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

The result was speedy keep. withdraw the afd pending rewriting. If it needs nominating again, it can be nominated again. This is why I do not delete singlehanded: group decisions work better in improving the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP[edit]

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The was listed by another editor for Speedy deletion, as G11, entirely promotional. Though I think it is highly promotional in effect, it is written in a relatively neutral tone. I think it should be deleted, but I would be more comfortable in deleting this after a group decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although you wouldn't know it from the article, this law firm is the renamed successor of the controversial securities plaintiff's firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Geller, previously led by William Lerach. [1] They're still prominent in the area--note the hundreds of hits in the Wall Street Journal [2] and New York Times [3]. On the other hand I appreciate DGG's concerns about the article. I'm reserving my !vote for the time being.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought I recognized some of the names.... I should have checked further. The obvious thing to do is a combined article. We usually use the most recent name in such cases, but if the earlier name is the better known, perhaps it should be used. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 16 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with re-write: I can see why it was nom'd. There is a promotional tone to it, but the firm itself does seem notable enough, especially with some of the coverage the bigger cases got. DGG, would you be open to putting the nom on hold while I take a crack at toning down the promotional aspects and maybe shortening the listings of big cases and award puffery? I'm not aiming to combine it with the Lerach article at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 19 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 consensus is that the subject of the article is not notable at this point as academic, and the discussion was whether he is notable according to WP:GNG. Although some sources have been found, I am afraid the consensus is that they are insufficient to create notability as described by WP:GNG. I have no problems with moving the article to the draft; if there is any interest in working on the draft please ask me or any other administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kodjo Adabra[edit]

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

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

The Google search "kodjo adabra" -"Jean Philippe Kodjo Adabra" (weeding out results for an actor identified by IMDB[4]) returns 61 hits, only one appearing to be independent of him. That article has one paragraph about him along with one about several other West Africa-born authors. The source cited in the article is the student newspaper at the school where he is an assistant professor. The books listed likewise haven't attracted any substantial coverage that I can find in independent sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Disclosing, I am the creator of this page, please also consider these results from google https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Kodjo+Adabra%22

Also you may consider his three published novels and his Doctoral Dissertation as notable works, he is a notable figure within African Literature, and should not be deleted just because my Wiki creating skills are still new (this is my first page, I am going as fast as I can, but I need to sleep now, thank you all for your critique, and my apologies for the sloppiness, I will continue soon)

The books have all been part of colloquiums and presentations at universities, and carry imortance regardless of the fact that no outside news source has written on them in mainstream media, they have attracted the attention of individuals and I will do my best to link internet references where possible.

Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is a place for information of value, and this author has fled from a terrifying regime and found refuge to continue his writing, and you want to tell me it is 'not significant'? he got hunted out of his home country for being a critic of his government. He may not be the only person speaking on these issues, but his story is certainly significant, and he is a person of significance.

JuThere is plenty of information from independent sources out there, and although it is not worth much I will point out that the Lamron is a student-run organization that operates independently (though of course it focuses on the news of the campus, naturally)I will add more when I wake up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Largo Plazo: interestingly, the same search you linked me here at "kodjo adabra" -"Jean Philippe Kodjo Adabra" [5] returns 1,510 results. For your information I am currently located in France and obviously have different results visible to me, as Google holds itself to international law. also notably, I may not be able to see some sources that are available to you in the U.S. or in other countries [6], and as a result, as I continue to expand this article through the help of Google from my location, anyone who can expand it from the U.S. may find success unique to mine, as I have no access to proxy servers located in the U.S.

Nolanpowers (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The typical Google results listing promises some large number of pages (I see 1,500 in this case), but once you start paging through you find that the list has ended prematurely with a note, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 65 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." Again in this case, I click the link to show the "omitted results", and that brings me up to 139. The results given appear generally to be in the nature of inclusion in listings of authors or academics, contact information, acknowledgments, program schedules, and notes from the institutions where he has studied or worked. Take a look, by the way, at WP:ROUTINE. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The results of your Google Scholar search include three works that are by him, one by a mentee of his, two people thanking him for his support, one program schedule, one blurb from his own university indicating his nomination to serve as a peer reviewer for a publication, and one possibly substantial mention in this paper, though I have no way to tell how substantial it is without registering to use the site. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "For your information I am currently located in France and obviously have different results visible to me, as Google holds itself to international law", no law prevents Google from displaying France-based results to a user in the United States. I run searches like this all the time, and routinely receive plenty of listings from countries all over the world. For comparison, search results for "mongo beti" include pages from Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Japan, Italy, and South Africa (that is, from top-level domains .ca, .uk, .fr, .de, .no, .jp, .it, and .za). —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentatively Weak Delete possibly Move to Draft namespace. I originally contested the A7 speedy deletion of the page (and I contend that being a political prisoner and published author is an assertion of importance). But upon further examination of the subject, I cannot find enough sources to justify the notability of the subject. I am slightly surprised at the lack of articles covering him outside of some student newspapers, but that is no excuse. I'm going to hold out as a weak delete in part because there might be some sources in french on the subject that we are over looking and in part because I feel bad for the new editor, who is having a rough first wikipedia experience. I think moving the articles to the draft namespace and having them go through the AfC process might be a possibility to see if more sources can be found over time. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Page author wants it moved to draft space, so I believe that is the best course of action. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'Move to draft namespace or delete (but preferably move to draft.) He is an assistant professor of French at a minor university, which is either WP:TOOSOON or simply not notable. I've tried searching for mentions of his novels in French, but I get webstores selling it, not secondary sources. The only secondary sources that do come up are university departmental web sites, a student newspaper, and a travel web site. It's not nothing, but it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• move to draft namespace or reluctant weak delete editor here, I contest that the Tennessee and Geneseo independently edited student newspapers are not notable secondary sources that add to the notability of this living biography page, my thanks to all for your patience on this first effort, I have not yet exhausted all research paths. I will have more difficulty than ever trying to find sources from Togo, I did not expect to need any of them, buy I think he made the newspapers on two occasions at least for his academic work that was considered intolerable activism in essence. Obviously I have a few things to consider, and I would only ask that if it must be deleted, may I be provided with a copy of the work in the creation for my own purposes until sufficient additional sources are in hand. Nolanpowers (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just out of praxis, mentioning that I translated this article here[7] into English (partially, and quickly, but with plans to return and smooth it over) and just today in going back, I not that in the French version, which already existed before I came along, and appears to be an established page, has interesting lack of notability to my (likely untrained) eye, why is this? is it because of association with it's author that gives it implied importance? I bring this up because in the English version that I created, emulating the French version through translation, was flagged as needing sources, so of course, I told myself, I will go and get them from the page that already is established in French, yet i was surprised to find the only source listed was an external link to the publication itself, the original source, and it's self description that provided the information for the wiki article. My apologies to the French article creators if me bringing this up gets this deleted, as I found the information useful, and I do not see why Wiki limits itself in regards to providing useful, encyclopedic style information on anything, even if the legitimate secondary sources are indicative of a rather small splash from his work so far, they remain significantly independent secondary sources, although it is true this sort of third world activism brought to the U.S. is common, and many academics usually stop their references at bigger names such as Jamaica Kincaid, to the people of Togo he has a unique role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason to move to draft space as there is no practical possibility of an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Creating editor here again, lookin at article Joseph-Paul Strebler and it's one source that is questionably independent; comparing this biographical article with Kodjo Adabra's here. In light of this established page, I believe the two editorially independent student organized newspapers that have published on Kodjo Adabra, one on multiple occasions, as created in the article establishes sufficient notability as required. Furthermore the influence of this persons primary source, original works, writings mostly, have had observable repercussions, as is mentioned in the secondary source articles on this person. Some of these primary sources, for example the essay from his alma mater University of Lomé that appeared a threat to powers, are available, but I have not yet recovered them. The one source listen on the example page of an apparently acceptable establishment of sources to meet wiki criteria for notability of a simple missionary and bishop,Joseph-Paul Strebler , has only the religious establishments record book online noting this persons positions held withing the church at various times[8]. Comparatively, it seems quite inconceivable that this page, Kodjo Adabra, be considered for deletion, at least to me, although if this is due to the fact that I am new and this is my second week of creating only on Wiki, then please specify where my focus has mislead me, or what my blind-spot is, please be specific. Thank you all for your patience. Nolanpowers (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think editorial independence is all there is to it. It's WP:ROUTINE for school papers to cover what's going on at the school. IMO that isn't indicative of any notability at large. Others may disagree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Creating editor here again. It is his authorship that makes him notable, and of course there is a lot that comes with that, as all of the articles note, and your rebuttle, @Largo Plazo: doesn't address the entirely independent article from the undoubtedly well-known and notable traveltowestafrica.com[9], the domain of a magazine that describes itself as a magazine on 'lifestyle, times and tourism in the West African Sub Region'. Therefore the article should be kept; while some input on this talk page has been successful in approaching a conclusion, instead of some of the very cold and/or bureaucratic bits of input I am getting ,( which seem confusing to me and I don't know if I am just being tested as a new creator like it is some rite of passage to have to fight for, or if there are just hidden points of discrimination by some editors) recognition of clear established notability. I am also curious as to why my comparison of this page with the other page, Joseph-Paul Strebler was not addressed, and if is this not the right place to address this, then where might I find someone more informed on wikipedia, with an understanding of the process of reaching a final determination in cases of disputed notability.Nolanpowers (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I keep trying to explain to you: people are not deemed notable in the sense that the word is used on Wikipedia just because they've written a book @Largoplazo:*Comment I do not mean to assert this, nor is it my asserted premise for notabilityNolanpowers (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC). They are deemed notable if they actually receive note as a result of it. I am really not trying to test you. You just appear determined not to digest the sincere explanations I've been giving you. Regarding the Strebler article, you ask a good question: should that article be deleted? Perhaps it should. His notability isn't clear from the article. There's only one source, and Google returns no information that appears to qualify him for WP:N. Feel free to go ahead and submit that article for deletion. I may do so after a little more analysis, if only because the article has been there for a while and I want to be sure I don't miss previous discussion that may shed light on why it's still there. (I thought I'd already pointed you to the article about the perils of comparing articles!) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the answer for you about Strebler: WP:CLERGY, notability criteria particularly applicable to clergy. "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Communion bishops are generally found to be notable." —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - my apologies, I do feel quite strongly that this is a notable article in accordance with Wiki's guidelines nonetheless. The notes about the Strebler article from WP:CLERGY do not justify notability in itself, as in the quote is says "usually" and Strebler does not appear to be a character of notability at all, yet you are willing to let that article stay based on this one criteria that is met (he's with the church), and a criteria that does not even establish notability, but as defined by wiki, just "usually" does so. I am not trying to delete the Strebler article, for me, this "usually" is good enough, and the fact that there is only 1 source listed on the entire page does not pose any problems to me here, nor has it posed anyone else any issue to raise that might lead to deletion. Thank you for , the perils of comparing articles, however, as a new creator, I find this is the easiest way to approach the problem, as the depths of 'how to create' in Wiki seems endless, and very little of it applies to this current effort of mine. I'm eternally grateful to all who have more experience than me and are joining in to make this a legitimate decision, however, I feel like I am learning more about how to find useless details that could render my observations of notability as defined by wiki. For example one of his articles was deleted based on copyright infringement, this despite the fact that I cited the reference that allows for use of this material within public domains (including wiki), so in light of this, before I just accuse everyone of racism or something equally worthless, I would like to plea to those more skilled and experience in Wiki than I to stop treating this like a trial where just because the article is a black man means it's guilty of no worthiness (I'm joking). The article has 3 independent sources (so far listed on the article, and with more coming, I promise, they do exist, but paper is less convenient that a website so please be patient) reporting on his works. I would kindly ask those of you who seem so determined to reject this article to actually read the sources first, you will see that they are not simply 'routine', and should not be written of as non-notable based on wiki's definition of 'routine articles'

WP:CLERGY says that for Wikipedia's purposes a person is deemed notable by virtue of being an bishop. It doesn't say to apply only the same guidelines as everyone else despite the fact that he's a bishop. Anyway, I already indicated that if not for that, the article would be eligible for deletion. So I don't know what you intended to get out of pressing it further. Your goal here was to understand why the article you created was different from this one, not to exercise your determination to have that article deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest, you lost me at "racism". I suggest you read WP:Assume good faith, fast, and not even think to throw out a suggestion of such a motivation on someone else's part with absolutely no basis. That you would even think to suggest that here without having ever looked to see whether I was treating your articles any differently from the way I've treated hundreds of others and without noticing the articles about Africans and people of African origin that I've helped along is despicable. I sincerely hope you don't think that's an acceptable way to get your way in life. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Largoplazo: you obviously did not read carefully enough ONCE AGAIN! my old friend! how your reading skills betray you ! at the end of the sentence, just for people who have similar difficulties in reading as you have displayed here, I will point out that at the end of that sentence in parenthesis, you will see the words "I'm joking"! believe it or not, in English, this phrase means the the things previously said were not actually serious, but rather said in good humour, with the intention of a laugh, to humans, laughter is enjoyable, I assume you will be happy to learn, and the idea that racism would be a real accusation after what has been said, is obviously absurd, ridiculous, laughable. However the article is about a black person, and I understand some people get nervous around racism (even as a terribly obvious joke) so I assume you will be happy to know that I am ready to forgive and forget. Nolanpowers (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For starters: Funeka Soldaat, Khayelitsha, Vulcan Society, ID Africa, Regions of Senegal. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every reference in the article so far but one is either from a school he was at , written by him, or presented by him. I maintain that if a person's note hasn't spread beyond his own campus, then he hasn't genuinely achieved note in the greater world. Before you accuse me of racism again for having said that, kindly check on the many, many other articles about which I've had similar discussions to see whether you think I am approaching this any differently from any other article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment for @Largoplazo: the schools did not write the articles,and just to make extra double triple sure you get it, i was joking... I don't actually accuse you of racism... please read more carefully, your sloppy reading is causing a strain on our relationship, as you have repeatedly implicitly accused me of things, and as a person (with emotions) I am finding it very difficult to bear you as a sufferance. Nolanpowers (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I read plenty carefully, including the part where you then said you were joking. But I assumed enough good faith in you that if accusing me earnestly of racism was the farthest thing from your mind, then you would have the sense to know it isn't something one should even joke about. Sorry, but that sort of "joke" is bound to backfire.

• final point, if he were a clergyman, making his article notable, as we seem to all agree, the other points of note regarding his biography, as sourced, are worth noting in such an article. These sources have been acknowledged as independent on at least 3 separate occasions so far. As the creating editor, I am hoping for good faith of the community while I continue gathering further, less accessible, secondary sources, to augment the notability, in accordance with Wikipedia's purpose. Thank you all for contributing, it has been I believe roughly a week, and as a new user, I am looking forward to learning how this might proceed. Also I apologize profusely for what I imagine must be an abomination of format to more experienced users than I. Thank you. Nolanpowers (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops @Winner 42: sorry about that! Mea culpa. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, else move to draft or user space: The subject appears to just about meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC thanks to coverage in two (editorially independent) campus newspapers, The Daily Beacon [10] and The Lamron [11][12]. If they're not sufficiently substantial, Nolanpowers believes there are further sources they can find to establish notability, and I see no reason to deny them the chance. —me_and 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since his books are written in French I tried locating him in French literary magazines, but I don't know enough about them to have success. I also tried Le Monde, but that may have been silly on my part. I got the ISBN for his book "L'Exile" (ISBN 978-2351700228) and it is for sale at amazon.fr and FNAC. However, that's all I could find. Someone with better knowledge of French book review sources might have better luck. Also, his editor is listed as "Syracuse" but I can't find a French publishing house by that name, so I may be looking in the wrong place. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is a current tally of the !votes so consensus can be better reached Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom - Largoplazo
• Keep - Nolanpowers
• Move to draft namespace or delete - E.M.Gregory
• Move to draft namespace - Winner 42
• Keep - DGG
• Weak keep, else move to draft or user space - Me_and

• Other than DGG's revised !vote, below, there is a clear consensus that the article isn't suitable for article space, even if that goes only so far as moving it to draft or user space. That's fine with me as well. It isn't as though it's promotional or about a person of no consequence or an inadequately sourced BLP so that it must be eradicated from this site. I agree that the man is noteworthy; as soon as there's evidence of his having received substantial note outside of his immediate academic sphere, it will be fitting to have an article about him in the main article space. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm changing to keep on the basis of his editorship of Peuples noirs peuples africains. I didn;'t spot that initially; the frWP article has been here from 2008, and I'll defer to it. I also see that the periodical is in 62 worldcat libraries. Considering the very low holdings of even good US academic libraries on Francophone Africa, that's substantial. I continue to think there's no point moving to draft unless there's the prospect of more information, but I don't see how I can really object to that as a compromise. This leaves no one but the nom wanting to delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a particular notability guideline you're going by when you cite this editorship as the basis for your revised !vote? Note that French Wikipedia may have different guidelines from English Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is uniform in it's guidelines, it exists as one concept and one community, many members have an active presence in multiple languages, and they hold to a uniform community standard of WP across the inevitable differences that come with having different languages. Nolanpowers (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I admire the confident manner in which you stated this, but it's incorrect. This becomes obvious when you look at the guidelines across Wikipedias and see that each project's guidelines are discussed and updated independently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I was flagged to revisit this AFD) Curious about that policy. WP:ACADEMIC certainly specifies: "head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area" Is this an academic or a political journal? (fuzzy border, but still...) Was he head editor? AND, is this a policy that applies to editors of major political journals? (an issue in current AFD on Eamon Delaney).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. On that basis I'd have to say that would alter my stance—if he is indeed the editor of Peuples noirs, peuples africains and if that is indeed a major journal in its field. However, I don't see where User:DGG got the idea that Adabra is or has been the editor of that journal. He has contributed to it, according to the article this discussion is about. But there isn't a single article on French Wikipedia, to which DGG referred, that mentions both that journal and Adabra; the only article there that mentions Adabra is fr:Liste d'écrivains africains par pays. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain' I'm not sure where I got the editorship from either, looking back. Sorry for being indecisive. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've written to Kodjo, as he is a former professor of mine, and his literature and his person inspired me to create this originally, I do not believe he held an editing role for PNPA, however it is possible I am mistaken and I will follow up with any additional infos that are available. I'm certain that PNPA is highly regarded and very well known in the academic world, although it's subject is closely involved with politics, it is, to the francophone world, and outside as well, a very important publication of historic note, as the WP article in French displays.Nolanpowers (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Time to close this as delete, for the reasons I stated above in my iVote. Although I, User:Largoplazo, User:DGG, and - to his credit - the article's creator User:Nolanpowers have made extensive searches in French and English, no one has turned up sources to support keeping under WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROFESSOR or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What kind of community consensus where only 1, the nom, your, Largoplazo, is the only vote that remains calling just for deletion? Have you even read the other contributions to this AfD page? how about my comments on your talk page? how about the multiple calls for keep, and the fact that WP:GNG is met or WP:PEOPLE , through what right does your ignorance whether by intent or mistake give you any say to declare this a 'consensus'? Criteria have been met that define this article as meeting WP article standards. All you appear to be doing is clogging the AfD page with spams that ignore the establishment provided. You are literally the only one out of 6 votes that calls for outright delete, and you are the nominator! that is outrageous! The matter should be resolved by DGG's revised vote, as he explicitly states, in his reason for voting outright keep, the article meets criteria. You can't just go around deleting articles for no reason at all, and certainly not to get some sense of personal sense of closure for yourself! Are you an admin or what sort of power do you have that allows you to think you can behave so abusively for reasons that remain unexplained. You say you explained it in your iVote but your iVote did not explain anything that would justify deletion and additionally, your rather off topic comments/concerns about the article have been responded to, although you seem to have ignored these responses. Nolanpowers (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote tally and starting motioning towards conclusion @Largo_Plazo. The final bullet point that seems mostly to do with where within the thoroughly defined WP:CLASSES the AfD is, and as the creator, my thoughts on the subject won't be mentioned as they shouldn't have weight (mentioned in WP:CLASSES. As far as your assertion on consensus, we can be certain at least their is not unanimity, between two keeps, both revised; my own as the creator, and DGG, who has my thanks for his skillful observation as he notes to us in why he changed his !vote, as for the others who have contributed a !vote, excluding nom, the consensus leans toward move to draft, roughly weighing the 3 votes that remain we can see they all include 'move to draft' and two users have also included 'weak keep' in preference and 'or delete' as editors with mind open to find multiple potential decisions harmonious, or in their accord, the respect user in their written !vote contributions. My sincere thanks again to all thought and care to all here.Nolanpowers (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... how about the multiple calls for keep?" The only unreserved call for Keep seems to be yours (and I'm ignoring your attempts to make it look like there were three more of them). There's also a weak one. "... the fact that WP:GNG is met ..." You feel that way, but I've explained why I disagree. I don't feel I'm being unreasonable in my skepticism that someone whose coverage has thus far been restricted to his own institutions meets WP:GNG. It isn't a "fact" that WP:GNG has been met. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that USER:DGG has voted delete. And that User:Nolanpowers is a new WP:SPA who rapidly created this article and also articles (speedily deleted) on Adabra's novels. Even so, the core problem remains that no one has found reliable sources, coverage in undergraduate newspaper is not sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that USER:DGG has voted keep, his !vote was slashed out for reasons that I can't figure out but he even explains why he changed his iVote to keep, from his original vote, which was delete, but he admitted it was for hasty reasons that overlooked qualities of the person that qualify him to WP standards, you can see his reasoning above. Additionally, the fact that there are multiple student run journals, and they are both editorially independent, is by WP definition a legitimate secondary source, and the articles all have this man as the focus of the article, these journals should not be discriminated against simply because the editors are students who do this for free and not to make a living or whatever other reason you might seek out in your fight to discount the fact they are legitimate secondary sources. Also you are ignoring the secondary source that is entirely independent, granted it is only a simple travel magazine on it's website form, but all things considered, one must admit this HAS SIGNIFICANCE in it's publication on Adabra, and it is a qualifying secondary source. You have also entirely excluded DGG's reasoning as to why he changed his vote, which can be found above, and I know the page is a mess and that certainly in part may be caused by my newish-ness here but simply put, the aggressive deletion of any new page has not allowed the time for me to defend all of the articles I have put up. I should also point out that under the current secondary sources and the keep votes from me_and, DGG, and myself the one who opened the article, there is no justification for deleting this article, and while one of those votes is my own, that does remain a total of 3 that give a 'keep' or 'weak keep' as part of their vote. Nolanpowers (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG struck out his own "keep" with this edit after I pointed out that the basis he'd given for it was a misimpression. When you talk about how I'm excluding the reason DGG had given for changing his vote to "keep", you're overlooking his subsequent acknowledgement that his reason was the misimpression that I had pointed it out to be and that he had then changed his mind.

I didn't say anything about "discriminating against" the student papers on the grounds that the editors are students who do it for free, so that's a strawman argument on your part. You can talk about their "editorial independence" as much as you want, and if you want to consider that sufficient, that's fine, you've had your "keep" !vote. And I'll keep noting that the "editorially independent" media that have shown interest in his story nevertheless just somehow seem to be restricted to Adabra's immediate academic sphere. I consider that significant in determining real "independence", so, therefore, I have cast my "delete" !vote.

Yes, there is the Authors: Made in West Africa article. That's one source from outside his own immediate institutional sphere. A few more like that and there would be no argument for denying his notability.

By the way, see WP:!VOTE, because I don't think you've picked up on the reason for the exclamation points, which are used in boolean logic to represent "not". They aren't really conventional votes, because it isn't strictly majority rule. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove article and userfy or move to draft so article creator can keep trying, if he or she wishes. Quis separabit? 11:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I changed my vote above from "Move to draft namespace or delete, to a simple delete. Reason is that Nom was so insistent that I went back and searched again. Searched for his work in French. Looked as tthe sources. There simply is no claim to notability. If this person's work becomes notable, an article can be started at that time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If some of the most thorough searchers (DGG/E.M.Gregory) cannot find sources to show it's notable, then it definitely isn't. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. No point going to userspace, as it seems they'll never be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changing back to delete, some of the best editors have been unable to find anything to pass notability guidelines, so it likely will never pass them unless the subject receives significant coverage in the future. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are the sources in the article:
  1. Greer, Kate (19 September 2007). "A UT student's first published novel hit the shelves of French bookstores last week". The Daily Beacon. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  2. Rose-Gross, Joanna (7 March 2013). "Assistant professor of French Kodjo Adabra displays passion for education across cultures". The Lamron. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  3. Bixler, Emma (17 April 2015). "French professor publishes third novel". The Lamron. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  4. Abouet, Margurite. "Authors: Made in West Africa". Travel To West Africa. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  5. "Dr. Kodjo Adabra". Geneseo – The state university of New York. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  6. "Kodjo Adabra". Geneseo – The state university of New York. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  7. "Kodjo Adabra". Quest. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 22 September 2009. Retrieved 29 April 2015.

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two student newspapers provide detailed coverage of the subject, but they are affiliated with the subject because they are from people closely affiliated with his institution. This article from Travel To West Africa is an independent source that provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject but is not enough by itself to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  No prejudice to userfying and restoring if new sources surface in the future that establish notability.

  Cunard (talk) 03:26, 30 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 per CSD A7 and G11 - there were no credible claims of notability, and it was an ad for this business. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CodexWorld.com[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing WP:WEB either. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 16 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Layla[edit]

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

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

I don't see any particular indication of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO. As of now, our "sources" are a blog post and some cruft, which hardly count as the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" demanded by the relevant guidelines. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article about this Moldovan singer has more views than the article of the singer who represented Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 [13], so she must be quite notable. We should not hurry to delete the article. She also has her own page on http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/ab2ad6ec-0b33-4f99-854d-919a0a08287b 158.195.227.121 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As you can see from the End-Year_Chart_2009_(Romania) article, she produced a massive hit in Romania in 2009, which peaked at n.2 and was at n. 17 at the end of the year. --Paul Gascoigne (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep Charting on a national chart passes WP:MUSIC GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree: WP:NMUSIC is a guideline; it says right in the introduction that someone meeting the criteria "may be notable". Now, if we had "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician", that would make the subject notable, especially when combined with the charted song. But given that all we have are scraps of trivia, and that the single evidence for charting we have is this, the very essence of cruft — well, that's a pretty thin reed on which to hang a claim of notability. So thin, I would say, that it snaps under any sort of scrutiny. Given that no reliable sources have bothered to cover the subject in any sort of depth, there really isn't any reason for us to do so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is not completely true what Biruitorul is saying. The evidence for charting is given also by this article on a romanian newspaper and this on a moldovan newspaper. Also if you do some search on the internet you can see that this single has a good impact even in occidental europe like you can see on this award. --Paul Gascoigne (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing mention in a local newspaper, a blog post on the site of a tabloid, and a bit of cruft are hardly at the level of sourcing expected for a singer of encyclopedic caliber. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul, I guess that in your opinion only Mozart or Elvis are "of encyclopedic caliber". I doubt that DJ Layla is less notable than other DJs from Category:DJs. She is mentioned by many sources, including http://www.mtv.ro/video/interviu/interviu-cu-dj-layla-si-alissa-la-galeria-115.html, ProTV Chișinău ([14]) or bestmusic.ro (6th music site in Romania, with 45,000 unique visitors/week). 217.31.41.8 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking part in a softball "interview" on MTV is not an indication of notability; neither is routine coverage (about the subject's marriage, or a show, or other news items of passing interest). - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So here is another source that I hope is enough. An award for the most airplayed song on Radio România Actualităţi, which is one of the major radio in Romania. –Paul Gascoigne (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. That is not an independent source - it's on the site of the station that handed out the award - and the lack of substantive coverage ("multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician") continues to be an issue. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Changed from Comment, see below) The source for the chart positions (top40-charts.com) is listed at Wikipedia:Record charts#Websites to avoid. The prize awarded by the radio station as their most played song might pass WP:MUSBIO #11. At the Euro Dance Web award the song ended up at #7. To pass WP:MUSBIO #2, it would need a better source for End-Year Chart 2009 (Romania). The current source has a text about the chart and mentions the song (in last position), but no listing. Most of the info (like peak position) is not in the source. Kraxler (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is not that easy to find better sources on the internet for Romanian top charts. But anyway, here is another source which is already used widely on en.wikipedia as a source for Romanian Top 100. Here you can see that this song was actually on the romanian charts for quite a long number of weeks and peaked at number 2. Hope that now the page can be considered enciclopedic. (unlogged Paul Gascoigne) –82.41.253.166 (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is a blog, I deem it reliable. Under the circumstances (no official Romanian single chart anymore), this seems to be a true archive of the charts as published at the time when they were official. The musician passes WP:MUSBIO #2, notability has been established. It would be nice, though, to find and add some sources with more info about DJ Layla herself. Kraxler (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: She is notable, though article needs serious improvement, as do the articles of many other eastern European artists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:54, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranic dynasties and countries[edit]

List of Iranic dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely nonsensical article. The title is "Iranic dynasties and countries", whilst there is no such thing as "Iranic countries". Second, the article uses 0 references and uses Wikipedia redirecting links as sources. Thirdly, the title doesn't congruent with what the article states. The article includes all former empires and dynasties that were either of one of the Iranian peoples or adopted an "Iranian language". There's no such concept nor source that confirms the info/content in this article in the slightest, except maybe for some Pan-Iranist "sources". The concept of the article is an irredentist self-made OR theory, and therefore, does not belong on Wikipedia. LouisAragon (talk) 05:46, 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} 05:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep -- This is not patent nonsense. I am not wholly convinced of its merits, provided the criterion is that an Iranic language is spoken by a majority. However today they various Iranic langiuages are not necessarily mutually comprehensible, so that I am not sure that the whole thing has any sigificant coherence. I wonder if we are not looking at an aspiration from Iran to dominate the area where other Iranic languages are spoken. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' -- I agree with LouisAragon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per the rationale I already described above. Besides we already have an already about "Iranian countries and dynasties" which on top of what I wrote make this article again totally redundant and therefore it must be deleted. LouisAragon (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit; we even already have this article List of Iranian dynasties and countries, that has the exact same purpose as this one, except its already fully worked out and references. This article needs to be definetely deleted. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a synthesis of information (seemingly) culled from other Wikipedia articles (certainly not from any published secondary or tertiary sources) tied together by Iranian languages and an historic timeline. This seems to me an obscure, tangential variant of WP:OR. Time to delete. Tapered (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Described already two times why ;) - LouisAragon (talk) 17:38, 16 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. Various sources were pointed to which prove that the fire company exists; however, no one argued that those sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. If someone wants to try to construct a referenced article about this subject, I will userfy on request. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Fire Company[edit]

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

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

No references at all, mass de-PROD-ding –Be..anyone (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references, department has no website and am unable to find any sources. Very poor rational for keeping the article as is. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have gotten very confused with this one, having looked at it when the original PROD was removed. This potential official site is effectively dead; this sort-of official Facebook page is for #11 and shows this website, which I cannot make head nor tail of - it has either been hacked or they've got a truly awful webmaster. I can see loads of fluffy things of dubious merit, eg: this one, and some that do at least make me think that the whole thing is not in fact an elaborate hoax, eg: this one. Stories like this are more the sort of thing that I was expecting to find in volume, including in online versions of print media but, really, they are not many around. I'm wondering whether there is enough - eg here and here - to make a go of the thing or whether it really is a lost cause. My gut says the information must be out there somewhere, given the alleged age of the company and its public role. So, I am on the fence at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Sitush: yea I just see no reason to keep the page. Nothing on it is of any value. There are no sources. Nothing of any substance. If someone comes along later and remakes the page with real sources, awesome. But right now its got pages linking to it and it just has useless info on it. Doesn't seem like a good use. (IMHO) --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I've just done a search of JSTOR, Muse and various other paywalled academic resources. I didn't expect to find anything and, well, there was nothing. Epeefleche has basically come up with what I've found on Google, which is mostly listings in various types of directory and passing mentions in news stories when the CFC was in attendance at incidents, most of which seem to be run-of-the-mill work for a outfit of their type. I do not have access to newspapers.com - has anyone trawled that? What we're looking for is background stories that elaborate on the history, on the changes in equipment and senior personnel etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are a number of references to it, by various derivations of its name. See here, and here, and here. But I would delete all uncited material. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epeefleche: that would be all of it... :-p --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann -- that's true, as it stands now. Refs could be added, if this is kept, from the above links I've supplied. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:39, 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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Varma (actor)[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. He only played a minor role in Nandanavanam 120km perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. At best WP:TOOSOON. Not enough acting credits or experience to warrant own article. BenLinus1214^talk 00:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - Way too soon. Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 22 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park Survival Enhanced Edition[edit]

Jurassic Park Survival Enhanced Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article seems trivial. It lacks references and notability. A Google search mostly brings up links to forums where people have discussed it. I don't think any of its information would be of value to anyone who does not intend on playing the game. I also don't believe the information is really noteworthy enough to be mentioned at the List of Jurassic Park video games article. InGenuine (talk) 21:42, 15 May 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) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article topic, a Warcraft map, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since there is no reliable, secondary source confirmation of its existence. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Game map article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS refs. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214^talk 00:35, 22 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) 07:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pightley Manor[edit]

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

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

For similar reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westbury Nernewtes; a former manor that, according to the listed sources (this one in particular) no longer has any extant manorial property. No indications that this particular location or the associated manorial title is in any way notable. Drm310 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For exactly the same reasons as the other one, a title that doesn't have land is in no way notable, and fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it currently has land no bearing on its notability. We should be asking, was it ever notable, perhaps in its heyday? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. I understand your comments I hope we can resolve this problem, many thanks for all your input.Pightley (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC) — Pightley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete The reference provided by Drm310 shows that there was such a manor in 1066, but it was absorbed into neighboring manors many centuries ago. The only current usage seems to be that someone has purchased the title "Lord and Lady of Pightley Manor, Somerset".[15] IMO there is not enough information about the one-time manor to write an article or establish its notability, and the existence of the lordship/ladyship titles proves nothing at all. It appears to be of great interest to User:Pightley (see their userpage) but is of no interest to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There does appear to be a neighborhood in Somerset County known as "Pightley Somerset".[16][17] Maybe somebody could create an article about this placename if they feel so inclined, and it could mention the manor as a source of the name. However, I think this article needs to be blown up and any neighborhood article started afresh. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 22 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) 07:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edenfest[edit]

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

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

One-time event, which appears not to be notable. Notability tag has been there 6 years, feel like it's definitely time to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete event does not have to seem lasting significance or effect, fails WP:NEVENTS. BenLinus1214^talk 02:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I attended this event - it was a major event in my formative years. I would like to keep the Wikipedia entry. Why delete history anyway? 4johnny (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to be still casting a shadow. Local residents were "still shaking" 16 years later (Toronto Star, 8 August 2012) and it may have affected the prospects for any similar event in the area ever since (AUX.TV, 15 January 2015): Noyster (talk), 18:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with the last two entries. I think that there is enough coverage to indicate notability. Plus 55,000 attendees may vaguely remember the event although they may not tell their children.--Rpclod (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT as an event that has enduring historical significance: [18], [19] (scroll down), [20], [21]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per arguments in 2 votes above. Earflaps (talk) 00:44, 23 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). Consensus seemed clear after debate relisted. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Scholar Under Siege[edit]

A Scholar Under Siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable opera, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose The opera may or may not be notable, but the composer is, as principal chair in a major orchestra. We do not have an article on him; it seems a strange chocie to have written this article instead of the more obvious one. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment agree with this, an article for an opera makes no sense, maybe there should be one about the person instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The Bynum article was widely covered via AP. I added a few additional references. Arguably there are enough reliable sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak Keep. DGG, the Augusta Symphony Orchestra is not remotely a "major orchestra". It's an amateur/semi-professional "community orchestra". Being its principal keyboardist (at one time), does not make the composer notable. Indeed, the only aspect of him that is notable is this opera which, per Rpclod probably passes GNG. Having said that, despite the initial houha, it does not appear to have ever been performed again or professionally recorded. In any case, I think it would be a mistake to repurpose this article to a bio of its composer. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, You are of course right, I was thinking of Atlanta. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a/c Rpclod DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rpclod and Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 16 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkalp Energy[edit]

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

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

Promotional and non notable. Every one of the references is a press release, sometimes a declared press release. . "Your story" is essentially a PR site, and the others are no better. " to spread awareness about the energy deficit in Uttar Pradesh and raise support for sustainable rural electrification" is typical promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources just press releases, also promotional, per WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Received award covered in bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/bb/newsarchive/aizzQdEuK330.html), plus several other references where the organization in question is the primary subject of the text, and not mentioned in passing. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep. Not very confident in citations other than YourStory. However seems little bit notable. Mr RD 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The mention in Bloomberg is very trivial. No other sources establish notability in this obviously paid for article. YourStory is a known publisher of Paid News and cannot be used as a reliable source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - two press releases, two articles and one deadlink. Does not appear to be enough reliable sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• For now Delete The main source of articles reads like promotion as much or more than plain reporting or information. More from mainstream or, at least, disinterested sources would clinch the deal. This may be a case of "too soon," for an enterprise that may one day pass the WP:N test. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now until better sourcing can occur, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from one press release. This is a good cause but unfortunately there isn't sufficient coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 22 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City Bounty Hunters[edit]

Oklahoma City Bounty Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a notable football team per WP:ORG. The sources are WP:ROUTINE and I'm not seeing anything that would make it pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk  03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk  04:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk  04:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk  04:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with @Tavix. Doublefrog (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all references have an interest in the subject. No reliable sources given. This entity is not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 21:04, 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 Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dapo Ladimeji[edit]

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

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

No indication here or on Scholar or G-News of the sort of notability needed to have an article here, no coverage in independent sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There are references in Google News - Google scholar, and Jstor. There is coverage in BBC programs. 'Beware of Gates Bearing Gifts' has been influential in changing Microsoft policy - it provoked a Wall Street Journal investigation and expose of Microsoft tactics in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napata102 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention his work is referred to/cited in "Post Colonial Criticism (Longman Critical Readers)" by Professor Bart Moore-Gilbert (see his entry in wikipedia) et al.. a standard academic reference work in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napata102 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - forgot to sign (did not know how to!) Napata102 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the misunderstanding is time based. In 1999 major international organisations such as World Bank etc were all advocating that Africa did not need new ICT or internet. It was the article by Mr Ladimeji arguing that Africa needed new technologies and internet to survive that brought him to the attention of UN Agencies [22] . He was then invited to speak at UN agency conferences and to write position papers that in large part led to wholesale change of opinion by African governments and international agencies that internet and ICT were crucial to the survival of (poor) African countries. Today everyone knows this is true so it is difficult to imagine there was a time when the World Bank argued the opposite. For example donors were arguing in 1999: '‘Penicillin before Pentium! In poor, resource challenged environments, priority must be given to food and health needs, ICT is an inappropriate, unaffordable luxury." (http://www.open.ac.uk/deep/Public/web/publications/pdfs/JLeach2005-DSAAC.pdf) He had a tough job to change opinion at such major institutions and that is why he was invited to UN Conferences. His campaign was so successful people no longer remember that once they thought it was a good idea to prevent poor countries from getting new ICT or internet access. Napata102 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary-soured spammy WP:ADMASQ. Wikipedia is not Linked-In. Pax 05:00, 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 (Non-Admin Closure) (WP:NPASR). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid[edit]

Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks promotional and with this name you cannot find more than 6 results outside en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - The four RS in the article plus this one^[1] which I found without much trouble, seems to meet the Notability requirement, particularly considering he is a Nigerian cleric without much international footprint. All of the articles are independent and even talk about different events/subjects. There is no question he is notable in Nigeria per WP:GNG. . For instance he was part of a panel on women and violence free elections in Nigeria ^[2] Transcripts of his comments there and at Islamic Movement (Nigeria) might be useful to expand the article if someone can get them. This is from about five minutes of searching.

Struck 'Speedy'. Nothing speedy about this one. Jbh^Talk 21:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Chief imam of an apparently major mosque in Nigeria's capital - while this in itself does not guarantee notability, it still somewhat suggests that an apparent lack of sources may be a problem of WP:BIAS. In this case, I rather wonder whether the nominator only looked for sources using the full article title - which would have been problematic in at least two ways here, firstly because "Sheikh" is an honorific rather than part of the subject's name and is frequently either replace by another honorific ("Imam", for instance) or omitted altogether, and secondly because Muhammed is such a common name in many Muslim societies that it is often omitted when referring to a person. In this case, it also turns out that a number of sources refer to him as Nuru Khalid rather than Nura Khalid - these [23] [24] [25], for instance. Reliable sources are not quite as plentiful as I would like, but this often seems to be the case even with major Muslim religious figures, at least outside Europe and North America. PWilkinson (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The editors above have struggled to find sources, but they appear to be unsuitable passing mentions. Pax 21:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that the Nigeria Express/Nigeria Observer articles have gone offline. They were up when I reviewed the article. Unemployment, major cause of insecurity in Nigeria - Cleric, Muslim Cleric Urges Peaceful Co-Existence In Nigeria, and "Anti Gay Legislation: Cleric Commends Jonathan are all specifically about the subject of the article while the other five have comments or passing mentions. Again, this is quite a bit of coverage in international press for a Nigerian cleric. That his opinion is considered worth noting on many subjects, ranging from Gay Rights to Terrorism to Election Reform piques my interest as an editor. When that is combined with how scarce coverage is in Nigeria and the more in depth local coverage (which may not be available online now, but there is no requirement for that) there is a strong indication he is notable in Nigeria which is, after all, all that is required in GNG and in light of BIAS. Jbh (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the two refs at your above keep vote, you had entered a double "http" at the beginning of the URLs, I have fixed it, the articles are accessable now. Kraxler (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article currently includes sources which are passing mentions of this person in other contexts. Without establishing WP:BIO or WP:GNG the article fails WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 13 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Imeretinsky[edit]

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

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

Certainly fails on NRV and GNG. Insufficient references exist to assert this article's notability. I can only find a single independent reference to Imeretinsky on GoogleBooks refering to her as a hotelier. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Princess royal by blood of the former-Kingdom of Imereti. Article can be expanded in the future. Thus keep. Jaqeli 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems extremely unlikely this article will ever be expanded in the future, it has been tagged for almost two years and seen virtually no additional content added since. Do you have an ISBN for the solitary reference? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the ISBN. More sources can be added. @Kober: any thoughts? Jaqeli 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't think that the article is salvageable. Being a scion of the defunct royal house does not itself make the person notable if she is otherwise unknown. So, I would suggest merging the article with Wei Wu Wei. --Kober^Talk 12:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gets zero in news and newspaper searches, and in books I can find one mention in a 1955 travel guide. [26] One possibility is that she is given a different name in some sources, but for that I wouldn't know where to begin. LaMona (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because it does not get many results in the net in English does not mean it is not important. She is of royal origin and article can be expanded as there are sources in Georgian. Jaqeli 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqeli, you need to present those sources here for us to see. And if there are no sources in English, but many in Georgian, then perhaps the best place for this article is in a different Wikipedia. Although the rules don't say that the sources have to be in English, a total lack of English sources strikes me as problematic. LaMona (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article does not suggest that WP:ANYBIO criteria are met. "Royalty" does not appear to receive any special dispensation.--Rpclod (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Ideally Jaqeli can post these additional sources if possible. I'm not convinced that the subject is either notable or non-notable, the article makes claims of notability which sound plausible, but need additional sourcing support. That its been tagged for 2 years is of no moment, there are articles which have been tagged for 10 years which are no doubt notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable stub article for low-ranking purported royal. Quis separabit? 12:39, 27 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) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr Wright[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and guidelines for WP:BIO articles per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - A look reveals that a president gave her a pen used to sign an important act. This is not inherited, but actually the subject of the article being part of a huge event. It also shows that Wright is discussed in 3 diverse publications, using these publications as sources, the article can easily be expanded. So yeah. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Classic case of Inherited notability. Surely we don't need articles for employees of politicians? AusLondonder (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   22:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. She worked for a president, but she was not a Crook. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she's mentioned several times in Robert Caro's multi-volume biographies of LBJ as the muse for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1964, and 1965. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep LBJ used to tell her story to try to convince white senators to support civil rights legislation. I found plenty of sources in Google Books. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there is just enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adequate third party coverage to make her a notable figure. Inspirational as well. LBJ clearly influenced by her experiences. Also, a great example of how difficult it can be for people who are women or minorities to get the outside coverage needed. Mention in Caro books is significant. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is clearly a notable figure in African-American history and the article is sourced. It does need expansion, but this is not unusual for new articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:57, 18 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 Haverhill, Massachusetts. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haverhill Police Department (Massachusetts)[edit]

Haverhill Police Department (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable police department in a small city. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep. Preposterous nomination. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin due to the very large number of detailed sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion: it is actually a large city with population 61,000+) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. No news stories and every other mention is trivial. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not notable in itself, probably good for about 2-3 lines in the Haverhill, Massachusetts article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The fifty or so sources in GBooks alone are capable of supporting a lot more than two or three lines. I don't think that an encyclopedia should strive to be as simplistic and superficial as possible. It is simply not true that there are no news stories. There are five pages of listings of news stories in GNews, amounting to about fifty news articles. The sources are not all trivial mentions, which means something like an entry in a phonebook, not a large chunk of text in a history book or a law report (they seem to have been involved in a significant case concerning disclosure of information). The municipal ordinances alone will satisfy LGNC. James500 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts or delete.--Rpclod (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence subjects meets GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not a valid argument against redirection/merger. James500 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what? The article one sentence. What is there to merge and why is it useful to redirect if the article will only have one sentence on it? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) One sentence is more enough to justify a redirect. Mere mention is sufficient justification. (2) We can write a lot more than one sentence, since the article is already more than one sentence (we cannot ignore the information in the infobox) and since there are other sources unused in the present article. (3) By the rubric of the guideline WP:R, we only delete plausible redirects if they are clearly positively harmful, and this meets non of the criteria for deletion of redirects. Deleting any plausible redirect is normally incredibly harmful for the reasons outlined at great length in that guideline (including aiding searches, facilitating accidental linking, avoiding redlinks, avoiding duplicate articles, preserving history). James500 (talk) 11:57, 20 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 Dracut, Massachusetts. There is a clear consensus here that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but no agreement on deletion or redirecting so am defaulting to redirect. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dracut Police Department[edit]

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

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

A police department in a small city is not something that is notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. No valid rationale for deletion. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. No references on the article at all and I couldn't find any either to support keeping it. Elgatodegato (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dracut, Massachusetts or delete.--Rpclod (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dracut, Massachusetts - CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence subjects meets GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not a valid argument against redirection/merger. James500 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what? The article is an unreferenced stub. There is nothing worth merging. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Content is required to be verifiable, not referenced. This article is too long to be a stub. Strictly speaking, it does have a reference, the department's website, which, IIRC, can be used as a source under ABOUTSELF. James500 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing on department's website that verifies other than the most basic content (i.e. address), therefore the content is neither referenced or verifiable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I seriously doubt a redirect is even needed - people would type in the search for the town to find out info about its police department and I can't even think of any reason someone would go to Wikipedia for info on this department.... if they wanted their phone number or address, they would go directly to the website. Clearly fails WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are other reasons for redirects including facilitating accidental linking, avoiding redlinks, avoiding duplicate articles, preserving page history, avoiding violations of WP:CWW, and so on and so forth. By the rubric of the guideline WP:R, we only delete plausible redirects if they are clearly positively harmful, and this meets non of the criteria for deletion of redirects. People who are interested in 'local history', or in how taxes are being spent, or in whether public services are being run in a satisfactory manner, all of which are matters of widespread interest, will expect to find information about the history etc of this department in Wikipedia and will come looking for it. Not everyone is the sort of anti-intellectual who would only be interested in contact details for reporting a crime. James500 (talk) 17:39, 21 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Danielson[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Minor bit part actress with no real claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion and respect for other individual opinions on here, "minor bit actress" would be someone such as an extra in a movie or television series, one time appearance in a background camera shot, etc. They're are several references confirming that this actress is a starring lead role actress in the movie "Muck" and she has been credited as a starring lead role actress in other movies as well. She is a lead actress in the movie "Snow" and it's sequels. I am requesting that the page be allowed to grow and not be deleted.--Groulsom (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep The page has a lot of good sources!--Wetmnt1 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Wetmnt1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note the previous two entries are made by SPA accounts who seem to have a strong interest in promoting the same small group of related articles. IMHO they are very obviously meatpuppets since both rose from dormancy at the same exact time. Ridernyc (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I reviewed this article and I feel the article seems to be in order. I can not fined any clear reason why the article should be deleted. --Scantunl (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps it's time to start a sockpuppet investigation. Ridernyc (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @ Ridernyc Have you read Wikipedia's civility policy? The term sockpuppet, meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care. It is clear from my edits and post on the original page that I have been improving this page long before you posted a delete notice on it. Before you call me a name will you provide the proof! I didn't just pop out of thin air like you have claimed. You may get this page deleted if you try hard enough but lets do it for the right reasons, so can you please explain in detail why you feel there's no notability. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• hysterical, yes I know policy please see WP:DUCK it's is blatantly obvious your actions and the actions of the others are linked. Ridernyc (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ridernyc could have handled things a little more discreetly and/or diplomatically, but it's not really against policy to voice concerns of sockpuppetry in an AfD. Basically what he's concerned about (the proof) is that you (Wetmnt1) and Groulsom have only edited Wikipedia on things concerning Danielson. Your account was the first that was created and you made the article, but you have no other edits to show that you are here to do anything other than edit about Danielson. Where the concern with sockpuppetry comes in is that Groulsom's account was created a few days after the article was proposed for deletion and they removed the tag. Since the two of you have only made edits concerning this one article, it's a reasonable assumption to suspect that you are either the same person or that you are people that have contact with one another off of Wikipedia that are editing the article. Now if you're sockpuppets (ie, one person) then that's a block straight out of the gate if a check shows that you are the same person (there are ways to check for this). However if you are different people then there may be a little wiggle room here. If you were both asked to come here and edit the article then all you have to do is state up front that the two of you knew each other off Wikipedia and/or were asked by someone (Danielson, her representative) to create the article. Now if you were asked to create the article (like if you were part of a PR or freelance job) then you will also need to state this up front. You can still edit if you have a conflict of interest, but you absolutely must be transparent about this. The same thing goes for if you are part of a group trying to edit a page. You can be blocked for meatpuppetry but this sort of block usually ends up getting made because the accounts were just there to stuff ballots rather than to try to get a concentrated effort to genuinely improve a page based on policy and learn to edit based on policy. In most cases a "meatpuppet" will not argue for a keep based on policy and will not try to learn these policies enough to try to genuinely improve the article. (IE, they'll try to twist policy around based on a small criteria despite several editors saying otherwise.) There's a lot more to it than this and this is already too long as it is, but basically at this point the best thing to do is to be transparent about everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What you need to here is show how Danielson's roles are notable. Minor parts are pretty much considered to be any role that is not a main character and has not received coverage in reliable sources. For example, if someone played a character that was not in a large portion of the film and is not mentioned in reviews for the movie (other than a routine listing of cast) then that will not show notability. Be careful about using news sources that were fairly heavily based on press releases since those tend to be greatly depreciated at AfD. Primary sources (things released by Danielson, a crew member, or anyone affiliated with her or the films she was in) will not give notability either. (WP:PRIMARY) You need sources that discuss Danielson in depth and reviews that will mention her performance. If she was a minor character (like a character that dies 20 minutes into the film) but gets a mention in a review then that would still help show notability. However be careful- if a film is not notable on Wikipedia then these roles probably won't do anything at all even if she was a main character. Basically just being in a film is not enough to show notability- you have to show that these appearances are notable with coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should be added here is this is just one of several articles I have discovered all related to Benetone Hillin Entertainment, all created by a small group of SPAs and the ones that fail the GNG all have similar things happening at AFD [27]. I think the this might be the tip of a much much larger iceberg. Ridernyc (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tokogirl79, Thank you for your input on here, it's very much appreciated. I understand his concern, but I am not affiliated with anyone on here or the actress. I am not involved in some large conspiracy network like Rydernyc has suggested. Thanks again for improving the article. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

may we ask what your inspiration to register and create this article was? Ridernyc (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. My media sweeps did not find much of what could be considered sources, although what I find interesting is the rather substantial pageviews counts (about a hundred a day), plus lots of image consistency (reasoning: when lots of images are of the same person, it is a sign that they're in the public eye) -- my unofficial tests of notability of course (which she passes), so I am somewhat on the fence. Wikipedia's tests of notability, well, I did not see much in terms of in-depth sources, independent, just mentions of her performances here and there. So the current article is mostly unsourced. So I am leaning to delete, could be persuaded if better sources are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - don't see much notability here. What am I missing? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Please see below. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability or of significant roles, does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I still don't see any reason for notability, and no changes to the article since April 25th. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - YouTube videos and unreliable sources do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:20, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus Buildings[edit]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listing without secondary sources; One or two are separately notable and have articles; a few should be and are included on the article for the campus, but such places as "Administration Drive Garage"do not belong even as content in any WP article. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator's response. This page supplements the University of Maryland, Baltimore County's main article with additional information about the campus. As a student at the university, I have taken up the opportunity to expand the university's wikipedia presence so that it follows the similar models of other local universities in the Baltimore and Washington, DC area.

  Please view similar models I used to create this article:

• University of Maryland, College Park Campus Buildings
• Towson University buildings and structures

  Seeing that these articles have remained uncriticized for potential deletion, I do not see the justification for deletion. Additionally, I would also like to state that this article is still under construction. I plan on expanding the sources for this page, as well as increasing the amount of information as it comes available. Scott218 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may be that those should also be deleted by the nominator's rationale, or it may be that those have different merit than this list. Either way, the nominator was not obligated to do anything about those articles in order to list this one for deletion.

    Can you locate any secondary sources that discuss these buildings, either individually or as a group? postdlf (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks, Scott218, for your work to build Wikipedia. The big problem with this at the moment, however, is that Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, reliable sources, and weighting aspects of a subject mean that Wikipedia only covers aspects of a subject according to the prominence given to those aspects in the body of secondary, independent sources about the subject. It's ok to link to school websites to verify things like addresses, construction dates, and other basic information but we need secondary sources to first establish that the buildings (or any subject) is the sort of content we want to include. It's a concept that can take some getting used to. If you'd like to talk more about this or ask questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - This is going to be a tough one to source effectively enough to justify a stand-alone article with the amount of content it has, I think. Considering the amount of work that went into this, maybe WP:USERFYing is a good way to go to preserve the work and give Scott218 or others longer than the duration of this AfD to work on it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a proper kind of list-article to have, a good investment to help to keep out unnecessary articles on each separate residence dormitory and each academic building. At AFD, we should try to avoid causing more AFDs, more often, by ourselves opening list-articles as substitutes. It is way better to nurture a list-article when some/many items are probably notable, some are marginal, some seem unworthy of separate articles. Avoid future fights about whether the campus center building is not notable, while the library is, etc. And why does Harvard University have its dormitories covered, but not my school, etc. Note here it is apparent that several of the buildings are individually notable, as evidenced by their having articles...their references should be considered to add to the one reference in this article already. Other single buildings may meet individual notability criteria, but can just be covered in this list-article, hopefully, with redirects to their entries.

I didn't check but I assume the creating editor is relatively new, as they didn't know how to "name" a reference and use it repeatedly, instead of duplicating. (I demonstrated how, just now, in the article.) The article should be developed to include some descriptions, so as to be able to substitute for separate articles. Start with adding brief descriptions/summaries for the buildings that have separate articles, and bringing in their references where appropriate. Assume good faith. I will watch and help some. This should NOT be userfied, as that is a dead waste which does not encourage other editors to develop. That would not allow readers to find their way to the article and stay to add material. Also calling for it to be userfied and developed is admitting already that the topic is acceptable. I think that wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is the relevant essay...a valid topic should not be deleted by AFD...tag the article for development, perhaps, but the article does not have to be developed during/before end of the AFD. So the article is okay as is; it is certainly a notable/acceptable as a topic for a list-article. See many more examples: List of Syracuse University buildings, List of Harvard College freshman dormitories, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories, many more, with many in Category:University and college dormitories in the United States or Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. Good start. Keep up the good work. Assume good faith. --doncram 18:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I tend to agree with DGG the nominating editor that "such places as 'Administration Drive Garage' do not belong", but that is a content comment that could be made at the Talk page of the article, is not reason for AFD. I see DGG often opening AFDs but not participating ever after that, which is a tad irksome...to the nom, it would be nice if you could please participate further and acknowledge some merit here or defend why the Keep arguments don't hold water in your view. --doncram!~

doncramI propose articles I think questionable for community discussion. I don't usually have a strong emotional or ideological commitment to removing them, and am quite content fort the community to decide. I think I have some skill at spotting those that may need discussion; I don't think I have any special insight into what should be kept or deleted. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Sometimes I deliberately nominate of the boundaries to try to get the community to think about the where the boundaries should be. Some people work differently--it is good to have multiple approaches. But if you ever think I've made enough of a misjudgment that I ought to withdraw than afd, ping me. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list article should have been tagged for clean-up rather than nominated for deletion. This is an example of wasting time and effort in an AFD process, when the effort could have been spent on fixing the article. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." I searched for sources about the subject here but did not find much about the topic. If sources can be found about "University of Maryland, Baltimore County, campus buildings", this should be kept as a stand-alone list. Otherwise, it probably should be merged to a parent article like University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Cunard (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (albeit selectively) to/with University of Maryland, Baltimore County as per @Cunard. Quis separabit? 12:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, largely on the basis I don't want to see this become a precedent for other self-sourced publicity about university campus real estate. This gives undue weight to the intricate detail of the university, which in any other situation would be removed. The key buildings can be (and generally are) described in the main article. Arguments such as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "it's got a lot of content" don't cut the mustard for me. Sionk (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sourced to a primary source, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. If you want to look at University buildings, there's an official website for that. Would support a very selective merge to- adding a couple of notable buildings to the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 30 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) 07:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Infranet[edit]

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

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

Τhe article fails WP:GNG in many ways: it has no significant coverage to be considered notable, references 3 & 4 are not reliable secondary sources as they are self-published material, reference 1 is obviously an advertisement (so collectively they are not independent of the subject) and source number 3 doesn't work. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the information in the article is correct - $100,000 in revenues and 50 employees - that would suggest very strongly a lack of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 22 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 soft delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Baltimore Neighborhoods[edit]

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

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

This article contains a list of "South Baltimore Neighborhoods" that are not located in Baltimore, stating that they are the "most suburban part of the Baltimore region". That statement is inaccurate and confusing, because the Southern District of Baltimore contains several high density urban neighborhoods. See South Baltimore, Baltimore and South Baltimore. Unless the article is significantly revised, and possibly renamed, it will not be verifiable. Folklore1 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, whereas the material may merit its own article, this new article will be written from scratch anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a forgotten OR project. A tagged stub sitting around for eight years. Should have been tossed ages ago. Pax 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, probably to List of Baltimore neighborhoods#South, hopefully to be done by a Baltimore-knowledgeable editor after checking whether any material can be saved/merged. Offhand I don't know if those apartment complexes should be named...perhaps they should. If closer is not knowledgeable about the particulars, then copy/paste the content to a Talk-page section of the target article, instead, asking for a local to address it. --doncram 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Folklore1 (the nom)'s point is that the areas described may go outside of city of Baltimore into surrounding Baltimore County area (n.b. the county does not include the city, which is independent), then that issue should be put to the good people who have developed the List of Baltimore neighborhoods article. Maybe that list-article's scope should be expanded to clearly cover neighborhoods outside the city, or ones that overlap. --doncram 18:38, 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 Redirect to List of minor planets: 30001–31000. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30785 Greeley[edit]

30785 Greeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 30001–31000. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). No papers with even a mention at google scholar. ― Padenton|✉   21:05, 17 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3541 Graham[edit]

3541 Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Mentioned in two group studies [28] [29] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:07, 17 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: 23001–24000. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23776 Gosset[edit]

23776 Gosset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 23001–24000. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not a single paper on google scholar. ― Padenton|✉   20:18, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1562 Gondolatsch[edit]

1562 Gondolatsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:35, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1823 Gliese[edit]

1823 Gliese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:49, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Gondola[edit]

1891 Gondola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉   21:55, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1599 Giomus[edit]

1599 Giomus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Two photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I don't think inclusion in two group studies [30] [31] is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:39, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1756 Giacobini[edit]

1756 Giacobini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:45, 17 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) 17:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bold[edit]

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

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

WP:BIO, WP:RESUME: Article reads like a resume, and the articles about two enterprises he's supposedly well known for are well on their way for deletion have been deleted. Sufficient independent, reliable coverage of the individual does not exist to sustain this Wikipedia article. Brianhe (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a free resume hosting service. Not finding anything particularly notable about this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject who wants to be promoted. No reliable references to establish this subject as notable. Reads like resume. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this resume. Most of the sources, i.e. MutualFundShow.com, are not third-party, in my opinion. — Wyliepedia 03:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too heavily sourced to websites that he is extremely linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:18, 21 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 under G5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Woolright[edit]

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

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

Page fails to meet the general notability for biographies of living persons. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OddballPetz[edit]

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

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

Completely non-notable video game mod. TKK! bark with me! 16:25, 15 May 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) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd redirect to the parent company but I can't even confirm the existence of this name. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 13:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Parent company is PF Magic --TKK! bark with me! 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but there aren't enough sources to justify even that. – czar 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Software article of unclear notability. I'm not sure if this is a fan-made expansion/mod or a hoax, but if it were an official product, there would at least be some incidental mention on the web connecting it to PF Magic.Dialectric (talk) 17:04, 19 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. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1358 Gaika[edit]

1358 Gaika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 1000-2000 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]