwriter") there appears to be no notability whatsoever. So, it really fails NLIST, in spirit if not in letter, and it does not pass the GNG. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 06:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I am no longer supporting this candidate for deletion, but I cannot withdraw this deletion because of Chase's and SNUGGUMS' redirect/delete votes. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 07:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This appears to be a bad faith nomination. The nominator's article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor, so he seems to be playing a "If I can't have mine, you can't have yours" game here. only (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drake Bell discography for now. Even though this AFD might have been made going against WP:POINT, this article is unreferenced and most don't have articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge, or redirect... but definitely don't keep it. Agreed with SNUGGUMS that despite the bad faith nomination there's no need for this article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 12:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination, as noted above by Only; disruptive in nature, and pointy, apparently one of several, and from an editor who never seems to learn. How much longer will the community allow this editor to exhaust our patience? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, not NLIST, which is not applicable. It is a list of recordings by the artist, not a list of recordings of a specific artist released by a record label i.e. discography, It serves a totally different function. Whether there should be a "minimum size" for these lists may need to be debated and included in WP:NSONG, but until then, the reasons for delete noted above are not applicable. I shall copy myself into the two other similar nominations. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Snuggums - Despite the perhaps pointy nomination - 2 out of 55 songs listed are notable and IMHO If you remove the non notables you're left with 2 songs which would be pointless, Seems better redirected IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 13:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LISTN and per the fact we already have articles named "Songs recorded by X" which until today I wasn't aware of, Makes sense to Keep IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, and the fact a lot more songs are linkable now, as he did many covers for Ready, Steady, Go! granted it is not his versions, but still. and I will get to adding sources when I can. His articles aren't exactly the most popular, and I've been focusing on his main, film, TV, songs, and albums. Just missed this one. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drake Bell discography, the clearly superior of the two articles. The list article would have to be trimmed by about two-thirds anyway to remove the songs not independently notable. Pax 05:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Britton[edit]

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

No independent notability. Only coverage in sources, is bands he's drummed for and even then he's only mentioned in passing Bosstopher (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:NMUSIC. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cited references do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dissident's point is heard, but the subject does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:CREATIVE, and the article is practically just a credits list. I'm also opting not to redirect per WP:ASTONISH -- just because he's mention in the infobox of another article that is totally not about him doesn't mean the title should point there. This title can be recreated and redirected to an appaopriate target by anybody who finds one. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't particularly strong consensus towards either outcome and I hesitated for a while between an NC, redirect or delete closure, and initially opted for what seemed the simplest (delete, with the option to redirect the title) -- however, after a request by the subject, I am changing my close for no consensus (thus restoring the article). Good points are raised in favor of keeping, deleting, or redirecting the article but no specific argument trumps any other. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Furniss[edit]

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

No non-trivial third-party coverage to indicate how the subject is notable. Having a lot of production credits does not satisfy WP:GNG whether it be film, video games, or music. Lots of people work on multiple creative projects. Most of them aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see why this is even up for debate, as Furniss is a well known sound designer from the 90s. It would be different if he worked on games without Wikipedia articles, but that isn't the case here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I've already said, being involved with a production does not in itself satisfy WP:BIO notability. Robin Harlan has a lot more credits as a foley artist, but as with Furniss, you won't find any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93, if no sources discuss him in detail, would you at least be able to show that he is "well known" by the guideline for creative professionals? czar ⨹ 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Finding reliable third party sources on any vgm related topic can be difficult, even for the way more known ones such as Uematsu and Sakuraba. By the way, does rule number 3 on the RS link seems to contradict what Ohnoitsjamie said above, or am I mis-reading? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There would have to be some way of signifying his impact on the field, then. The very idea of Wikipedia is to report the sources and if there are no sources, there is no article we will be able to write, so there has to be a really good reason or some immense notability for doing so. What is rule #3? Don't see any numbered at WP:RS. czar ⨹ 18:40, 17 April 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) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Subject only had passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search—no in-depth coverage. But please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. So for redirects, his best known games are Lemmings and Mortal Kombat, but both pages currently don't mention him. A redirect to Excitebike 64 or Fear Effect should suffice as a useful search term. czar ⨹ 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability indicated. The list of contributions is just a guy doing his job.--Rpclod (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against merging, please contact me if you would like the content retrieved. Nakon 00:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aural space[edit]

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

Another term that comes across as a dictionary term. (and besides this kind of is covered already in Comfort noise) Wgolf (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 April 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 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Rpclod (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Soundscape. The three sentences do not merit an article, but the phrase is a likely search term. Pax 05:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Graff[edit]

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

There does not appear to be major commentary on his work, and there is no statement that any of it is in the permanent collection of a major museum. Almost all the article is his own comment on his own work., reprinted in various places, or in publications such as "What's On", which is not a RS for art reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous objective and reputable sources used, such as Le Monde, The Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, Eyemazing and a museum website. User DGG seems to have commented selectively on one of the most obscure, yet nonetheless acceptable sources "What's On", and it is simply untrue that this source is a reprint of the artist's comment on his own work. There is one acceptable and published source written by the artist which has sometimes been cited alongside other authors to support statements. The article draws material from a variety of authors and a total of 24 sources. Graff's work was recently exhibited in the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art in Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A De Lacy (talk • contribs)

Comment - while the sourcing is terrible, there may be some evidence of notability for having had exhibited in major cities. Can we get an expert opinion here? Bearian (talk) 00:30, 21 April 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 03:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it a bit odd to say the sourcing is terrible. There are some bad sources, yes, but also some good ones. The only problem is none of the good ones are online so its a hard to tell if they amount to anything or are just brief mentions. Several of the sources are brochures published on the event on a gallery exhibition - these may be reliable for certain information, but don't really convey notability. Others, e.g. Contemporary Art, Arts Review, and Sanat Dünyamiz may be legitimate reviews that establish notability. If A De Lacy is willing to email me page scans of the sources, I would be happy to take a look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thaddeus B,

Thank you for your comment and the opportunity to provide further verification. I have included a link to scans of some source material below. You should find a total of 51 scans. To clarify, 9 of these are covers identifying the beginning of a publication and these covers do not include images of Graff's work. The large Eyemazing book published by Thames & Hudson is an image based publication intended to showcase collectible contemporary photography, hence the scan of the short biography near the end of the book. (Graff had a 6 page spread, but I have not included scans of the images.) I have not included any publications by galleries as I understand that these cannot establish notability. However, scans of extensive texts from gallery publications can also be provided if desired.

http://s284.photobucket.com/user/Ava__D/library/?sort=6&evt=email_share_media&page=1

Below are links to Christie's and Phillip's auction results and a related web page, in order to establish the market value of the artists photographic work. These evidence that Graff's work has been collected and auctioned alongside images by Man Ray, Irving Penn, Norman Parkinson, Mapplethorpe, Louise Dahl-Wolfe, Bettina Rheims, Erwin Blumenfeld, Paolo Roversi, David Bailey and Phillip Halsman, among other prominent photographers.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/stephane-graff-constriction-iv-round-constriction-and-5421050-details.aspx

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/stephane-graff-corps-en-morceaux-i-and-5421052-details.aspx

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/stephane-graff-rear-constriction-i-and-constriction-5421051-details.aspx

http://www.vogue.it/en/people-are-talking-about/parties-events/2011/04/feminine-ideal-christies#ad-image78156

http://www.phillips.com/detail/STEPHANE-GRAFF/UK000110/178

http://www.artvalue.com/auctionresult--graff-stephane-1965-france-mongolian-contortionist-2731519.htm

Thanks again for taking the time to consider this article.

P.S.

An additional museum group exhibition "The London Twelve" was held here: http://www.czechtourism.com/c/prague-city-gallery/

I have uploaded scans of the exhibition catalogue to the photobucket album: http://s284.photobucket.com/user/Ava__D/library/?sort=6&evt=email_share_media&page=1

An online article about this museum show: http://www.kultura21.cz/vytvarne-umeni/4770-london-twelve — Preceding unsigned comment added by A De Lacy (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has received significant coverage in multiple print magazines and thus qualifies as notable under the general notability guidelines. Thanks, A De Lacy for the scans to confirm it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May I remove the deletion notice from the article? -A De Lacy — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion completes (scheduled for April 30), an uninvolved party will assess the consensus. Unless they decide to relist it (due to insufficient comments), they will remove the tag at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment the auction rrcords above are irrelevant. We're not a art sales price guide. Using them --even citing them--indicates the promotional intent. If there should be an article it should be started over by someone with a NPOV approach. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the auction results. I'm very new to Wikipedia and was unsure if they might support notability. Auction results indicate inclusion in collections, which I thought might be relevant. They are not referenced anywhere in the actual article, only in this discussion, so I do not think the article itself should be judged for this. I do not have promotional intent and am not at all commercially involved with the artist. -A De Lacy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searching on Google finds no independent coverage of the subject. Coverage that exists is either produced by the subject or by galleries, auction houses, etc that have a biased interest in promoting the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything reliable source is found by Google. As such, this is a poor argument to make, see WP:GHITS. See the scans of print publications that establish notability above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources found have convinced me that he is a notable photographer per WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosko (producer)[edit]

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

No source for his Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is an eLance ad for this article here, so obviously there are some paid editing issues with the article as well, and we may want to WP:SALT this article if it is deleted. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 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 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since this AfD isn't getting any love, no notable sources, paid editing/COI issues. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One peripheral reference, one reference that does not mention the subject and two deadlinks do not make reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Emerald Womeldorff[edit]

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

Promotionalism for a minor author who meets neither WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF He is not a member of the current faculty of the Mendoza school of Business but is rather an "Executive Development Trainer" at his own organization, which does not appear to be affiliated with Notre Dame, which does list him as a "coach" [44] in a blurb apparently written by himself. His principle book has only 54 holdings in WorldCat and is not from a regular business or academic publisher. Does not meet WP:GNG, as there are no reliable third party sources listed for notability. This has actually been here since 2011., written by a SPA, and looks smooth enough that I doubt it's really the only article in WP they have ever written. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His wife is notable, she served in the Oregon State Legislature. I don't see a problem with redirecting this article to Donna Zajonc if that article is created. Since notability is not inherited, I don't see it necessary to do more than mention his name and the couple's current business (the leadership center). Valfontis (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:25, 16 April 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 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author does not meet WP:GNG. A google news search revealed a single press release, no google scholar results. Pishcal — ♣ 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SELFPROMOTION. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Inother (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wallet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this to AfD per the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 23. This is a purely administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided by Cunard has established notability. Tone is now sufficiently neutral, this could have always been cleaned up. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and for the satisfaction of Spartaz who thought I was canvassed like the last time, I repeat, I was not; this was encountered on the daily AfD log) Once again I repeat my rationale from the last nom; no improvement from the first nom at all, and not really talking about the business more than impressive financial figures and company perks of no interest to the average reader. Also private company so no financials can be ascertained. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG in its current form. Stifle (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The earlier nomination complained about COI, but as this was posted as an Draft by the COI writer, that meets our guidelines. The article itself has been improved since this 3rd nomination to make notability more clear. I have never heard of the trade papers in the citations, but I have heard of the US District Attorney, so I added a link. The COI editor might be disappointed that the company is most notable for handing online gambling funds over to the US government. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and in fact many of them are press releases, and thus are not reliable. A google search shows that many of the articles on the subject are press releases sourced to the company itself. If you look, there's even a notice at the bottom of the marketwatch article making it clear: "The Marketwatch News Department was not involved in the creation of the content." Pishcal — ♣

I agree that all three of the sources you listed are press releases. But they are sources I did not add to the article (they were already there to verify uncontroversial facts), and I am not using those press releases to establish notability. I am instead using coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability.
Subject-specific notability guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) do not need to be considered when Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is met. Per Wikipedia:Notability (my bolding):
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
Cunard (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are indeed the company's own press releases, or appear to be. Having discarded those, there are probably 2 or 3 left that are relevant. Firstly is the online gambling settlement with the US Attorney. Second is the interview in the London magazine:[45] anyone know what the circulation, notability and reliability of LondonlovesBusiness is? [46] KCBS-TV is a SoCal regional TV station so that is also significant. It is really hard to find sources on this company, since its own web page[47] doesn't make any distinction between independent editorial (the only thing relevant to Wikipedia) and sponsored features (supplements like Raconteur and Media Planet) - but KCBS + the US District Attorney is probably enough to get them over the threshold of WP:CORP. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Adams, John (2013-11-21). "Allied Is Building Biometrics for Mobile Wallets". PaymentsSource. SourceMedia. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.
  The abstract at http://www.paymentssource.com/eletter/profile/3/18218.html^WebCite says:
  Allied Wallet is developing new payment technology that allows users to identify themselves by using an add-on fingerprint sensor, and also plans to build biometric acceptance for merchants.
  When the technology is deployed early next year, consumers will have the option to register their fingerprint as a way to verify transactions made via the Allied mobile app.
  "You verify the payment with your fingerprint and then choose the card you would like to use to pay the amount on the bill," says Andy Khawaja, CEO of Allied Wallet, which has 88 million users globally and is available in more than 250 countries and more than 50 currencies.
2. Sikimic, Simona (2013-04-19). "Meet the eccentric behind multi-billion-dollar e-commerce giant Allied Wallet". LondonlovesBusiness. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Bearing in mind his e-commerce company Allied Wallet is expecting to transact $55bn (£36bn) in 2013, you soon realise why the American takes his work so seriously – for Khawaja, every day is at least another million.
  Allied Wallet provides a secure online payment system (similar to PayPal), as well as peer-to-peer transfers and smartphone card payments.
  Thanks to the unstoppable onslaught of e-commerce, Khawaja says his company grew by a jaw-dropping 6,000% in 2012 (though he won’t be drawn on profit). The numbers are hard to verify, but aren’t outright impossible.
  http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/about-us/^WebCite notes:
  LondonlovesBusiness.com launched on 5 September 2011. It is the second title from Casis Media, co-founded by Graham Sherren (the mastermind behind Centaur Media and all of its great titles) and Mike Bokaie (founder of Caspian Media and creator of Real Business and Real Deals Magazines).
3. "Who Really Benefits From Job Perks?". CBS. 2015-01-05. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.
  The article notes:
  
  The Valley Village resident recently started working at Allied Wallet, an e-commerce services company ranked among Fortune Magazine’s “10 Great Workplaces For Millenials.”
  “A lot of the perks just surpass everything I could imagine: Friday lunches, weekly massages, a $50 stipend in the cafe downstairs. It’s really incredible,” Cosper said.
  ...
  But Allied Wallet’s management disagrees. They say the perks are just that – perks.
  Last year, Allied Wallet’s owner recognized Diab as Employee of the Year and surprised him with a brand-new Mercedes-Benz convertible.
  ...
  Allied Wallet plans to nearly double its Los Angeles staff in the development, marketing and tech areas within the next six months. The starting salary is around six figures.
4. Martindale, Nick (Summer 2014). "No pay, no gain: How Allied Wallet founder Andy Khawaja fought to build up his online payments empire". New Business. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.
  From http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/profile^WebCite:
  New Business provides independent advice and guidance to directors and owners of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the UK through this website, the quarterly publication New Business Magazine, and the free weekly e-newsletter.
  ...
  New Business magazine is a 68-page full colour magazine of the highest quality and provides in-depth reports and reviews on all key areas of business including finance, accounting, business planning, marketing and technology. It also features exclusive interviews with leading officials and entrepreneurs such as Sir Alan Sugar, Sir Rocco Forte, Duncan Bannatyne, Ivan Massow, Jacqueline Gold, Terence Conran, James Dyson, Mark Dixon, Charles Dunstone and others. We work with Government bodies, Regional Authorities and leading experts and associations including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Chartered Institute Of Marketing,the British Chamber of Commerce, and the UKTI. The magazine is also distributed to the British and City Libraries in London and also City libraries throughout the UK. A selection of articles from each issue is included in the magazine archive on the website.
5. "Payment processors forfeit $13.3 million to settle U.S. case". Casino Journal. 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2015-04-23 – via HighBeam Research. ((cite news)): |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Online payment processors Allied Wallet and Allied Systems and their owner, Ahmad Khawaja, have agreed to forfeit US$13.3 million to the U.S. Justice Department to resolve claims that the funds were involved in illegal gambling.
  The agreement was reached in federal court in Manhattan, according to news reports.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Allied Wallet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources, the company has 88 million customers in over 250 countries, processes over 50 currencies, and was projected to have transacted $55 billion (£36 billion) in 2013. Based on the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, it is clear the company is notable.
Cunard (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant reliable source coverage found by Cunard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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