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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambronite[edit]

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

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

Reason FloCambs (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:PROMOTION: Appears to be product advertising at the moment, and can't find sources from reputable news sources, let alone substantial coverage.

• Delete for now as it seems it is still a small independent product. A News search finds several results in the first page from reputable and notable sources but they start to fade after the few pages. A browser search actually finds other sources such as this and this but I still think it's a little too soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – The topic passes WP:N with flying colors, and has received international news coverage. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. Rather, it provided an overview about the topic. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. ^[6], ^[7], ^[8]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Sources are reliable, mark for advert tag.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily passes GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:59, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Pilli Football Club[edit]

Lilli Pilli Football Club (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, non-notable football club JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local amateur club that plays in a lower level amateur league. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - low-level amateur club, no indication that the club has participated in a national competition, which is a generally considered benchmark for notability in football clubs. Fenix down (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with Fenix down, the team does not meet the criteria listed in the Wikiproject Football for clubs its only reference is not valid, it does not meet WP:GROUP or WP:GNG. It seems promotional and it lacks a neutral point of view.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G7. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KryptonicMafia[edit]

KryptonicMafia (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 verifiable evidence that this group exists, no less that it was responsible for (or even claimed responsibility for) the listed attacks. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:41, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Biggins[edit]

John Biggins (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 articles lacks sources to show notability, and I have been unable to find any. This is surprising, since it appears he had performed in a lot of shows. Perhaps someone more familiar with British media will do better? If not, the article should go. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outside of his IMDb page and a couple of sources that offer cursory mentions of his acting credits, there's really nothing to establish general notability. There are a lot of actors who have a ton of bit parts on stage and screen but aren't necessarily notable enough for Wikipedia. I think Biggins fits that bill. gargleafg (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Being familiar with British media won't be necessary, I think, as searches found nothing significant aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of any significant screen or stage rolls. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 11:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cartoon Network. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (EMEA)[edit]

Cartoon Network (EMEA) (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 that the EMEA version of Cartoon Network is notable as a separate entity from Cartoon Network itself, no sources, and no verifiable information. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect to Cartoon Network. It will be able to have its separate article once there are reliable sources to indicate notability. --TL22 (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough independent coverage to support separate article —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is closed as "delete", the closing admin will have to note a bunch of redirects to this page. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article, like a large number of international Cartoon Network articles, has been subject to extensive vandalism and nonsensical page moves, deletions, redirects and re-creations. It really is a rat's nest of destruction. It's not possible to give a fair assessment of the notability of the subject based on the article while it remains in its intentionally damaged state. Bonusballs (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Once upon a time there was a Cartoon Network (Europe) article that one day was modified to change the focus from Europe to the Middle East and Africa, without any discussion on the talk page, context, or references. (The article has been deleted, so I think only Admins will be able to access the diff.) I suppose there is some mention out there of Europe consolidating with Middle-East and Africa. Circa May 1, 2015, User Kosi Onochie made a series of disruptive article moves, nine times in 2 days I believe. (See Editor move log). I PRODed the Cartoon Network (Middle East & Africa) article as I'm pretty certain it was unsourced and had probably never been sourced or had always been grossly undersourced. The PROD went unchallenged. I couldn't find significant content written about the concept of Cartoon Network (Middle East & Africa) outside of passing mentions. Unless the division is producing unique content, which I've no reason to believe based on zero references, I don't know how it's notable enough to maintain its own article. Seems you could easily incorporate a beefy paragraph of sourced prose into a general "Cartoon Network (International) article and that'd be good enough. Anyhow, whatever content can be salvaged should be merged. To where, I don't know yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I like CN as much as anybody, but no reason to have a separate article with this amount of content. The programming and lineup could easily be moved to a worldwide unified list article by country or region to end the bickering over the main article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:08, 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil March[edit]

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

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

Appears to not be notable.

The only references in the article either only mention March incidentally, or are obviously not independent. A good faith search for sources only provided this, which does not appear to be a reliable source and I could well believe is written by March himself.

I see no sign of meeting any of the notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:COMPOSER, WP:ARTIST or WP:ANYBIO. —me_and 17:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This Wikipedia account should not be deleted. Neil March is a respected British composer and, through his record label Demerara Records, he is making a significant contribution to the promotion of new music and upcoming composers. Sounds Positive recently commissioned Neil to compose a solo Bass Flute for our flautist Simon Desorgher (as I believe is mentioned on the Wiki page) and he is about to release a double album which will provide 28 composers from a variety of nationalities and ethnicities a platform for their music. Most of Neil's activities tend to be conducted on social media sites which may explain why you have struggled to find adequate references. That said, a simple Google Search for Neil March Urban Art Music or Neil March Demerara Records brings up numerous sites demonstrating his activities. It would be perverse if, just as he is becoming known to an international audience and is playing such a positive role in providing others with the opportunity to be heard, Wikipedia were to delete his account. I hope others involved in the contemporary music scene will join me in condemning such action although, like me, they may struggle to work out how on earth one gets to find a place to make any comment on your proposed deletion as this is very unclear. — Soundspositive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  @Soundspositive: If March is just becoming well known, then he should have plenty of independent sources soon, at which point it's entirely fine for him to have an article. However, he's not well known yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball – we don't assume he's going to become notable until he actually is.

  Social media sites incredibly rarely count as reliable sources for establishing notability; we'd be looking for things like newspapers or music magazines writing biographies of March, or him receiving some major awards for his music.

  —me_and 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the criteria for meeting the Wiki standard as an academic is achieving the status of Doctor of Philosophy. Neil March is a Doctor of Philosophy. — Hornetmuziq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  @Hornetmuziq: Having a Ph.D. has never been a criteria for notability. I'm not sure where you've picked that up from; the notability criteria for academics at WP:NACADEMICS is considerably more strict. —me_and 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to the above point, there has been a substantial update to Neil March's page which now includes links (in the references section) to websites demonstrating BBC Radio 3 and Resonance FM playlisting tracks from his album and Goldsmiths University having published his PhD Thesis which contradict the claim that any substantial references to him were written by Neil himself. The main text in the article has also been updated showing Sound and Music's support for Neil's activities, Tunecore's involvement in distributing his album and reference to BBC Radio 3 and Resonance FM who have recently been playing his music. It would be helpful to know, if these changes are still not considered sufficient proof of status, what exactly you need because a lot of the criticism is couched on technical language that means nothing to the rest of us. Thanks. Ffion Jones, Hornetmuziq Press. — Hornetmuziq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  @Hornetmuziq: To be notable by Wikipedia's definition, March would need to meet one of the notability criteria such as the general notability guideline or any of the other guidelines – I've linked to all the obviously relevant ones in the post above. In short, we need enough in independent sources to be able to write the article about March without having to do any original research; currently we don't have that. None of the sources on the article at the moment give significant coverage of March himself. —me_and 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 6 May 2015 - Eifion Morgan (Welshman81): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshman81 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I believe I am a reasonable authority on contemporary British classical music and have been responsible for much of the work on Neil March's Wikipedia page. I believe there are a number of links to external sources which I would be happy to add to the page and which may be of significance in determining your decision. They are as follows:

• https://www.facebook.com/groups/DCM.Contemporary.musicforum/ - this is a link to the Drowningcircle Music Facebook Forum with over 700 members hosted by composer Julian Broadhurst. The entry for 27 March 2015 is Broadhurst's introduction of Neil March to his followers with text and links to audio files.
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tp52/podcasts - this is the BBC Radio Three podcast which makes Neil March's 'Metal Cutter' available to the show's fans to download.
• https://twitter.com/BBCR3MusicBot/status/591378200187514880 - this is a BBC Radio Three entry on Twitter referring to the above track.
• https://twitter.com/BBCRadio3/status/591378269448052736 - this is from BBC Radio Three's Twitter account, entry for 23 April 2015: "Building site noise driving you crazy? Do what @Neilmarch of @DemeraraRecords has done, record it and turn it into music #nowplaying"
• http://research.gold.ac.uk/11458/1/MUS_thesis_MarchN_2015.pdf - I realize this link is already listed on the Wikipedia page but I include it to highlight the point that, although it links to a thesis authored by Neil March in attainment of his Doctorate of Philosophy, it has been independently published and placed in the public domain by Goldsmiths, University of London.
• http://www.martingaughan.co.uk/ - this is the website of composer Martin Gaughan. The entry for 25 May 2014 talks about a Neil March composition being performed by pianist Dilara Aydinn-Corbett and describes how the piece, which also involves live electronics, is to be realized.
• https://twitter.com/marcyeats - this is the Twitter account of composer Marc Yeats. His tweet on 4 May 2015 reads: "I made the #NewMusicHero hashtag this morning it may already exist but pleased it's being used for #composers @juil_Broadhurst & @Neilmarch", a reference to Neil March's work in supporting and promoting new music.
• https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Marine/116678811752277?fref=ts - this is the Facebook Artist's page for Serbian pianist and composer Marina Vesic. Entries for 31 March 2015 and 1 April 2015 refer to her excitement at having agreed to contribute to an album being curated by Neil March for his Demerara Records label.
• http://www.talkclassical.com/24581-perspectives-neil-march.html - this is a link to the Talk Classical site which refers to a performance of Neil March's 'Perspectives' by the pianist Helena Gascoyne. This may not count as the entry appears to have been placed by Hornetmuziq Press, March's publisher.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the page should not be deleted. On balance, there is sufficient evidence of March being a notable composer and we must accept that, in the modern era, social media platforms are increasingly taking over as the main vehicles through which others involved in contemporary music express their ideas and opinions. There is also an important point which must have a bearing on your decision. Namely that, even if the page were to be deleted, it is inevitable that another Neil March Wikipedia page will need to be created in the near future given the speed at which he and his label Demerara Records are becoming known on the international stage where they already enjoy thousands of followers on Twitter and Facebook and where Demerara Records is becoming a focal point for an increasingly international list of non-mainstream composers.

• 6 May 2015 Eifion Morgan (Welshman81): Two additional points. My above entry is described as "unsigned". How so? Also, I note you have questioned whether Sounds Positive works for or is associated with Neil March. Sounds Positive is a musical ensemble formed by composer David Sutton-Anderson in the late nineteen-seventies which has been performing live for nearly forty years and has no direct association with March beyond having recently commissioned him to compose a work for Sounds Positive's Flautist Simon Desorgher and the fact which is referred in the main section on the Wikipedia page that March studied with Sutton-Anderson at Birkbeck, University of London. So the speculation here is incorrect. SIGNED: EIFION MORGAN (aka Welshman81)! — Welshman81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  @Welshman81: Regarding the "unsigned" thing, when making comments on Wikipedia talk pages (such as this page) you should sign your posts with ~~~~, which will become a link to your username and talk page when you save your changes, as well as the time of your comment.

  None of the links you've provided establish notability according to Wikipedia's general notability guideline, either through lack of independence, lack of reliability or lack of significant coverage about March. While a lot of coverage is moving to social media now, it's still very rarely a useful source for establishing notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines, simply because it's very rare for it to provide that independent, reliable, significant coverage.

  If March does in future meet one of the notability guidelines, it's absolutely fine for an article to be recreated. We can even undelete the article so editors don't need to start from scratch again. If the article is repeatedly recreated without him meeting the guidelines, though, it's likely to be "salted", which will block the article from being created without an administrator removing the block.

  —me_and 09:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying matters. I accept your point about the possible absence of 'significant' data on the social media sites I have postulated but not about reliability or independence. I was quite careful only to choose examples in which independence was clearly established, the entries having been made by Julian Broadhurst of Drowningcirlce music (DCM), Marc Yeats who is composer-in-residence for the Observatory and a former protégé of Peter Maxwell-Davies, BBC Radio 3, Goldsmiths, University of London, the official website of composer Martin Gaughan and an entry on an artist's page by composer and pianist Marina Vesic. All these sources are reliable and independent. However I do agree that one of the problems with relying on social media is the absence of extensive articles in a world where soundbite is the primary means of communication, ironically one of the features of urban post-globalization society commonly referred to in Neil March's music.~~~~, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshman81 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — Welshman81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. The number of sources is good, but the mentions are passing or log entries. We need significant coverage of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cannot find any sources that indicate notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches with News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing relevant aside from some listed above. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No in-depth third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia has low standards but no attempt is made here to address them. I feel that this article does not meet WP:GNG because I am unable to identify 2-3 sentences which are backed with citations which meet WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyway Enterprises flight SKZ 7101[edit]

Skyway Enterprises flight SKZ 7101 (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 cargo aircraft accident with no effects on the operation of other aircraft or procedures, very little coverage of note. Apart from everything else we have to draw a line somewhere and this article just doesn't come near Petebutt (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is established by references. This accident has significant coverage by reliable sources, please see this list. The list is incomplete because I stopped after 20. There are more. I plan to update this article as soon as the final accident report is released. Samf4u (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at that list and numbering from 1 at the top to 20 at the bottom, numbers 8, 12, 13, 16 and 20 are not reliable sources - 12 is a Wikipedia mirror site. Number 1 and 2 are Associated Press news wire stories repeated. Number 3 and 9 are word-for-word identical and derived from 4 & 5, while 6 and 19 are mirrors of 5; 5 itself is an air crash database entry. Number 4 is local coverage. Number 7 and 18 are the same URL; the story is based on another website. Number 10 is an air crash database entry; 11 and 14 are mirrors of 3. The URL for 15 is no longer valid, but I found the story elsewhere on the website - it is a database entry of four sentences; 17 is also an air crash database entry. So from 19 sources, 5 can't be used and the bulk of the other 14 are database entries or their mirrors and derivatives. There are effectively four brief news stories in that list, the database entries and the four news stories do not constitute "significant coverage", so my !vote is Delete. YSSYguy (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep accident with 15 deaths is notable Transasia07 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This accident had only two deaths. - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a fatal accident with substantial news coverage. The cause of the crash has not yet been determined/announced and may also be highly relevant. Deletion at this point would be premature at best. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is unusual for cargo flights to be notable and I dont see anything in this that comes above the bar. No reason why it cant be listed at List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cargo flight or not this is a hull loss with fatalities. "unusual for cargo flights to be notable" ? Please see this partial list of cargo flight accidents that have articles. Samf4u (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Samf4u I have struck your second keep vote. You are free to leave comments but please do not vote more than once. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that Yash! Samf4u (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An encyclopedias limit should have no bounds. If a person searches for this incident I'd like to have our article be listed first, with its proper references. Samf4u (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article should be deleted than why are these articles OK? Samf4u (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they are OK? Anyway, let us assume that they are OK; this article should be deleted because other stuff exists. YSSYguy (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Shelbystripes. This meets WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shelbystripes' argument is flawed, there hasn't been "substantial" news coverage, there has just been many news outlets repeating the same three or four sentences. There could be 500 such news reports, that does not make the coverage substantial. Shelbystripes' argument is basically "keep just in case there is some good reason in the future". If there does prove to be such a reason, then recreate the article in the future. YSSYguy (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable cargo plane accident....William 19:27, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Miami[edit]

Kill Miami (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)

Singer who seems to fall under too soon Wgolf (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The clearest claim to notability here is the fact that the artist's song charted at #1 on an iTunes chart, but there is no trustworthy source to verify that. And, in general, there are very few third-party sources available, none of which are particularly good by Wikipedia's standards. This subject definitely needs more press before it can warrant an article. gargleafg (talk) 23:05, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divaa Victoria[edit]

Divaa Victoria (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 that this person meets the notability guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-unsourced BLP, with no notability to be found.Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 20:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Absolutely nothing to suggest this is notable aside from self-generated content. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subject's claims to titles appear to be for years in which those competitions were not held. Article is not a blatant hoax but it's largely unverifiable, thus failing to cross the first and most important threshold for inclusion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, could not find references to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:21, 26 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 keep. per SK1 & all that shizz (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Diamonds[edit]

Funky Diamonds (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 last AfD was 'no consensus', having attracted only one comment. As this has beent agged for over 7 years, it would be really good if a consensus could now be reached. I don't thiink it meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Withdraw nomination my error; I somehow missed the details of the 2nd AfD. Sorry for the confusion. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Baldock[edit]

Louise Baldock (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)

Per email request, with the rational "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:NPOL)" Mdann52 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - After a quick sniff; I'm seeing 134 distinct news mentions. That would seem to clear WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Yes, there are distinct news mentions of her, but they all relate to her career in politics. In other words, you could get a similar amount of coverage for any candidate who stood at the 2015 General Election, simply because the (local) press will cover any story about the local candidates. If this individual had other coverage outside of politics, then I'd lean towards a keep. The article as it stands is a collection of non-notable incidents in an otherwise ordinary person's life (battle on Twitter, someone against the bedroom tax, various local campaigns, etc). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lugnuts: - I think WP:NPOL is a second chance for people to be notable, if they don't meet WP:GNG. If you do meet WP:GNG, I don't think it matters what WP:NPOL has to say, unless WP:NPOL for some reasons excludes you from notability. NickCT (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreicate that GNG beats NPOL (for example, Lance Armstrong could be deleted by saying he fails NPOL), but this individual's coverage is exclusive to her politicial career with plenty of GHits for news coverage. Also standing in the same election were (to name two) Ted Strike and Drew Dunning with 37 and 9 distinct news stories each. The same arguement could be applied to either of these, but by our standards, they would both be non-notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: - The same argument could be applied, if 37 or 9 were equal to 134.  ;-) <snark intended>

But seriously, I appreciate what you're saying. It just strikes me that she's got a lot of mentions. I'm not really willing to take the time to read into why she has so many mentions, so I think my support remains "weak". NickCT (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 20:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:POL; tons of mentions but I'm not finding articles where she is the subject of the coverage -—Мандичка^YO 😜 23:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Fails WP:NPOL but just. If kept the article needs a major rewrite.87.115.229.161 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Louise Baldock: I have not done an edit before, I hope this works. If I have done it incorrectly then please have my permission to tidy it up. As the subject of this article I would like to see it deleted. I understand the original author also made a request for deletion which seems to have disappeared. There were 3971 candidates standing in the 2015 General Election, most of

them do not have wiki page, and an unsuccessful candidate is surely not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouiseBaldock (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – some evidence of notability SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete From what I can see, all they've done is stand in some elections, and make a few statements about things they don't like. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and all this coverage is routine for local councillor, so fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 25 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valérie Favre[edit]

Valérie Favre (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've tried to work on this but I can't see that it meets any aspect of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. She is a professor at a well-respected art university, but that doesn't meet any of the criteria. I've added some external links. It has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved, either way. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Ashanda who tagged it for notability and alerting creator. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep - she's an artist; more than meets GNG - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. A very small amount of searching found that she's in the permanent collection of the Centre Pompidou [12] [13], and has had many solo shows at lesser but still notable museums including the Strasbourg Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Carré d'Art, Museum of Grenoble, etc. A clear pass of WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep What more can I say? Except that it is a pity she doesn't have a better page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn per all above. Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 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) 17:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey)[edit]

Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey) (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 youth hockey team that fails to meet WP:GNG. Many professional women's teams can barely meet GNG, nevermind a youth team. Did a search for sources and could not turn up any sources that went in depth on the team. DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition[edit]

I feel like I'm being targeted by certain users because I oppose the botching of diacritics in hockey-related articles. Also, as much as I hate repeating myself, the IIHF actually wrote a piece of news (http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=8179&cHash=50c92eec834e0cf875456fd5e372b427) that went in depth on Vancouver Angels. That being said, just because your research didn't turn up anything doesn't mean my research couldn't turn up anything. Maybe we were just looking at different places? — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 18:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of those wanting to keep an article to prove its notability. If you have more sources than this one then by all means provide them as it requires multiple independent sources to provide notability. You are not being targeted. I didn't even realize this was an article you made until you commented on the talk page. (and for what its worth I am actually well known on the wiki as pro-diacritics so it would be silly of me to target you for liking them) -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to any particular individual(s). But ever since I voiced my concern regarding diacritics, there has been quite many actions of proposal on deleting articles I wrote or reverting my edits. So I just couldn't help feeling targeted. Also, I just added more independent sources ask you asked. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 00:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think if there was evidence of someone notable who played for them it might help. It seems to me that it would be better to make an article about world girls week highlighting the Angels. I have no idea what diacritics have to do with this.18abruce (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to explain: I'm not a frequenter of English Wikipedia since my main focus is on Cantonese Wiki Projects. A few weeks ago, I started a discussion at the Village Pump regarding current conventions about neglecting diacritics. After that, several users had been reverting my edits and now this article I wrote is put on the chopping board. I don't know know if I was just thinking too much or if this discussion is merely about notability.
• Regarding the IIHF coverage, I did leave a hidden note inside the article stating that Wikipedia couldn't recognise the URL address because it contains brackets that can't be removed. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 19:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did find a few articles but not significant coverage to establish athletic notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would you like to elaborate what you mean by "athletic notability"? Thanks. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I see you haven't changed your sig. Is that because you didn't read my comment below or is it a threat? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two RSes that are local coverage but it still fails notability criteria. I would expect a lot more news stories for a team like this in the Vancouver Sun, The Province and non-print media. We don't see that. See https://www.google.ca/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q="Vancouver+Angels+(Hockey)"&num=50 I don't see the www.iihf.com "article" as meeting RS as it's tied to the subject. Also to clarify, it's not "the responsibility of those wanting to keep an article to prove its notability", it is the responsibility of all editors participating in the discussion to determine the notability of the subject, particularly the nominator. See WP:BEFORE. However, Cedric tsan cantonais appears to be creating a conspiracy theory that cannot be supported. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even bother to look at the notes I left inside the article for other editors? Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 19:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. Just because you're a presumptuous META:DICK doesn't mean that everyone is. The arguments are not any better than what you offered here. PS: if you're going to 1) act superior and 2) tell IPs not to edit pages, you should actually learn the conventions for editing on pages like this. PPS: If you don't remove the "SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS!" from your sig, I will take it to admin arbitration. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's put aside diacritical marks and personal attacks for the moment. At least two of the current sources are lists that offer little information, and another source is a story about how the team put on events around the world for women's hockey awareness, but the article does not focus on the team. There have to be more robust sources, or this article will remain a stub. Is this article at its upper limit of expandability? How much more information can reliable sources offer? If the answer is little to none, then I will support this article's deletion nomination. fds^Talk 19:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dug through about 50 Google search results for "'Vancouver Angels' hockey club", and most of the articles are about other topics that mention the club by name only once and return to the other topic. Some of the sites list coach's experience with the club — nothing about the club. Many of the search results were of the club playing another club, so the site name-checked the Angels while covering its opponents. I ran across some of the current listed sources within the results, and they, of course, are more substantive, but there doesn't seem to be a readily available pool of second-hand information about the club. I must support the nomination. fds^Talk 21:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already moved all the codes to my sandbox. So if the majority of users support deletion, there's nothing I can do to stop youse. There will likely be my final words here. — CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS! 01:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low (Juicy J song)[edit]

Low (Juicy J song) (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 song charted 1 week (COMPONENT chart, not main) on R&B/Hip Hop and is almost a year old (aka Juicy J is likely to leave it off the album in place of the singles he's dropped in 2015) BlaccCrab (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: What exactly does the song being one year old have to do with it's verifiable-ness? Or the fact that it may or may not appear on an album? There have been singles released 2-3 years before being included on an album, Y.U.Mad by Birdman was released in 2011, his album still hasn't surfaced but there's no sign of it being left off. 212 by Azealia Banks was released in 2011, and still made an appearance on her 2014 album. "aka Juicy J is likely to leave it off" you have no source to back it up, the point you're making is original research You already gave my reasoning for keeping the article for me, it charted. Along with the fact it's been covered by a dozen or so reliable third-party sources. No idea why this was nommed for deletion, it easily meets notability guidelines, other points about the fact it's a year old and may not appear on the artists new album mean nothing. Azealia911 _talk 17:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the above comment. Not sure how this doesn't meet notability guidelines based on the fact that it might not appear on his album? It is a song by a notable subject that charted and features numerous other notable subjects. It also received quite a bit of media coverage (some of which isn't even included in the article). If anything, someone might want to add some of the newer references that are available. Otherwise, this is a well-written article about a clearly notable subject that uses plenty of reliable and verifiable sources. gargleafg (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons cited above —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha ok, when this gets scrapped just like "One Of Those Nights" does because it flopped, come back to me. No one outside of hip hop fans know that this exists. It didn't even hit the Bubbling Under Hot 100. Where is all this "significant coverage" you speak of? XXL Mag? It's irrelevant. I'll be sure to come back when it's not on the final tracklist. BlaccCrab (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No one outside of hip hop fans know that this exists." Not only is this an assumption, it's incorrect. I wouldn't consider myself a rap fan, I like a couple artists, but I knew of this song. Even if it doesn't make the final cut...so what? Nowhere in the notability guidelines for song creation does it state that a song has to be on an album to have independent article. The significant coverage comes from MusicTimes, Billboard, Spin, Complex, which are all sourced in the article itself. So please do come and renominate it when it doesn't make the cut for Pure THC, because it'll just be decided to be kept again, due to the same amount of notable coverage in the article that was a deciding factor this time. Azealia911 _talk 01:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible keep This article clearly passes all notability guidelines, such as the fact that it charged number 1 for some time. Also, it receieved significant coverage, that's enough for notability, "ongoing coverage" is not required. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It charged number 1? hahah, it barely charted in the hip hop charts and the only reason it did is because it was produced by Dr. Luke and featured Nicki Minaj. Didn't know songs could go #1 without even hitting the hot 100.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lemon[edit]

Jonathan Lemon (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)

Tagged for 7 years for notability the article is about a non notable person where no significant mentions in reliable independent sources exist to establish notability. The sources are a combination of non independent and trivial mentions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreeelibrary found nothing significant and in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything about him. Most of the refs are from allmusic, which isn't a RS. I looked at the Reuben awards -- first, Lemon has been nominated but has never won; second, while he is a member of the National Cartoonists Society, there are many levels of membership, including for those who are only occasional cartoonists, so being a member doesn't confer notability. I'm not seeing enough for this to be a keeper. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails GNG per this Google search. Quis separabit? 12:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:: Per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article do not qualify as reliable sources they are either self published routine coverage or from blogs. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:31, 26 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. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creepypasta[edit]

Creepypasta (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 self promotion. Creepypastas is a page on Wikia which has occasionally been mentioned in side comments in several articles on pop culture. Check the sources. It does not meet WP:WEB which says: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources. — Keithbob • Talk • 14:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result from both of the prior AfDs was DELETE.[14][15] Why does it still appear in the pedia?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as much as it pains me, I have to say it qualifies as meeting GNG, per these refs [16], [17], [18], [19], and others. Keithbob, it appears it was recreated days after being deleted last time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Мандичка's reasoning. The term refers to much more than a single webpage. The article itself could probably lose the examples which are not independently notable (not to mention the lengthy explanations) but the term itself is definitely notable. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - Admittingly it needs some work doing but notability is there - Obvious keep imho, –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. It doesn't need all those examples on the page, but the term itself is definitely notable enough. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, multiple non-trivial references means it meets WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it were up to me, this would be a single paragraph in urban legend, but reliable sources disagree with me and have found it to be a notable concept in its own right. Given the sources listed here and the copious hits on Google News, I'd have to say that this is a keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll yield to consensus if any Admin or veteran editor want's to close as a snow-keep. After which I will cut back the article so it contains cited content only as suggested by some of the editors here. Thank you everyone for your participation. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has now been the subject of a book and has significant coverage. I do think the in-depth examples could probably be trimmed quite a bit though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artistic merit of this contemporary literary art form has been examined in the reliable sources listed by Wikimania. This concept meets WP:GNG. The story summaries currently included in this article should be deleted unless they themselves have been reviewed by a someone with expertise in the field of literary criticism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep: Creepypasta has been substantially covered in multiple news articles and in an academic journal [20]. This meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:47, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral media[edit]

Lateral media (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 reads like a personal essay/synthesis, without any citations to coverage in reliable sources. The only reference given is to a wikispaces.com wiki, which appears to be defunct. I can't find any sources that cover this as an accepted term (though it does seem to be the name of a company). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central media, for a similar article by the same author. Mr Potto (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Just no. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sourced solely to Wikispaces. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Part of a series of articles by same creator that are not encyclopedic in nature. Some kind folks have tried to move this toward WP style, but the content just isn't there. Unfortunately, this person continues to create articles of dubious quality, although some number of them have been deleted. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 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 Withdrawn with many thanks to User:Redrose64 for expanding and sourcing the article. Bosstopher (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Barton Wright[edit]

William Barton 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)

No evidence of notability. Only two relevant JSTOR results. One is a primary source, the other only mentions him briefly. Google books results seem to mostly focus on his son and only a few results mention him in passing. Bosstopher (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, everything is about his son. Can't believe this has been around 10 years. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage in reliable sources that isn't simply about his son. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep and perhaps you should try to restrict yourself to commenting on things that you know about. Le petit fromage (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case could you perhaps add a source or two to this article that's been unsourced for the past decade? This article could really do with improvement from someone knowledgeable in the field. Bosstopher (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain because Books found some results (nothing that instantly looks good but considering this is a 19th century engineer) so some sources may not be accessible. Although it's been here for 10 years, this is much better than other articles that have been there that time because this is at least neat and sourced. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 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 speedy delete. There's no way this is surving an AFD; since there's some merit to the G10 claim I'm deleting under that rationale. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti hinduism in india[edit]

Anti hinduism in india (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)

POV fork of Anti-Hinduism, unsourced and not neutral. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatant agenda-pushing opinion piece. Mr Potto (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:G10 I tagged as attack page; absurd page claiming "anti-Hindus" (probably all non-Hindus) are running the media and working with global terrorists to destroy India etc; not even close to being an article —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is an article on Anti-Hinduism which is already struggling to developed proper sourced content. There is no need for another one. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 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. Michig (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Biotti[edit]

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

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

Notability not supported by references. One source is a press release. Basically an executive of a promotion which also has notability issues. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nope, nada, zero, zilch —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not established per WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any coverage at all in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:07, 24 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 procedural close. Duplicated nomination. (non-admin closure) ansh666 08:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Blouin[edit]

Louise Blouin (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 part "Controversy" should in no case be posted on Louise Blouin personal page. It does not concern her private life. "In 2010, an article in the New York Post noted controversy over payments to freelance writers for the arts publications of Blouin's company. One group, WAAANKAA (Writers Angry At Artinfo Not Kidding Around Anymore), demanded back payments of $18,000.^[1] In December 2013, Artinfo.com abruptly laid off 25 international employees. The New York Observer posted a 1,000-word internal email from Louise Blouin to staff explaining that the move was part of a new direction in which "One person doing all and not good we need less of one but many more."^[2] In February 2014, the New York Post reported that two former executives were suing Blouin for $250,000 in pay and commissions.^[3]"

• 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:02, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This Afd is already listed further down.
• Speedy keep. Afd is not for cleanup concerns. She's been written about in the New York Times and other NYC papers, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail (rumored to have had an affair with Prince Andrew), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 18 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical Church Band[edit]

Vertical Church Band (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 speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO doesn't save them even though there are two marginally notable members who are also solo artists. Three albums and one EP but little written about the subject. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the article was created by an WP:SPI WP:SPA editor who works for the label to which the band is signed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This clearly passes band because they have significant coverage from reliable sources.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BAND which states a band may be notable if it "is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." This band appears to contain at least three. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep In addition to the reviews in multiple reliable sources, there is also an Allmusic biography on the band. Also, there are several brief news reports on the band by Cross Rhythms. Significant coverage is clearly demonstrated. Also, per Non-dropframe's rationale, the band contains at least three independently notable musicians.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't mean to detract from your other rationales, isn't an AllMusic listing WP:ROUTINE, like a person being listed in the phone book? Or a film being listed in IMDb, which is decidedly not considered a sign of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Allmusic listing - yes, though not quite like IMDb, which has most of its content user-generated. However, an Allmusic biography - no. Those are less common. Many artists briefly listed in the database do not have biographies written about them. The bios are written by a professional staff for a publication with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. So what if Allmusic is very extensive in its coverage? Are you suggesting that a source with extensive coverage automatically means that the notability of the subjects the source discusses are automatically less notable? If you have issues with the reliability of Allmusic, then please bring up the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. But I don't think you'll get far, as numerous discussions have determined that content written by Allmusic staff is about as reliable as you can get.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading what I wrote I realize that I might come across as very challenging, Largoplazo, for which I apologize. I was merely trying to show why Allmusic coverage is different than just routine blurbs.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"So what if Allmusic is very extensive in its coverage? Are you suggesting that a source with extensive coverage automatically means that the notability of the subjects the source discusses are automatically less notable?" Yes, in comparison to media where inclusion involves some degree of selectivity, inclusion of an entity in any medium where inclusion is WP:ROUTINE for entities of like or similar type is, ipso facto, not an indication of notability. I am not notable because my name is in the phone book. Inclusion in Martindale-Hubbell does not contribute to a finding that a U.S. lawyer is notable. Inclusion in the state's list of health inspection reports doesn't indicate that a restaurant is notable. If the presence of a biography on AllMusic does involve some selectivity, then that's a different story, but if it didn't, then, yes, it wouldn't be a valid argument for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you here. There is selectivity, though, in who gets an Allmusic bio. For instance, right now I'm creating an article for the band A Hill to Die Upon, which does not have any Allmusic bio or review, but has been featured in Terrorizer and HM, and been reviewed by HM. This band is clearly notable, but has nothing but a discography listing on Allmusic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BAND "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide write-ups in RSes that support that statement? MUSICBIO is not an absolute expectation of inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you rephrase that so that it makes sense? You want a reliable source for what? That they have made it in a national music chart? shows that they charted]. I'm not sure if that's good enough for you but it seems fine to me. Btw, I went to wp:SPI and didn't see a case opened for Ivettealexandra. You have also failed to provide any reasonable, logical, or (for that matter) any basis that they are a sock puppet. You will have to pardon that my crystal ball is currently broken and I will be in need of evidence for your assertion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense. It's common for editors such as you to mistake MUSICBIO as a stand-alone criteria. There is a discussion there that the majority of editors believe it is not a stand-alone criteria that a subject can meet, but a guideline for determining how a subject might meet WP:GNG.

No SPI because I meant WP:SPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out above that it meets GNG. It's common for what? You should probably not go in that direction. And SPA? Yeah you should probably go back and read WP:SPATG. While they may technically be a SPA, they only made their first edit 5 or 6 days ago.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should keep your personal comments to yourself. There was a claim that it met GNG, but that has not been proven. I did read SPA. Nothing new. Is there something specific you think I'm missing? The editor admitted on on the commons that she works for this band's record label. She's only edited articles associated with that record label. She is clearly in COI and is obviously a SPA. I have not time for your vague commentary. Unless you can make a complete argument, I will ignore you here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a full argument here. Above. It is mentioned that the group "is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." This in addition charting on a Country's national music chart. Both fall under WP:BAND. The case has also been made reasonably that it passes GNG. There's that reasonable case vs your case. The only thing compelling that you have offered is that the creator has a COI and is a SPA. However since they are new and they have so few edits per WP:SPATG it's a bit piss poor to label them a SPA. As for the COI, I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Also they have released 3 Albums with Provident Label Group which is a Division of Sony Music Entertainment. Per WP:BAND "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The article meets three of the criteria for bands/musical ensemble's, which can be verified through coverage in independent sources. In addition to that are the sources highlighted in the above discussions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It meets general notability guidelines by having reviews in "independently reliable publications", hence showing "significant coverage" of their music. Thus, it deems the article and subsequent album articles notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:29, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Duverge[edit]

Vince Duverge (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)

Winner of minor local awards only, fails WP:CREATIVE WWGB (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Duverge won his first award (which wasn't a minor one for Mauritius) in 2009 and is now well known in Mauritius for his comedy work.^[1] Like Miselaine Duval Vince has been doing a lot in Mauritian comedy industry by introducing web comedy to Mauritius. ^[2] After having his success online he has been working as a radio host for the Mauritian Broadcasting Corporation's radio station: Music FM and hosted a funny and satirical show called Funky Show ^[3]. ^[4] In 2013, Duverge was mentioned by the notorious journalist Shenaz Patel as a "new comedian" in Mauritius. ^[5]. ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph1595 (talk • contribs)

• Keep, correct name to Vince Duvergé, won three awards at a film festival in Oz [21], [22] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards were given by the "Film Festival of Kogarah", a very minor municipal competition of little significance which does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think those, combined with the Mauritius award, and the profiles in Mauritian and Australian RS, and his prominence in his home country support notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Bank of the West Classic[edit]

2015 Bank of the West Classic (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)

Maybe it created too early, Eastbourne's has not yet been created by anyone! 333-blue 08:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say weak keep It does start in 3 months which is on the cusp of creating. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - but all the blank stuff should be commented out, it looks terrible —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article will inevitably be created in the future anyway. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bibis[edit]

Justin Bibis (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 duo of VERY young singers who are basically under too soon. Now I can see why they have plenty of sources given what it says but still they fall under too soon it seems. Wgolf (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete News coverage is only related to a single event (WP:BLP1E), a single viral video about a pop song. Their only single, "Phir Se Game Uthadein" doesn't seem to have any coverage anywhere. This in addition to falling under WP:TOOSOON, in this case years too soon. Elassint ^Hi 03:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be covered here. The source says they performed their rendition of the anthem in a Coca Cola advertisment. Mar4d (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is not falling under WP:TOOSOON as Justin Bibis were featured in national Coke ad and were interviewed on several t.v shows. Moroever their viral video was also covered by BBC News apart from other reliable news agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umais Bin Sajjad (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC) —  _{sami  ^talk 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep per WP:SIGCOV.  sami  ^talk 11:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is coverage in reliable sources, which can be used to expand the article. These include [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and many more. Given that their rise to popularity is recent, it would also be unrealistic to expect extensive coverage outside the realm of news sources. Hence, we have to use what we currently have. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with the nomination, it was not a single-event coverage. Faizan (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage- they're a Pakistani group that have been featured in UK, US, India and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1797 Schaumasse[edit]

1797 Schaumasse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources found to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1742 Schaifers[edit]

1742 Schaifers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I found it in the title of one paper [29] but couldn't find any online copies to see whether it said anything nontrivial about the subject. I also got a hit for a lightcurve study [30] but it doesn't actually seem to mention this object. So we have no sources that we can use as the basis for writing an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 20:18, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1228 Scabiosa[edit]

1228 Scabiosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Its name has a mildly amusing history (it's a plant genus, but part of a sequence of asteroid names whose initials spell out the name of an astronomer who didn't want to be the namesake of an asteroid) [31] but I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1920 Sarmiento[edit]

1920 Sarmiento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I was excited to see a hit for it in a paper about earth-grazers [32] but it turned out to be spurious and the reference that actually mentioned it was just about names of asteroids (a topic that is too unselective to contribute to notability — if an asteroid were notable only for its name then it should be mentioned only in the article about whoever it is named after, in this case Domingo Faustino Sarmiento). The only actual astronomical study I found was a 25-asteroid lightcurve study [33], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, but this guys is definitely just an inner (main-belt asteroid) MBA. -- Kheider (talk) 18:52, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1288 Santa[edit]

1288 Santa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. All I found was an old (1935) orbital calculation [34]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: there just isn't enough reliable content to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 20:20, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1715 Salli[edit]

1715 Salli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1773 Rumpelstilz[edit]

1773 Rumpelstilz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1413 Roucarie[edit]

1413 Roucarie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Part of a lightcurve study [35] and included as a line in three tables of another study [36] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1321 Majuba[edit]

1321 Majuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect. Part of a couple of lightcurve studies, one of quite a large set of asteroids [37] [38] and mentioned as part of another paper [39] but I think it's still not quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 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. Michig (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Montgomery[edit]

Mercedes Montgomery (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 individual lacking non-trivial support. No support for awards or importance of books. Appears to be vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't find anything except passing mention as activist, fails WP:AUTHOR —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found what was probably the same passing mention User:Wikimandia did, [40] It was the only thing I could find. Self-published online novels. 'a lot of self-promotion. No substance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunately, my searches found nothing to come even close to improving the article, the books seem to have been published within the past year and within that time, I haven't found any coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Poorly written, poorly sourced too. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For anyone that's noticed I apologize for closing this AFD as redirect ... I closed the wrong one! , Anyway as per above it does seem promotional & plus fails GNG so meh Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 26 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) –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dumblonde[edit]

Dumblonde (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)

Prod that keeps on getting removed-non notable band that also falls under way too soon Wgolf (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and criteria #1 of WP:BAND. Source examples include several that were found simply by selecting the news link in the find sources template above: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] (short article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per refs listed by Northamerica1000 —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two Billboard number one albums, and coverage in mainstream sources as found by Northamerica1000, would seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for WP:BAND #1 and #2 together with WP:GNG. Appears to satisfy #6 of WP:BAND too, "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians...". Mr Potto (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw-Okay that does sound notable-I think the article just seemed a bit lacking was all, thanks. Wgolf (talk) 17:30, 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 Axact. Both nom & 2voters prefer redirect & generally redirect is preferred over deletion (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western Advanced Central University[edit]

Western Advanced Central University (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)

Lack of reliable independent secondary sources per WP:ORG and WP:HOAX. All of the cited sources are self-published. The sole reliable source is a NY Times article including WACU on a long list of universities that are likely fictitious. This is not significant coverage signaling that WACU is a notable hoax. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unlike some others that had significant coverage, this one is only sourced to NYT and itself —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Axact As Мандичка points out, only covered by NYT and its own website with the former showing that the latter source is completely unreliable. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. I support the redirect. In fact I'm hitting myself for not coming up with this idea myself, as I could have WP:BLARred and avoided this AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Axact as proposed by Abecedare. -- toblu [?!] 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Service Area[edit]

General Service Area (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:N?? This article (IMO) lacks notability as Nova Scotia, Canada seems to be the only place in the world that uses this designation. I think the project would be better served by simply using the terms village, town or city. I was unable to find any citations or secondary references. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  00:11, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete – Not much substance there and it seems of marginal notability at best. It appears that GSA is a very narrowly defined term relating to E-911 services in Nova Scotia. The first ref is to a pilot project final report and its recommendation: "In place of the E-911 reference to "community" it is recommended, for at least the purpose of the NSCAF initiative, that the areas be renamed as General Service Areas (GSA)." In addition, the article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet. That fact alone shouldn't preclude keeping it, but this sockfarm has made a bunch of dubious edits in the past and caused a lot of disruption. Mojoworker (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the second major contributor to the article has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of the same user. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthvm/Archive. Mojoworker (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is just way too broad, and its meaning in Nova Scotia is not the same elsewhere. It just means any area that has some kind of service, whether it's cell phone coverage, bus route, health care etc. [41], [42], [43] Additionally it doesn't seem that notable within NC either, but could be more of a mention in the NC article I guess. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:21, 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn.

Shaheed Comrade Tazul Islam[edit]

Shaheed Comrade Tazul Islam (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 case of WP:BLP1E. The poorly written article is about a person notable for one event. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename to Shaheed Tajul (name apparently misspelled Tazul, Comrade is not part of his name) Weak keep - the article is definitely horribly written (I didn't even know what country he was from until I read the article), I would think he might meet the GNG because he has an annual day named after him. This bit from the article appears to establish notability by referring to him as a pioneer: "Shaheed Comrade Tajul Day was observed yesterday, marking the 25th death anniversary of Tajul Islam, one of the pioneers of the workers' movement in the country." More sources needed though. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources found, he was also the party leader and is referred to as a martyr, [44], [45], [46], [47] I added his name in Bengali to his page. What do you think Wikicology? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a leader of a minor and non-notable, local trade union called "Adamjee Majdur (worker) Trade Union" and probably "Communist Party of Bangladesh". Nobody seemed to be observing his death anniversary apart from his own party and was only notable for his death and not as leader of "Adamjee Majdur (worker) Trade Union". I can't find a single source that discussed him in detail as a notable leader of "Adamjee Majdur (worker) Trade Union". All I can see is sources about the so-called anniversary which is only being observed by a single part. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think it's relevant that the day is only observed by one party or a minority group, since it receives press coverage by national press [48] [49]. Additionally, it appears the day is also observed by the Socialist Party, if I read this article correctly, and they have rallies with speeches and a ceremony to mark the event. [50] That he has a legacy like that means it is not WP:ONEEVENT. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename to Shaheed Tajul Islam: He's likely notable by most standards according to Мандичка! I've also tried to clean the article up a bit. The reason for nomination though isn't really right since BLP1E applies only to living people. There is a Tazul Islam ([51]) on bnwiki but that's actually another martyr from the liberation war. Besides, it looks like the article didn't have any time to be developed, seeing as it was struck with this AfD barely 10 minutes after creation! I also support renaming to Tajul instead of Tazul according to Romanization of Bengali. A full name also seems nicer.

It's all perspective on whether someone is notable or not. I still support keeping the article. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 07:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nahiyan8 for cleaning up the article, including linking to the Adamjee Jute Mills, which was the largest jute mill in the world with 25,000+ workers. So I don't think it's correct to judge it as a non-notable local trade union. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination Withdrawn:- I withdraw my nomination to Keep the article per Wikimandia and Nahiyan8. I agreed with both editors that the subject of the article is notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]