< 21 May	23 May >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Rudaz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Serge Rudaz

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

Non-notable, contains original research, non-neutral point of view Chakra13543 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)— Chakra13543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The person is clearly notable, as a member of American Physical Society, clearly passes WP:NPROF. I'm also somewhat surprised that the first action of a new account is to put a page up for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I haven't looked yet at the person himself, but as any physicist can join the APS, as can students, I can't see that is enough to make someone notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete I was thinking that was the American Fellows Society (can't remember what it's called), which is an exclusive institution. This one isn't. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's actually not just an APS member, but an APS Fellow, which should be an easy pass of WP:PROF#C3. I've added the source, as well as one supporting an award from the Canadian Association of Physicists. Also has impressive citation records in Google Scholar (h-index of 46). EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear passes of WP:PROF #1 (highly cited papers on Google scholar) and #3 (APS Fellow). The Herzberg Medal is for a younger researcher (within 12 years of Ph.D.) but still might be good for #2. Any one of these three criteria would be enough. As for the sourcing, it could still use help, but the medal and fellowship have now been properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EricEnfermero and David Eppstein, thanks for the references. I have removed my "delete" recommendation to reduce relisting. References that provide more context regarding the subject and his contributions would be nice, but at least the current references provide sufficient evidence of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pass WP:PROF —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with a h-index of 52 (in perspective, Hirsch suggested a h-index of just 15-20 can mean fellowship in the American Physical Society) and more than 11,000 citations, the subject easily passes WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience ^t 03:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Passes WP:PROF. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:17, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of female visual artists from Vancouver[edit]

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

There are two reasons why this should be considered for deletion. The first, and more important, one is that this list consists predominantly of redlinks, sourced primarily to a directory which lists nearly every working artist in Canada. But having an article or being included in a list on Wikipedia is a matter of being able to properly source the topic's notability, not just being able to verify that they exist — so the mere fact that somebody has an entry in a directory, when that directory has over 42,000 people entered into it, does not in and of itself prove that they warrant Wikipedia's attention. And secondly, a list constrained by both the gender of the artist and the individual city where they reside is cutting things far too narrowly to be useful — a List of female visual artists from Canada unconstrained by city, or a List of visual artists from Vancouver unconstrained by gender, might be useful, but constraining for both gender and Vancouver is excessively granular. This would be perfectly valid in project or user space as a "potential future article topics" tracking list — but it's just not a thing we need in content space, especially if it consists mostly of directory-sourced redlinks who might never meet the standards necessary to qualify for Wikipedia articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because though I agree on many of the points raised by Bearcat (a more general list would be useful, many of these 'notables' aren't notable etc.) Wikipedia has a fairly low bar for list articles. I think the list needs a good clean-up, removing the non-notables, but there are enogub genuine notables for the list to be valid. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Bearcat. What he said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per megafail —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed Filipović[edit]

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

Delete: notability not established by any means. Quis separabit? 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability easy concluded by using "find sources".--Zoupan 20:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:BASIC, plenty of sources that are most likely significant coverage in non-English sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big Delete (as of now) The (foreign language) reference is an interview which does nothing to verify the claims to notability (WP:N) put forth in the article. Both of the "Keep" comments are non-sequiturs. One implies that it's the job of reviewers or readers to find corroborating info. The other states that the article meets WP:BASIC without any explanation of HOW the requirement is met. ~~Unless someone comes up with corroborating references/sources--time to delete.~~ Tapered (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^So... Why not be constructive instead of deleting it? Added English-language sources.--Zoupan 04:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) The title of this page is "Articles for Deletion!" 2) I edit pages that interest me and about which I know a bit. This doesn't qualify on either count. 3) First, you tell visitors to the page to be constructive without naming any sources--to wit, "go out and find the stuff" instead of providing the info yourself. Then when I point this out, you suggest that I, personally do it! If you're so interested, do it for yourself. 4) Are you familiar with the term 'chutzpah?' If not, know that you practice it at a high level. Tapered (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I edit pages that interest me and about which I know a bit", so based on this (that you have no clue about this person), you assumed that the article should be "Big Deleted". There is a button – I did not ask you to personally do anything, but explained that there are plenty of sources showing notability.--Zoupan 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not acknowledging your improvement of the article. I've struck though my "Delete" recommendations. My reasoned and clear Deletion recommendation was based on Wikipedia notability and source guidelines--nothing else. It had nothing to do with my knowledge about the subject. But since I don't know much about him and am not at all interested in him, I'm under no obligation at all to research him. To suggest any more than that is the worst sort of polemics. Tapered (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any more to say, please put on one of our Talk pages. Tapered (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapered says, "But since I don't know much about him and am not at all interested in him, I'm under no obligation at all to research him." You don't know you are actually supposed to at least try to find sources before you recommend keep/delete based on WP:N...? (WP:MUST) If that sounds like an uninteresting chore for topics you don't know much about and are not interested in, you should roll on over to WP:DISCUSSAFD and get a load of this lifechanger: "You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Wut wut WUT? —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steroid keep - all you gotta do is flip over to his Bosnian profile. This guy is clearly a baller. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:27, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar (journalist)[edit]

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

Article about news reader searches bring up many hits for the name however none seem to be about this person. Therefore it fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; also could be speedy delete as clear promo. If you search "news nation india" and his name you'll get coverage, but unfortunately everything I found was actually on the NewsNation website. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as multiple searches found nothing significant and notable aside from an Indian Today article he wrote. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's written as a resume not an article. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Express Redux[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not belong here as it is not actually a film, it a "non-existent 2009 film by American director Tobe Hooper that exists only in the confines of his novel, Midnight Movie". As it is a "film" never actually made, it fails WP:NF. However, the novel Midnight Movie might be worth an article, and this unmade project might then be spoken of there. Perhaps after deletion it can be redirected to the author Tobe Hooper. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film is not eligible for notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a plot point in a redlinked novel that may or may not be notable. If we had an article on the novel I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Goldman (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural relist per deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 15. I remain neutral. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:52, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/snow keep - profile in Washington Post, interview in Forbes twice in the same year, Reader's Digest be like wut?, he hits up the ad men like a Mad Man, his business is tight, no foolin, he droppin sick beats at NPR and on the mean streets and on the Wall StreetJ while reppin' the US of A Today. They see him rollin', articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/24/honest-tea-gmo-labeling.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} they hatin']! The GoldMan be addressing Congress like a baller but he keeps it real cuz his life is dope and of course, F.B.N. LIFE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: might be worth adding a few of those to the article? Liam987 talk 19:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm at a complete loss as to why this was nominated for deletion and actually passed - this should be further scrutinized as an AfD that went wrong. I don't see how anyone could say there is no evidence of notability unless they did not actually search, or, their search term was specifically "Seth Goldman (businessman)" which, obviously, is going to fail. No reliable source is going to refer to him as Seth Goldman (businessman). —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was also rather surprised. I've seen quite a few nominations closed well before a consensus is reached (I don't see anyone could think that one neutral vote and one delete vote is a consensus), but I understand that frequently AfD's are open for a long times with very little activity, as this one had been, so I can understand the rush to close them quickly. Liam987 talk 23:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikimandia. Absolutely meets WP:BIO. Liam987 talk 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject in question is notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rewrite and the numerous sources found by Wikimandia (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seth Goldman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The sources listed above show they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Banks (custodian)[edit]

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

This article fails to indicate any notability. Fails WP:BIO JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think this issue is the location and obscurity. I have found this source [1] and this source [2]. A school was named after him in his town. There should be sources which exist in books in Homer's libraries. Research regarding this person is also difficult he has a common name and is certain not the most notable person with this name. However, I am inclined to retain this because weight should be given to deceased historical figures from rural locations. Finding information regarding them is always more difficult, but this does not meet he is not notable. He died in 1988 and has had influence in his town Homer in Alaska. The obscurity of this location suggest that finding source on the internet maybe difficult, but it does not mean sources do not exist. World War II heros in populous cities with school named after them generally passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. I checked WorldCat for all the cited sources (except the personal communication with a school teacher, which I removed), and I couldn't find any of them. If there are no published sources, then the topic does not meet WP:GNG either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine coverage one expects to find in a local newspaper, alongside announcements of new pothole fixings and elections for the town dog-catcher. Man bites dog territory here. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I do agree with points made by Valoem. Yes, those offline sources do exist, some of them can even be found outside of Homer. Look at this from the perspective of mid-to-late 20th century Homer history. There is no mention of such in main article Homer, Alaska. Homer Public Library is dominated by fairly recent coverage of an architectural award given to its current building, though past reads of the aforementioned offline sources indicate that it was highly unusual for a community as small and remote as Homer to have a public library in the 1940s. There may have been something else about the unusual aspect of a homegrown community effort to establish the library, as many libraries existing in Alaska at that point were originally established by churches, particularly the Episcopal Church. Furthermore, WP:WTAF is most often interpreted as "Unless and until *you* write the article first, everything is bullshit and shouldn't be acknowledged on here". Persons interested in study on the aforementioned subtopic of Homer history needn't be misled into thinking that Banks is representative of the notable people of this era because someone bothered to write an article, but that Hazel Heath and Yule Kilcher and Leo Rhode aren't because no articles exist. Unfortunately in Kilcher's case, there's been an Internet POV floating around for longer than Wikipedia's existed that his notability should be measured more by the celebrity stature of his granddaughter than by his own accomplishments. I can't agree. If you're telling me that the signer of a state constitution isn't notable, perhaps I've been wasting my time in the wrong place all these years. Anyway...notifying Beeblebrox and DSwarthout, who are recently active and have identified as living in this community, of this discussion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this has been here for four years and I had no idea until just now. I don't know how much insight I can offer as this was all a bit before my time (I was ten years old and living in Ohio when he retired and they named the school after him) but I'll see if I can't locate some more substantial coverage. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a long time resident of Homer I can tell you that Paul Banks is a well known name in town. Perhaps the younger, more recent arrivals will not know the provenance of the name of the school that honors him but then they may not know about Yule Kilcher either. While Mr. Banks doesn't have the reputation or importance of Kilcher, he did have an impact on the townspeople. It's interesting that people connect Yule with his granddaughter Jewel when it really should be the other way around. Yule was a true pioneer and spent his life in Homer while Jewel only stayed until she reached her late teens. At any rate, my vote is to keep the article intact. Alaska Dave (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice story and one that my uncle (lives close by in Happy Valley, coincidentally enough) have collaborated, but just being a locally famous person isn't enough to justify an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources do not cover the subject sufficiently, then deletion should be the outcome here. I find this appeal to local denizens to be a form of illegitimate canvassing, to boot. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a young whippersnapper, "only" 42 years old and have "only" lived in Homer for 16 years. In any event, whatever we may think as locals who have of course all heard this name what matters, as always, is significant coverage from reliable sources. That seems to be what is eluding us here. The local papers don't have online archives going back that far, and even if they did they are just the local papers. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he may well be a local celebrity and an all around worthy person, but the issue here is the lack of sources that can verify this. They might very well be in a filing cabinet in the Homer library, but sources we can't see or verify with are as good as useless. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Boman[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News shows plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage, some English some not, but all can be considered for notability. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could find plenty of hits on Google news, but mainly from non-English sources I was unsure of, or small mentions in sources which seemed unreliable, e.g. blogs, adverts. Which sources did you think were reliable and significant, TTTommy111? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - @Boleyn - Sorry for the delay, I'm only around about twice a week. Taking into consideration English references alone, there are these - [3], [4], [5], and [6]. One is an interview so it really doesn't count, but the intro of it supports information about him and is in a reliable source (which shows that he is large enough to be in these publications and not just some simple Wordpress blogs). I did not dig too much deeper as I did not think it necessary. I also did not go through any of the non-English sources. --TTTommy111 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain for now as searches here and here found results and one of those same links here (nothing at thefreelibrary) so I'm not sure if this all adds to solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As above. J 1982 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is a poor stub.. but that is not a reason for deletion. AFD is not a clean-up service, subject passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been plenty of independent coverage in reliable sources (eg: [7][8][9][10][11]) that show this guy meets the WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 12:54, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Search for the South's Funniest Accountant[edit]

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

--AM (Talk to me!) 20:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smells like self promotion.@Airplane Maniac: - This should have been a speedy delete or a proposed deletion. Not sure you had to bring this to AfD. NickCT (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know for sure, being new here. I wanted to make sure that it was a true deletion, thanks! :)--AM (Talk to me!) 20:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you should give some reason for nominating this article for deletion. Currently, it is nominated for no reason. However, I'll vote for Delete as its written like an advertisement plus fails on WP:GNG. Hitro talk 20:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination fails to state a reason for deletion, which means this is potentially subject to a speedy keep. I'll assume, however, that the nominator's intended reason is lack of notability. Google reveals a small amount of press coverage of this 10-year-old charitable fundraiser, e.g. [12], but I haven't found enough to establish notability. I did stumble across a few sources referring to similar contests in other places [13] but again, I don't think there's enough in reliable sources to support an article. Unless someone else can provide more, this looks like it's headed for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for notability but also clearly WP:HOAX because I'm only one properly certified to rate humor in accountants, providing they are only from the Southern region. (We don't want things getting out of control.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as multiple searches (News, Books, highbeam, browser and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from a passing mention here and browser along with one thefreelibrary (press release, of which there were a few in browser). But unfortunately, no solid mentions even from local news. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Durrett[edit]

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

WP:MEMORIAL about a journalist for a local newspaper. No in-depth coverage beyond local obits. Contested prod OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, delete as apart from his recent death, there is no significant and notable coverage about him and my searches only found this News list. The article also currently reads a little too personal and not to mention, there's no target for a move because all of the links are communities where he was from, Craig (given name), etc. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies under journalist of a moderately large newspaper. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Circulation is less than 38,000 as of 2014. [14]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MEMORIAL has been mentioned, no other notable achievements, almost all refs are not independent (mostly his employer). Kraxler (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in no way wanting to devalue the individual, he does not meet the WP:GNG. WP:MEMORIAL definitely applies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to [[]]. Redirect is usually preferred over deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Skip[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this meets WP:NASTRO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It has a somewhat fast rotation period [15] but I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 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 [[]]. Redirect is usually preferred over deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2042 Sitarski[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this meets WP:NASTRO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 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: 32001–33000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

32720 Simoeisios[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing found on Google Scholar. I suppose this one was AfD'd because there was a link ref. to JPL? Praemonitus (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I perhaps should have boldly redirected it, the JPL reference certainly didn't influence me. I think, if I remember rightly, that I wanted a discussion as I was unsure if a Jupiter Trojan held more significance than your average asteroid. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once you get above numbered asteroid 10000, even being a Jupiter Trojan makes notability difficult. -- Kheider (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe ClueBot II created an asteroid article for any named and numbered asteroid back in 2008 when all asteroids were considered to have WP:Inherent notability. -- Kheider (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this meets WP:NASTRO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. It's not a low-numbered one, so I'm not sure why we need to take the time for a full discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do appreciate Boleyn using discretion when in doubt. -- Kheider (talk) 02:07, 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 redirect to [[]]. Redirect is usually preferred over deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1733 Silke[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be redirected; or (preferably) redirected, as per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources found to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of how this meets WP:NASTRO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 D.C. United U-23 season[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NSEASON, not in a top professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per nom. It fails WP:NSEASON and is not notable enough for an article. Qed237 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unreferenced. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, not notable, about one sentence long, etc. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability apart from the main squad's season. This one sentence can readily be noted in the main team's season article if needed. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original prodder. WP:NSEASON allows for season articles for clubs in a "top professional league." As the National Premier Soccer League is in the "4th" tier of American soccer and is a development league, it doesn't satisfy that criteria. Tavix | Talk 18:48, 28 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Nabi[edit]

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

Hasn't made first team appearance Telfordbuck (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Fight Gym[edit]

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

MMA training gym that occasional holds fights. Coverage is passing mentions in articles about the people who work/train there. No significant coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, thefreelibrary and highbeam) found nothing significant and notable aside from this (minor mention through James Te Huna) and this (a few good sources but not significant). There's simply nothing to suggest this place has received good and solid coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see and couldn't find significant independent coverage of this gym. Papaursa (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Calland[edit]

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

Coverage is routine and/or local--not enough to meet GNG. Losing in the round of 64 is not enough to show notability. Even with that performance he will not be ranked in the top 60 by the WTF in the 78 kg division.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Media coverage of him almost exclusively consists of passing mentions. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. APerson (talk!) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage fails GNG and just competing at the world championships isn't enough for notability--there are about 1500 at each year's TKD world championships (16 divisions, round of 128).Astudent0 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. I don't believe that simply appearing at a world championship is sufficient to show notability and I think he lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In some cases, WTF being one of them, it is more of a festival than a world championship. Literally anyone can go although some countries do select squads they are not necessarily their best. Notable if you medal, even the top 16.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:18, 28 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 and salt as nonnotable and/or hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GoAnimate: The Movie[edit]

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

Not notable, as a result failing WP:NFILM. WikiMan20152014 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)WikiMan20152014[reply]

@WikiMan20152014: Not a hoax, as the film actually exists (try Googling it).
Delete Non-notable film, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches all found nothing significant and notable, not even a one good source. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As people have said, it's not a notable film – not to mention the fact that it has zero sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Redirect after~~ Delete ~~to GoAnimate where readers can read about its production company even with the existing film itself lacking coverage to meet WP:NF.~~ Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Y Struck, not a suitable redirect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is just some thing on youtube some people made. Any one can make a go animate video, and with out reliable sources this is just a video that exists eith no notoriety.We dont need redirect for every go animate video,Beerest 2 Talk page 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, this isn't an official production with GoAnimate, so a redirect isn't a good idea here. This is pretty much one of those deals where a couple of school age kids make their own film and then try to add it to Wikipedia. I seem to remember this getting deleted more than a few times already under different names and I think that at least one of the accounts were blocked, so this could be a block evasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was previously created at Go!Animate The Movie by User:LucaElliot2 and it was also edited by a sock of User:Bambifan101. This looks like it's probably some of the same people, so I'll reopen the SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was also created at GoAnimate The Movie where it was more of a blatant hoax, as they tried to assert that this received a -100% fresh rating at RT, among other things. This article creation looks like it's a pretty blatant attempt to avoid detection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also Go!Animate: The Movie (2006 film), Go!Animate: The Movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It looks like this is also tied to the account for User:StevenBInc, who was blocked for creating hoax pages and later tried to create several sockpuppets to evade a block. However there are potential ties to Bambifan101, so I've opened up the SPI under their name here. Either way, this is a pretty obvious attempt to evade a block. If this exists, it's something that was made by a couple of kids in their spare time and is not an official product of Go!Animate. (The claims of it being a blockbuster film are most assuredly a hoax. Earlier article versions tried to assert that this film was licensed by 20th Century Fox and was up for an Oscar.) This is about the 7th time this has been recreated and I'll guarantee that if this isn't salted, someone will try to re-create it in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as nonnotable and/or hoax. Trivialist (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, all votes (aside from one changed delete) suggest keep. (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Willy[edit]

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

Contested prod. ~~A newsfeed announcing the premiere of an upcoming film does not establish notability at all. It's simply WP:TOOSOON for this article.~~ De728631 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Coverage in reliable sources is very sparse and superficial. There is no evidence that this film will ever be notable. Fails WP:NFILM.~~ Passes WP:GNG based on newly-found sources. - Mr X 18:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I worked on finding sources - I only added one but there are others. Obviously the Dominican Republic does not have a huge film industry, but I don't see why it would fail based on an upcoming film. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much the equivalent coverage as many upcoming English films. The director, producers, actors etc all have profiles, so have some notability. Someone at WP:PNT also felt it was worth saving and put in effort to translate it to English. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Just because the key people involved in making the film have articles doesn't mean that their film is notable even before the premiere. If there are other sources though that already demonstrate in-depth coverage in the DomRep or elsewhere, please free to add them. De728631 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google reveals that there's already sufficient coverage of this soon-to-be-released film in reliable sources to establish notability, for example [16][17][18][19], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa I see Arxiloxos got the password to the Google too! Remember, only we can be trusted with that kind of power. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with thanks to Arxiloxos and Мандичка as a completed film receiving coverage meets the criteria for inclusion set at WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Update: I have just addressed issues and added those cites per MOS:FILM. Meeting WP:NF is established. Thanks all. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many have done a great job of improving this article. WP:NFF states: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines" [emphasis added]. However, additions since the nomination (including reliable citations seem to demonstrate that the general notability guidelines have been met. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thank you for adding all the additional sources. I have to agree with JoeSperazza that in its current state the article does meet the general notability criteria. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron DeTommaso[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON. May not be that notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, period. WP:TOOSOON also applies here. APerson (talk!) 18:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely too soon with one role and searches of course found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Barlow[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has managed a college soccer team, something not covered by WP:NFOOTY or WP:NCOLLATH. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's make it covered by those two then. If it is done in college basketball, college football and college baseball, college soccer should be no different. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:NCOLLATH. Giant Snowman 16:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:NCOLLATH. Fenix down (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and fails per WP:SOCCER. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:34, 28 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 and redirect to Twin Towers 2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Gardner[edit]

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

I am the author of this article. At the time, I though this subject was notable for a Wikipedia article. Now that I think about it, this person is only notable for One event, which is his World Trade Center design. I am proposing this is deleted or redirected to Twin Towers 2. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect Speedy Delete~~: WP:CSD#G7, author requested deletion, no non-minor edits by anyone other than creator. ― Padenton|✉ 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an architect who designed a major proposal to replace the buildings destroyed on September 11th, whose work has been recognized by reliable and verifiable sources. This isn't someone who fell down a well or was caught on a video that went viral; BLP1E has no relevance here. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Keep I admit I only went off nom earlier since its author requested deletion and no other real edits. Nah CookieMonster755, it's completely fine. Keep per WP:CREATIVE #3 "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work" and #4 "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". One of two designers for the rebuilt Twin Towers....major role Y, significant or well-known work Y. #4, not entirely certain on the definition of 'monument' here, but sounds like Y to me. ― Padenton|✉ 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ....Nevermind...again...didn't realize it was only a proposed design. Forgive me, all-nighter. Of course if he's done other stuff, then maybe. ― Padenton|✉ 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn - Kenneth Gardner only designed a World Trade Center proposal, not the World Trade Center site that is currently under construction. His Twin Towers 2 design was favored by many people, but it was never constructed due to David Childs and Daniel Libeskind current design which was completed 2 years ago. Maybe that will change your mind about if the article should be deleted or not. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and he received extensive reliable and verifiable coverage. That's what notability is about. Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Padenton. We can all have our late nights. I don't think he has done anything significant other than his proposed Twin Towers 2 design. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twin Towers 2. Does not appear to be notable outside of that unbuilt project. Pax 06:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears to me (after some digging through various commercial webpages) that, other than the Twin Towers design that did receive extensive attention, Gardner's main occupation has been as the builder of high-end architectural models for design and marketing. The website for his company (formerly The Gardner Group, now called Awad/Gardner Architectural Models) has a nice-looking gallery of some of these works (and they are very cool) but provides little other information, and I haven't been able to find anything in independent reliable sources about his business or anything other than the WTC project. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Architect for the Twin Towers II? Of course, keep it. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverSurfingSerpent: a rejected design for Twin Towers II :-/. I thought the same thing. ― Padenton|✉ 17:59, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jane Phillips[edit]

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

Non-notable biography about a criminal of little to no interest, per WP:PERP. No coverage other than contemporary news accounts. Legitimus (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:PERP. The subject of this article is not notable. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable by doing a simple google search. A subject clearly reported about by multiple independent news media, the article itself is not up to shape. But again, AfD should not be used as a clean-up service. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a google search is not enough to satisfy the requirements of notability for a biographical article, per policy. WP:PERP states that there must be "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The last dated source on this person was April 2006 reporting on her conviction, which counts as "contemporaneous news coverage." There has been no reliable secondary sources since that time.Legitimus (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor crime that shows no signs of WP:PERSISTENCE. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of WP:PERSISTENCE. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable criminal; no enduring notability. Quis separabit? 02:59, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Maidstone (South Africa)[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability requirements as set out in WP:ORG Knyzna1 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article is well written and it is extensive and does provide valuable information to those who may be looking for such. It would be a pity for the internet to lose this potentially useful information. I have added some references to demonstrate notabilty. Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Significant contents - the reredos - adds to its worth. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I'm not a fan at all of organisations using Wikipedia as web hosting (which is what this seems to be on the whole). The article seems to be largely based on vague documents in the church archives, rather than published sources, and I have to take it in good faith that the books recently listed at the bottom contain pertinent information about the church. Howver, churches are generally semi-public buildings at the heart of a community, so its probable its been notable at some point in its 80+ year history. It doesn't help, when searching for sources, that the English Maidstone also has an All Saints Church! It's a tough one, the article needs a hefty clean-up at least. Sionk (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 - After being up 3 weeks and the keep !voter not really expanding on his reasons for keeping it seems the best outcome here is to redirect like the rest of these. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1614 Goldschmidt[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Three photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. I only see two studies [20] [21] and another Google scholar hit that turns out to be a paper that shares a page with one of those two studies. But one of those studies is solely about this object, which is why the "weak". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi police station bombing[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT. article created day after event. Almost all the coverage I found is from the same month of the event. Whilst 4 deaths is unfortunate, that in itself is not enough for notability LibStar (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it may qualify per WP:EVENT because there was additional coverage after the fact. They arrested the owner of the car and he was aquitted six months later; there was extensive coverage. [22], [23] —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in the New York Times and the BBC establishes notability. [24] [25] Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that coverage is from the day of the event. Where is the WP:PERSISTENT coverage to establish long term notability? LibStar (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links that Wikimandia provided establish long term notability as they were from six months after the event. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant media coverage in reliable sources such as the NYT is reason enough to keep it from deletion. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Wikimandia and Winner 42 said, additional coverage months later the event in reliable sources is enough to satisfy WP:EVENT. — Yash! ^(Y) 01:08, 29 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Salim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating on behalf of الدبوني who's a bit lost on nominating, His reason is "Doesn't meet notability guidelines...no reliable sources, no verifiability", I myself have no opinion on the AFD, Cheers –Davey2010^Talk 10:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep maybe even speedy keep. The nominator is correct in his assertion that an identically named article was deleted in 2008 but in the discussion, that individual was described as "NN local Chicago businessman. He and Peter Psihos, also up for deletion, made a small spash in the local media over a smoking ban." Yet this individual is described as "British social entrepreneur and producer." Pretty clearly not the same person. Further, the nominator's assertion that there are "no reliable sources" is inane as he and his exhibition have received plenty of non-trivial third-party coverage. --Non-Dropframe _talk 11:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very promotional. Claims appear to be inherited from one heavily-promoted exhibition.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and I agree with Non-dropframe that this should probably be a speedy keep. The old article that was deleted about 7 years ago was obviously about a non-notable person involved in a local news incident. The Ahmed Salim here is a very notable person as demonstrated by the broad range of credible sources giving him coverage. From how I read it, the notability is not just from one exhibition, but from producing several exhibitions, various educational books and at least two movies starring very high profile names. In addition, he appears to be involved in the music industry as an agent representing at least one well known celebrity. If the article appears promotional in tone, this does not alone warrant deletion if the subject is notable, as this subject clearly is. Brownchamcha (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the point raised by Rpclod - yes this person is the son of Salim Al-Hassani (who is certainly notable, although this point is not even mentioned in the article), but he is simply running a successful exhibition (1001 Inventions). There are no RS which focus on Ahmed Salim himself, so he is not notable.--الدبوني (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seeing as the Ahmed Salim article is so well sourced, and his work covers many different education and entertainment media, this seems like a very open-and-shut case for keeping the article and it's hard to understand why this has even been nominated for deletion. There are thousands of articles about individuals on wikipedia who have a lot fewer reliable sources and whose achievements have had much less impact, but there is no clamour for their deletion, so it seems strange this one has been nominated. It has been mentioned by الدبوني that Ahmed Salim is the son of Salim Al-Hassani. I have searched online but couldn't find any source confirming this to be true. So it appears that الدبوني has personal knowledge of Ahmed Salim, and his family, that objective third parties don't have, which leads to the suspicion that the desire of الدبوني to delete this article is personal and has nothing to do with the notability of the individual at all. In which case the existence of this nomination looks more like a personal vendetta than a reasonable argument. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue petty vendettas against people you know personally. Which is why I'm voting to keep this article as it is. SuperSallySees (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSallySees That is because you are missing out on some Arabic sources. Anyway this is not the point. The point is that despite many references being included in the article, many of them do not even mention Ahmed Salim and even when they do, he is not the subject of the article (the subject is usually 1001 Inventions). I honestly cannot find a single RS which shows this person is notable.--الدبوني (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - he qualifies based on awards alone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:22, 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 deleted and salted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bisarva News[edit]

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

This self-published news outlet doesn't seem to be notable, and has been speedied per CSD A7 a few times already. To settle the debate once and for all, and to avoid re-creation, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion this time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - although they do get points for the "Genuine Reporting" notice on the site. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Hoax Their "official website" is a wordpress blog with one article from 2014 on it. There is nothing that gives the indication that this actually exists except for some very questionable lists. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for six months and I suggest any interested creators use Articles for Creation until the salt ends. My searches found nothing to suggest this blog is notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt indefinitely: fails WP:GNG and unlikely to be notable, so salt idefinitely. Esquivalience ^t 00:19, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Vaghela[edit]

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

Most reliable sources only mention him in passing. The sources in the article are put out by the political party. He was only a candidate and not elected. None of his party positions have inherent notability and he does not meet WP:NPOL. None of the other coverage meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Article should be deleted with the WP:Usual Caveats to recreate it if he wins a notable election or later becomes a notable figure. Jbh ^Talk 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: @NeilN: I have mentioned the sources below. He is the National Executive Member and also the Head of the Disciplinary Action Committee of the Aam Aadmi Party which is the fastest growing political party in India. Apart from that he has also published 2 books which have a world wide presence.

Please understand. I am a new user. Please give me a second chance.--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirvaghela (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Kabirvaghela pinged you above but did not sign his comment. Pinging you for him. Jbh ^Talk 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Could you please ask some of your editors to edit the page and clear all the issues?--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: There is absolutely nothing that can be done to address the notability issues with out sources that talk about the subject. I have looked and other editors have looked. We can not find enough. All these sources you have listed are passing mentions, minor quotes or material put out by the party. Read WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and make a statement of how he meets the criteria set out there. I can not really do anything to help with that because, after reading through the sources, searching the web and asking input from other editors, I believe he does not meet those criteria. Your job is to convince the other editors here, through policy based arguments and evidence that he does meet those criteria. Just posting links without saying how they contribute to notability and how he passes the notability criteria is not a sufficient keep argument. Jbh ^Talk 20:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: @NeilN:

Point no. 3 in WP:NPOL says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

So according to this, the links that I have mentioned above do meet this criteria.

I have mentioned reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.

I have removed the unnecessary links.

The following links are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject article:

--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: @NeilN:

P.S. Search for Dinesh Vaghela on Google. The entire page has his name in all the links. Also, his wikipedia page is come on the first page. I just want to say that this is a very important page for wikipedia. the subject has significant coverage internationally.

I request you to keep the page and resolve all the issues as soon as possible. Rest is up to you all. Cheers! --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: Please format your comments using proper indentation for talk pages. Use one more : than the comment you are replying to. I have re-formatted your comments to make reading this page easier for other editors. Jbh ^Talk 19:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Okay! Thank you so much.--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~delete~~ Isn't innately notable because of any election wins or any of the office-positions he has held, so the question is of WP:GNG. I found a lot of trivial mentions in articles where Waghela is quoted on behalf of Aam Aadmi Party, Bharat Swabhiman Trust, Patanjali Yog etc, but only one article that devotes any space on him personally, and that too in context of a pre-election profile, which raises WP:BLP1E issues (there is another biographical article but that is in an online only local "newspaper" that appears to be a one-person enterprise and doesn't qualify as a reliable source). IMO the coverage is too meager and/or trivial to establish notability at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep, in light o the Deccan Herald article Neil points to, which along with the Indian Express piece has eneough biographical coverage to establish notability and for us to write a stub. The reason for "weak" is that I fear that the thinness of the material will result in gathering of fluff, or the article becoming a coatrack but, as per policy, those issues are best handled through editing rather than deletion. Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe more sources have been added since this AFD began. I think this is enough to establish notabilty. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being able to establish bare biographical facts is not the criteria for GNG, NPOL or ANYBIO. All require significant coverage or meeting particular criteria such as being elected to a notable office. Head of Party Discipline does not carry inherent notability. Perhaps, in the future, there will be some significant coverage about the subject, possibly in relation to the current "scandal" going on in his party. He gets his name in the paper a lot but mostly as short quotes and passing mention. Right not I still believe is is TOOSOON. Jbh ^Talk 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think he passes WP:NPOLITICIAN, although I don't think he passes WP:GNG. However, I believe that passing WP:NPOLITICIAN is sufficient. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misread at first and thought he was a national politician. Being a local politician means he fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN, so delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph2302 "Being a local politician means he fails WP:GNG..." doesn't really make sense. Can you clarify? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a local politician means they don't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and the lack of significant coverage means they fail WP:GNG. Therefore, they don't pass anything, and should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this passes WP:BIO. There is a profile about him here here and hundreds of articles where he is mentioned in a meaningful way like here. His name is spelled Vaghela and Waghela, so I think he must have a mother tongue in another alphabet where there could be more sources. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to be overly picky but the article where you say he is "mentioned in a meaningful way" simply mentions his name. The sum total of his mention in that reference is "... on Wednesday joined the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the presence of its national executive member Dinesh Vaghela." That is all, nothing more. I go to the effort to point this out here because this is how he is often mentioned in the press, in passing and with no depth. Even hundreds of such mentions does not make one notable. If you can help locate non-English sources that would be great, such sources could very well contribute to his notability if they can be located. PS The other source you mention is already used in the article. Jbh ^Talk 02:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstand it, but the way it was written, "in his presence" in the first paragraph, seems significant to me. You don't usually see that unless the presence is significant some way. It's very formal to me and almost royal. But maybe it has some significance I don't understand, like someone may officially join a party only if a representative is present. Unfortunately I don't know what his name is in his mother tongue. Maybe @Kabirvaghela: can help? Elgatodegato (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elgatodegato: Dinesh Vaghela's official name is spelt Dinesh Vaghela but many people in Gujarat (which is his hometown) spell the surname with a 'W'. Hence, all this confusion. People who don't know spell it with a 'W' and people who know him spell it with a 'V' which is the correct spelling. --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Times of India article appears to be one short quote within one very short article? Which leaves the Deccan Herald article as the only actual reliable source. The others are affiliated or of questionable reliability. valereee (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guies, Can I re-do the page with proper references? or is it gonna get deleted? --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Vaghela, if you have better references, you can present them here. Is there no native-language newspaper that has done a profile of the subject? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: you are welcome to edit the article while the AFD is open. Such edits can even help reviewers better judge the notability of the subject. Just be sure to comply with wikipedia's content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP) in your edits, and if you are related to the subject in any way, read and follow wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirvaghela: Kabir, you could move the article to draft space -- that would let you work on it while you're looking for references. That way you wouldn't lose all your work in a deletion. Maybe over the next few months there will be more coverage in reliable sources. valereee (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Yes, I am related. I wasn't aware of the guidelines. What do I do now? I created the page. Is there a way I can delete all my edits for this page? --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir, the concern over the conflict of interest is that when we're writing an article about a relative, sometimes it's hard for us to objectively assess his actual notability. The person is important to us, and that sometimes makes us believe he is more notable than he actually is, and the question here is whether or not he is notable. One good way for you to prove that he is notable for Wikipedia is to find at least three stories ABOUT HIM in national or international newspapers or magazines. Not stories in which he is simply mentioned or quoted but stories that are at least partly ABOUT him. Not local newspapers or online-only new sites (unless they have hundreds of thousands of readers per day such as Huffington Post or Slate.) valereee (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Here you go

AAP Refers Rebels' Case to Disciplinary Panel

Rebels ousted, Arvind Kejriwal takes full control of AAP

AAP Notice: Prashant Bhushan Gives Stinging Retort

Kahir, the first is a bare mention of the subject in an article about someone else. The second is a bare mention of hte subject in an article about an incident. The third is a bare mention of the subject in an article about someone else. I'm sorry, but this looks very much like a person who is slightly involved in an -incident- that may or may not be notable itself. This person is only being mentioned because he is a member of a disciplinary committee which is dealing with a politician's bad behavior. I just don't see this as proving notability. valereee (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article looks perfect to me now. --KaranMehta240892 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — KaranMehta240892 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi, @KaranMehta240892:! Welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you started editing yesterday, so you may be unfamiliar with the process by which article subjects are proven notable. You can find more information here: WP:NOTE valereee (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep The article is good.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 29 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) 01:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loci Controls[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. This article was written by a WP:COI editor, and is WP:PROMO- for example "has shown to increase efficiency by 25% in at least one location". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry Joseph, but it looks like the sources given do pass WP:CORP such as Popular Science and WCVB. That one "promotional" line is reliably sourced to popular science. I don't think WP:TNT is required here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just squeaks by WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (As the author of most of the content in the article) I found a request at the teahouse after speedy deleting it WP:A7. I looked into it and definitely consider popular science to be a WP:RS, so I undeleted, did some research, found some citations. A google search found several other WP:RS that I added in. The 25% part was meant to be part of an "assertion of notability", and not promotional. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fine, if you want to let companies spam Wikipedia with rubbish about their companies, then so be it. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)~~ Retracted Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
First off, 95% plus of that content was added by myself based on direct synthesis from the reliable sources that I have also cited, and you have my assurance I have nothing to do with that company. Secondly, any of the content that was added by a WP:COI editor was reviewed by myself, and is all attributable to a reliable source. Secondly, I used to look through reliable sources such as popular science for organizations such as this, which have been notable enough to get actual coverage. The difference between spam, and this article is, spam is written with the goal of advertising a company or service with the intent to increase sales; this article was written with the goal of synthesizing the relevant information from reliable sources. For example, if the same content that I wrote was written in a "spam" tone, it might say "Our product increases efficiency 25% for methane extraction", regardless of the fact that this notable result was found in a single location and may not be representative of the entire product, but written or construed in such a way that a reader may believe it to be so. By writing it as "25% in at least 1 location", and having that assertion directly quoted to a reliable source, I expressed a notable aspect of this organization (a requirement for an article is an assertion of notability) in a way that is meant to express the facts from the sources I used, while not expressing it in prose that may mislead a reader into thinking something other than what the source I got it from expressed. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, but unless you control everything the other user writes, it'll quickly turn to COI spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)~~ Retracted Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I will keep an eye on it, but I doubt the threat/danger of that is as serious as it may seem. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holy crap, Joseph -- there's a line between enforcing relevant guidelines and policies and Being On A Crusade, and your posts here cross it. I understand that you believe that paid/COI editors ought to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but in the meantime, they're permitted to edit and create articles about their companies. If you don't like that, your only recourse is to seek to change consensus to your POV over on the relevant policy talk pages, not to delete reliably sourced articles with properly sourced content. The measure of whether a subject merits an article on Wikipedia comes down to whether the subject meets the GNG or not, not whether the editor supplying sound citations is COI. In especial, your statement about "controlling" what other editors contribute is quite disturbing, and is more needful of scrutiny than anything some poor COI editor puts forth. Ravenswing 20:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, with hindsight I realise these comments were wholly inappropriate, and have retracted them. I understand that COI/paid editors can create company pages, and I really don't know why I got so emotional/stupid about this one. I'm still not convinced it passes [{WP:GNG]], a couple of good sources isn't enough IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must agree with User:Ravenswing on this matter. "I understand that you believe that paid/COI editors ought to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but in the meantime, they're permitted to edit and create articles about their companies." and "If you don't like that, your only recourse is to seek to change consensus to your POV over on the relevant policy talk pages, not to delete reliably sourced articles with properly sourced content. The measure of whether a subject merits an article on Wikipedia comes down to whether the subject meets the GNG or not, not whether the editor supplying sound citations is COI. In especial, your statement about "controlling" what other editors contribute is quite disturbing, and is more needful of scrutiny than anything some poor COI editor puts forth." I am really not understanding your zealotry regarding this article and many others recently. The article subject has significant coverage across several WP:RS including [26], [27], [28], and [29], especially the Popular Science and WCVB ones. That being said the article subject passes WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and crosses the threshold of notability.WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 09:45, 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 and redirect both to Optimizely. I did not protect the redirects, but I will watchlist them to see if protection becomes necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Siroker & Pete Koomen[edit]

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

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

These were created as part of a set of four related to Optimizely. I don't see either as having notability independent of Optimizely, which is the focus of most of the coverage. I did a merge and redirect to Optimizely, which was undone by the creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I admit I have a conflict of interest here, but both people are clearly notable. A simple Google News[30] search reveals that both Dan Siroker and Pete Koomen have received significant news coverage from reliable sources. Both Pete Koomen and Dan Siroker are founders of Optimizely, a major venture funded tech company which has received significant attention from the press. Aside from Optimizely, the two are serial entrepreneurs, published authors, and notable angel investors in Silicon Valley. Dan Siroker was also a key player in the 2008 Obama campaign and has been quoted in many articles and news stories about politics, most recently on Bloomberg[31] in regards to the upcoming presidential campaign. Salsakesh (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there are many hits in google and google news. The issues are the independence of those (PR wire articles and stories that share non-trivial passages with PR wire articles are not independent; neither are non-adversarial interview-based pieces) and whether the focus is on Optimizely or on Pete Koomen / Dan Siroker and whether that focus is in-depth. Note: the bloomberg video doesn't play for me, which may be a technical issue or a region issue. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are a few PR wire articles in there, but the vast majority of the sources are from reliable sources such as TechCrunch, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Wired, USA Today, CNN Money, and the New York Times. A few of those are as you say, non-adversarial interview based pieces, but that is not a criteria under WP:Reliable. Many of the articles talk about Dan Siroker and Pete Koomen within the context of Optimizely, but many of the articles also talk about their contributions to the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns, their angel investing, and their published book. Salsakesh (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the news coverage, both individuals have multiple published works, have contributed to scholarly research, and have been quoted in many published works. See the "Find sources" section above. Salsakesh (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles and redirect to the company. For Koomen, there is only one substantive article (cite #2); the remainder are mentions. For Siroker it's pretty much ditto -- mentions, but nothing substantive. Basically, they are known for founding the company, but there is very little about them apart from that. LaMona (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Koomen and Siroker have a number of mentions in both Google Books[32] and Google Scholar[33]. Perhaps the articles can be expanded to include their scholarly contributions. Salsakesh (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Optimizely; there are lots of news mentions, but it's all in relation to their company, passing mentions, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand this argument... that's like saying Larry Page and Sergey Brin are not notable because they are only well known in relation to their company. Dan Siroker was also recently interviewed on Bloomberg[34] for his expertise in big data and presidential campaigns, and no mention was made of his company. Both Koomen and Siroker also have significant citations in Google Books[35] and Google Scholar[36]. Salsakesh (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: just need a bit more comment to nail down the emerging consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Optimizely. Until more sources emerge that (like the BusinessWeek article) provide some personal info on Koomen. This will alsomt certainly happen if the company flourishes. It's just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this discussion is not just about Koomen but also Dan Siroker, who as the CEO of Optimizely naturally has more references than Koomen Salsakesh (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - If there is concern about the redirect being revserved prematurely, that would be better addressed by protecting the redirect rather than deleting the articles, especially since there may be material in these articles appropriate to merge with Optimizely. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salsakesh (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Salsakesh (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Salsakesh (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Blanco.[edit]

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

Filipino artists. No reliable references. All belong to the same family and created by the same editor. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were created by a group of editors (not a single editor). A list of all those editors and their articles is available at Wikipedia:School and university projects/Philippines artists. DL9C (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its possible the family as a whole is notable, harder to make a case for the individual artists. A couple of references [37] [38] [39] Paulbrock (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect all articles as suggested by Paulbrock, as a group the family appears to be notable per criteria #4 of WP:ARTIST, per the references provided by Paulbrook. That being said, individual members do not appear to criteria set forth in WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, since the individual articles fall within the scope of a notable group, in this case their family, a redirect and merger of referenced content to a new article named Blanco Family Museum, or Blanco family, would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator moved the page to the Draft: namespace; I've undone the move for now. ansh 666 06:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-as said above. Wgolf (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and is pure promotion. No point in a redirect to a non-existing article; even if several family members are notable, there is no indication they meet GNG as a family, so that's a tough sell. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the article of "Michael Blanco" and it is considered for deletion. I have add a few photos and bibliography recently. If that's not enough for references, I would like to request to move my article to the draft namespace.--User:Ms.popsie21 — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.This is the creator of the article of "Peter Paul P. Blanco". My article is considered for deletion. I added some reference and bibliography. If it is not still enough, I would like to request to move my article to the draft namespace.--User:Uknown624 Unknown624 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: comment on added sources helpful please Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and is pure promotion. Quis separabit? 20:54, 29 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 deleted by User:MelanieN at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanshlal Katiyar. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bansh Lal Katiyar[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate who didn't get elected. Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know him he is well know personality in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh . Ithink this page deserve to be in wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP that fails WP:POLITICIAN. I see no significant press coverage. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The Article tends to be raised to earn publicity. Simply a promotional page.--MahenSingha (Talk) 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage Vanshlal Katiyar in hindi news paper...Links added below:

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-11888010.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.154.3 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://upnewslive.com/?p=22311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyamame (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Google translate of the above URLs:

"Kanpur countryside, Jeanan: three days each booth booth migrant BJP party members will stay on. On Thursday, officials at the various meetings of the strategy. Akbarpur met under the chairmanship of former minister Mahesh Trivedi. He said that on December 19,20 and 21 of the Board will review all the booths themselves. Overseas anywhere booth acted carelessly met the recommendation of the report will be sent to the state organization. District Minister Saurabh Mishra said that most members do to make the party become the world's number one political party side. Board Chairman Vikas Mishra, Guddn Singh, Rama Mishra, Anil Shukla, Shiv Sharan Pandey, Sultan Singh, Gopal Saini, etc are. Saraswati School of Rajpur BJP District President Madan Pandey said at the meeting that each member of the organization was made possible at least one hundred members. Dinesh Mishra, Awadh Bishnoi, Shailesh Soni, former District President Rajesh Sachan, Abhilash Chauhan, Vanshlal Katiyar, Rajaram Kushwaha, Ramvli, relaxation Singh, Hrikant Porwal, DR. Fulchandra are Katheriya etc. Under the leadership of board chairman Govind Dixit booth Derapur rural migrant workers kapaleeshwara meeting held in the temple. Hanif, Ram Vilas, Munna Lal, Ram Prasad, Umakanat, are Pawan Kumar etc. Membership in Pukrayan charge Anil Bajpei said each booth, create more than a hundred members to increase the party's base. At the meeting, former District President Rajesh Tiwari, Vanshlal Katiyar, Rahul Agnihotri, huge Katiyar, Pramod Tripathi, Sachan Kuldeep, Rajesh Dwivedi, etc. Snkwar are true light."

"Rmabainagr (Sikandra) and the election committee of the BJP national vice president Kalraj Mishra said that the people in the state grain-grain is craving, Jho 08 million people is not getting two square meals. The state's chief Mayawati is Mngati Sandl to Mumbai from the ship. The people of the state over the precipice slap. They Ramabai Nagar on Yho victory in Sikandra assembly resolution was addressing the conference. Mr Mishra said that the farmers are committing suicide due to starvation, where people are for medicine Trahi-Trahi, where are you going to pay for everything, is messing with respect to the mother-sisters. Traders are being looted, the deal is to be the head of the money, by the people's representatives are being rape case. He panchayat in Barabanki in front of the molestation incident, saying that the BSP worker attempted suicide after molesting the girl, the woman's a woman minister in the government of respect is not safe. Teachers have ravaged not find jobs for the unemployed, the state of the disease situation is Guujr. He said the government is working as retaliation. Swami Ramdev is being charged. Anna's colleagues are being unfairly persecuted. Congress is creating segregation in the country. Congress religion and caste politics is working to break the country. These evil forces shall be taught a lesson. SP and BSP Our fight will be on the booth. Democracy will decide the winning and losing. Your struggle, your victory led to the shoe. When public anger grows the biggest dictatorship forces are destroyed. U 0 A 0 0 P broke the limits of government corruption. Central and state government warned that retaliation would be very severe consequences if Bwana worked. Mr. Mishra farmer from the city of Raipur railway station, Rnian grand welcome. Thousands of BJP by Yuwamorcha motorcycle procession was taken out from the venue. He said Ahwahn activists vowed to change that is to take the BJP to victory. Vijay Sankalp Conference State Secretary, MLA Prem Lata Katiyar, Kmlrani Varun former MP, Ganga Singh Cahan former legislator Hardoi, Ashok Dubey, former M 0 L 0 C 0, Rajesh Tiwari, District President, Vanshlal Katiyar, Mahavir Tripathi, Arvind Sachan assembly charge, Manoj Shukla, Archana Mishra, Hanuman Mishra, president Jitendra Singh Yuwamorcha etc. Thousands of people were present."

I don't see the words "Bansh Lal Katiyar" in the above translation. Did Google translate translate it as something else? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Macon, You can find him as (Vanshlal Katiyar) I think I wrote incorrectly.

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-12203788.html

(सिकंदरा तहसील में पूर्व जिलाध्यक्ष वंशलाल कटियार की अध्यक्षता में धरना आयोजित किया गया)

Google translate:

(Semaphore tehsil picket was held under the chairmanship of former District President Vanshlal Katiyar.)

Few More Media Coverage Links

News coverage Vanshlal Katiyar in hindi news paper...Links added below:

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-11109177.html

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-here-heading-in-english-for-story8231500-8231500.html

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-10314864.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyamame (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please stop posting these news articles here. You are simply making the discussion page a mess. Appearance of the name in news does not make a person notable. What position he holds, How many times he won the election, any significant achievement etc etc. counts for the purpose. I suggest you to please go through WP:POLITICIAN.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen R. Lawhead[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR, and I'm not convinced they pass WP:GNG either. In any case, most of the article is unsourced, so not complient with WP:BLP. A lot of the coverage on Google is generic or identical author profiles, as well as book lists etc. Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time commenting like this, so I apologize if my formatting is incorrect. I'm confused as to why this author fails those tests. I understand the sourcing problem, so I've found a few sources to add (if they are the ones you find missing):

Evangelical Christian Publisher's Association Award Winners, 1988
He received an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from the University of Nebraska
Christy Award

I don't know if those the things you're looking for, but I am surprised that this article would be singled out for deletion. Jason Scott (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doesn't seem to fail WP:NAUTHOR to me. I mean his books have been "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Also, he won a Gold Medallion for Fiction award in 1998 for one of his books, so I'm assuming that the books are well-known. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverSurfingSerpant: The article claims this, but I've been unable to find anything to back it up - with unsourced statements on awards, we have to assume they don't exist. Secondly, I don't understand the use of the quote - I can find no film referenced based on the books, or a book written on the book. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm changing my vote to Delete for now. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I submitted the reference for the award higher up--the Gold Medallion award is now known as the Evangelical Christian Publisher's Association Award (10 seconds of Google told me this). Jason Scott (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note: I've cleaned up where my replies were to have a better summary)
- His books have been "the subject . . . of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.": Fantasy Book Review (e.g., Taliesin, The Skin Map), Today's Zaman (e.g., Byzantium), The Telegraph (Robin Hood
- He has been the subject of a university course at an accredited U.S. university.
- He and his writings have been the subject of critical analysis (as opposed to just book reviews): The Conundrum of Stephen Lawhead, "A land shining with goodness:” Magic and religion in Stephen R. Lawhead’s Taliesin, Merlin, and Arthur"
- In a list compiled in 2013, his books have sold more than 2 million copies (more than other authors with Wikipedia articles who are not being reviewed for deletion): The Wertzone
- His books have been successful enough by his publisher to warrant book "trailers": The Skin Map
- His books have inspired musical albums: Ark Music
- He has won multiple awards for his writings: Evangelical Christian Publisher's Association Award Winners, 1988, Christy Award, 2008
- His alma mater, University of Nebraska, awarded him an Honorary Doctorate of Letters: University of Nebraska, Commencement Speaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.scott (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of evidence for WP:NAUTHOR; if this is the issue, then encourage editors to incorporate more references and citations to support this. Natebailey (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently sourced to meet notability guidelines. Artw (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Street Cycling[edit]

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

Article about a company for which there seems to be no reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 15:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources exist to establish notability. Best I could find is this sponsorship deal which is not independent. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, also an advertisement.~~ SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, looks like an advertisement too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arundu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arundu

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

Arundu is no place correct on is Arandu Saqraat (talk) 14:33, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed header. Close/speedy keep as not for deletion, AfD is not cleanup etc., etc. as with the previous two. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Note that it was the nom who cleared the original article and redirect it to Arandu a very short while back on this same day. This is getting disruptive looking bruh. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Enough information exists to prove it is not a hoax, keep per WP:NPLACE. AfD is not the place to discuss moves. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:NPLACE. Note the nominator has created Arandu about the same place, so that will need fixing. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep - Nomination is in bad faith, filed by yet another sock of a particular vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Kalousová[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, most sources not conform WP:RS, possibly fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winning a national pageant title as a qualifier to the "Miss World" category would qualify as winning a major award. As far as I know there are not specific requirements for beauty pageant winners that exclude them from the WP:ANYBIO criteria. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The national pageant is just a preliminary round for the international event. The Banner talk 10:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not appear to support WP:ANYBIO or other notability criteria. May just be too soon if subject actually wins Miss World, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Rpclod (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning Miss Czech Republic counts as a major award, unless there is a policy somewhere that states pageant titles are excluded from WP:ANYBIO criteria.. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Miss Czech Republic" hardly seems to meet WP:ANYBIO's requirement for a "well-known and significant award or honor". NickCT (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would wager that "Miss Czech Republic" is well known and significant in the context of the Czech Republic. The significant coverage in the Czech language also passes WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42: - But is the Czech Republic notable in the context of anything else. I hate when someone gets a national award in some podunk little country (e.g. Ms. St. Vincent and the Grenadines) and a bunch of folks instantly assume it's on par with winning a national level award in the United States. NickCT (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: It is not Wikipedia place to decide what is and isn't notable. If you would like, she can be considered the winner of a regional awards such as the people found here and here. The subject's significant coverage (such as [40] and [41], and [42] passes WP:BIO. Would you be interested in bringing all of Category:Czech beauty pageant winners to AfD along with all the winners of other regional and small nation contests? Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42: - re " It is not Wikipedia place to decide what is and isn't notable" - Really??? Well golly gee. There I was thinking that's that what we did here. Admittedly she has some coverage in Czech media, but I can't find a single English language reference for her. Her notability is clearly entirely local. And has she done anything other than win a single notable pageant? Why doesn't WP:BLP1E apply? NickCT (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: You can't find a single English reference for her? Did you even look? I would recommend trying the first and third references in the article. Also WP:NOENG and WP:LPI are applicable here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Yes. The Times of Beauty. How did I miss a reference in that fine and reputable publication? I know WP:NOENG applies, but fact is, if she isn't notable enough to warrant a single ref in a serious English language publication, she probably ain't that notable. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Define serious. Both English sources are considered "authoritative in relation to the subject" and therefore reliable. They are also independent from the contests and third party with editorial review thereby meeting the definition of an independent reliable sources. But, the fact is that it does not matter if English sources exist at all per WP:NOENG. Her significant coverage in Czech sources is enough. Though the fact that you didn't even bother to look at the sources in the article before coming to the AfD certainly says something. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42: - I bothered to search engine test it, which is really more relevant in these conversations than is simply looking at the references on the page. re "serious" - Is Times of Beauty a notable enough source to have its own WP page? WP:LPI is a bad essay, by-the-by. Our policy (i.e. WP:BLP1E) applies here. NickCT (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be in English... and that should never be a factor in meeting GNG. You can also hit up Google Translate and get a rough estimate as to whether or not the source is the subject of the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - didn't actually win Miss Czech Republic, the winner of which was kept at AfD last month. C 679 18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudz679: The person at the previous AfD won Miss Universe, this person won Miss World. They are different contests which are equally notable and should be kept on the same grounds. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they have multiple titles at Czech Miss, but the title of Czech Miss itself went to Švantnerová, and not Kalousová. The individual certainly did not win Miss World! C 679 19:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I meant, she won the nomination to represent the Czech republic at Miss World. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may throw in some goodies for second and third place, but she did not win the competition. The Banner talk 20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, Kalousová did not win 2015 Miss Czech World in April. So my next question is, who do you think is orchestrating this sham of lies, this misinformation, this twisted propaganda saying she did win it? It must be someone high up if they can influence all Czech media into printing over and over that she won Miss Czech World? And thus is going to compete at the Miss World pageant? [43], [44], [45]. The official Miss Czech organisation is in on it too, those lying bastards. And how cruel to Nikol Švantnerova, the one and only true Miss Czech World, who has been fraudulently entered into the Miss Universe Pageant. I know a guy to contact. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Winner 42, "winning a national pageant title as a qualifier to the "Miss World" category would qualify as winning a major award." Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. To win a national beauty pageant, and represent one's country in an international event (part of the Big Four) is notable, and significant coverage has been found already. To compare the size of the country to other bigger contries is totally out of order. Guidelines on politicians or sportsmen say "national" office or champion without any reference to the size. National is national. Period. Kraxler (talk) 18:10, 29 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/not nominated for AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

a page consist of many vandalism. I want to delete any recreate with full refrence Saqraat (talk) 11:52, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed header, and close/speedy keep since nom is not proposing complete deletion. AfD is not for cleanup: for major overhaul that you feel legitimate, start a discussion at the article talk page to be safe, work on a separate userspace/draft-namespace draft, or just boldly replace now at the mainspace if you have the good sources as you say to support it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:53, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 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 Speedy keep/not nominated for AFD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Booni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Booni is not correct name and page consist of many vandalism Saqraat (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed header and close/speedy keep as nom is not proposing deletion. Not gonna repeat myself on the "AfD is not cleanup" speech from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chitral. Also for reference is WP:Requested move. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:58, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 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 ~~Fatboy Slim~~ Norman Cook as Fatboy Slim is itself a redirect to Norman anyway.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bondi Beach: New Years Eve '06[edit]

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

I have been unsuccessful in establishing the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment Just trying to ascertain if you mean the nominated album itself or Fatboy Slim, who is beyond a doubt easily meeting WP:N. Just want to make sure ('subject' is unclear wording). Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fatboy Slim - while FBS is notable, I can't find a thing about this particular album. The only thing I can find is standard music directory/track listings sites. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I was unable to find any coverage of this album significant enough to pass any WP:NALBUM criteria, but the artist is clearly notable. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:07, 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 ~~Fatboy Slim~~. AFD's been up for 2/3 weeks and doesn't seem it'll gain any more of a discussion, and redirect is generally preferred over deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Norman Cook as Fatboy Slim is itself a redirect to Norman anyway.. –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Hits – Remixed[edit]

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fatboy Slim. I can't find anything either. It doesn't seem to be his primary "greatest hits" work. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unreferenced, no evidence of notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:22, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Knobel[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. -- haminoon (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not assert that the subject or his works achieved notability and none of the references appear to be third-party coverage of the subject. --Non-Dropframe _talk 05:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and tag for sourcing. WP:BEFORE was not performed. Knobel is a poet, with a very old article, that needs sourcing. [46], and [47], plus, The University of New South Wales has accepted his papers into their collection.[48]]. Obviously needs editing. User:Haminoon might want to withdraw this one. Or someone else can close, speedy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did perform WP:BEFORE and found the links you found. UNSW holds the papers of any local published author who asks them to, including self-published poets. Austlit's inclusion criteria is on their website and includes any poet born in Australia, including self-published poets. The first link is just a summation of library catalog entries, already linked from the article. None of these are evidence of notability. See WP:Author. -- haminoon (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I knew the biome was different down under, but I had no idea Australia was as different as all that! Still trying to wrap my old-world mind around the idea of a University library that keeps the papers of any writer who asks. A university-based writer's list that includes "any poet born" in the country. Or a university library that shelves any book anyone gives it. Amazing.oz E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dove in with more thorough searches. Could not source this self-published person, or his poetry, or the anthologies he has compiled - or discover any indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein after two relistings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Heidenreich[edit]

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

It's not clear that this individual is notable. Patents are not evidence of notability, and I see little content in this article to justify having an article on this person. Nothing is supported by references to reliable sources. The article appears to have been written by its subject. Srleffler (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything. This appears to be something of a common name - I found more stuff about an architect with this name, and also this one who is prominent in Australia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar(Film)[edit]

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

Weak Keep: Fails WP:NFF and no citation included in the article. Sammanhumagain^t@lk 10:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator wants article kept. Sources also exist to establish notability such as this and this. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Azhar film Azharuddin film Ekta Kapoor film

Yup... I have to agree with Speedy keep as nominator himself say "weak keep" and improperly uses "missing use of available sources" as if a valid reason to delete, when it is not. The Times of India and India Today and Mid-Day underscore filming having begun and WP:NFF (paragraph 3) being met and sadly, his possible pre-nomination error of a lack of WP:BEFORE... and there are many more sources too. 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Faith orchid[edit]

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

Non-notable orchid variety. This article tells a story of how someone created a new hybrid of orchid and got it registered. Beyond that, the article doesn't say much about the orchid. It does go on in great detail (none of which is verifiable) about the personal tragedy that led to the creation and naming of the variety, and then to the creation of "National Orchid Day" based on the payment of a fair sum of money to the "Registrar of National Days" which, sadly, appears to be some sort of scam akin to paying to name a star. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG; barely any sourcing at all. Registration in a national database does not confer notability. Esquivalience ^t 02:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to pay to register "National Fails WP:GNG Day" —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:52, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Adeem[edit]

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

Article cites unreliable sources. Some of these are from blogspot and other self published. BBC Urdu reference # 2 mention the subject negligibly. Reference # 2 cited under Family relates nothing about the subject. Reference number 3 & 5 publish his poetic verses only. All biography is merely original research since it could not be verified. It fails WP:GNG. sami ^talk 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject is not received significant coverage in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The subject does not establish the notability. None of the cited sources are reliable.Justice007 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is not notable enough to have an article. Faizan (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Rage[edit]

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Only independent ref is an incidental mention. A search shows game play sites, but did not turn up any further independent coverage. Dialectric (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reviews of this software in sources that would meet WP:VG/RS's standards. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 19:32, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi (rapper)[edit]

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

Removed prod-not notable rapper who at best should be a redirect. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ravi isn't independently notable outside of VIXX. From what I could find, all he's done is release a diss track on his Soundcloud account. Random86 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need to include in this AfD, articles about the same band members and created by same person: Hyuk (South Korean singer), Hongbin (singer), Ken (South Korean singer) and Leo (South Korean singer) Bgwhite (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per User:Random86, I'm not seeing much coverage of this guy outside of the context of the group he's in. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable outside of being a member of the band VIXX which has an article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:07, 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. Disagreement over whether the article fails to meet the notability guidelines, or just meets them. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Coffee Research[edit]

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

A 2 sentence stub with no notability. The only sources I found are casual mentions in articles due to the coffee rust situation. Could *possibly* be a merge with Texas A&M University Jcmcc (Talk) 06:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was planning to put this up myself, sources are only passing mentions, and only content being added to the page is promotional copyvios. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bit [49] The sources don't just mention the organization but actually say something about it. So I think it passes the threshold of the criteria. maclean (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can find plenty of evidence that this organization is funding scientific research: PLOS [50], BioScience [51], and there are mentions in NYT, etc. [52]. I'm not (yet) seeing full articles about the organization. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep: a (probable) very borderline case of WP:ORG. A plethora of sources, however most of them are only passing mentions that fail WP:ORGDEPTH. I cannot find any actual significant coverage; it would probably take some sifting through sources to figure out, but it is likely to be (borderline) notable. I can find 166 sources that mention the subject (minus a dozen or two for sources not independent of the subject) on Google and 40 on HighBeam, and some of them in my first search approach significant coverage, so it is likely to meet WP:ORG, albeit borderline. Esquivalience ^t 02:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding a potential page move to rename the article can continue on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meitiv family[edit]

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

With a reference to the Washington Post my first thought was that this family may meet notability guidelines. But what is notable is not the family but the lifestyle that they have chosen - and we have an article on that at Slow parenting. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. I'm sorry if this sounds snotty, but did you consider running some searches before creating this AfD? A Google News search for "meitiv" comes up with literally hundreds of news articles specifically about the Meitivs. These incidents been covered by all the major media outlets. NY Times, HuffPo, CNN, Fox News, WaPo, Free Press, Star Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Slate, USA Today, Daily Mail, Newsday, ABC, NY Daily News, NY Post, ChiTri, CBS, Guardian, LA Times... The list goes on and on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I accept that on first look they do appear to be notable because of that coverage. But as I considered this further I concluded the they have merely been caught up in a debate about parenting, and it is that which is notable. Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines include:

WP:BLP - this is a controversial subject and these people appear to have been unwittingly caught up in it. There are minors involved. Even if the article is balanced and neutral there are questions about whether a family that has been caught up in events apparently not of their making should be permanently associated with them.

WP:BIO1E (this is about a single topic) and WP:PERP (these are not criminals but the police involvement means it is relevant) - both of these suggest we have article on the circumstance, not those involved

WP:NOTWHOSWHO - this was already a notable subject; these people have not made it so and are just the latest to be involved

RichardOSmith (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those policies are inapplicable and your comments reflect that you still haven't taken WP:BEFORE to heart. Please read the sources before you opine on them. Most of these sources aren't about free range parenting, they're about the Meitivs and their run-ins with the police and CPS. Most of the reactions described in these sources aren't on the merits of free range parenting, they're about whether the government handled things appropriately and whether the Meitivs should have kept going after the first incident. Your statement that the family got "unwittingly" caught up in event "apparently not of their making" is flat-out wrong. The Meitivs played an active role in these incidents and have been more than happy to share their story with the media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly explained the process I followed WP:before nominating; please WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I believe those policies are fundamental to Wikipedia, relevant, and cannot simply be dismissed. This article is merely news, relevant only in the context of the parenting issue. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The April and May earthquakes in Nepal are merely news too, relevant only the context of Nepal and earthquakes. How is this any different? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect/merge I agree with nom - their name appears often but it is all re-reporting of two single (and minor) incidents. They're the current meme, but there isn't much depth. Since their name has become synonymous with Slow parenting it would be worth adding these incidents to that page (which oddly doesn't mention the recent news). Should they gain more notability in the future (e.g. they write a best-selling book that gets in depth reviews) a page could be created for them, probably under the names of the parents. LaMona (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled as to how either of you could can completely blow by the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:BIO) without any meaningful analysis. WP:1E doesn't apply because that guideline is about events, not about movements or philosophies. The argument for merging is akin to saying Claude Monet should be merged into Impressionism because, to use your words, Monet's name has become has become "synonymous" with Impressionism. That's just not how WP:N works. Besides, much of the coverage on the Meitivs would have no place in Slow parenting. The story is as much about government conduct and the peculiarities of these incidents as it is about parenting philosophies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it from a different angle. The Meitivs are preparing a lawsuit. Would the lawsuit really belong in Slow parenting? At what point would this story deserve its own article? Are you really suggesting never, since it relates to slow parenting? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman, I don't know how you get from a single !vote to never, but I don't think that's a useful approach. As a librarian, I think in terms of "where would people look?" and "what is the focus here?" In my mind, in this case the focus is the slow parenting movement. This is an application of WP:PAGEDECIDE, and of course is my reading of the policy in this context. As I said in my comment (which I'll assume you read thoroughly), the Meitiv's may become notable in the future, although it isn't clear if that would be the family or, in particular, the parents. YMMV, and that's fine, but I don't appreciate your conclusion that my reasoning "blows by the relevant guidelines," which does not sound like WP:Assume_good_faith. You seem to be accusing me of negligence, and I assure you that I think through these issues before commenting here. In terms of their being involved in a lawsuit, first one needs to see if the lawsuit itself rises to Wikipedia:Notability_(law). So for that we are definitely WP:TOOSOON. LaMona (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you were acting in bad faith. I'm just really, really surprised you'd think that all of the heavily reported details and angles of the Meitiv story would fit into an article about parenting philosophies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times says that "The case has drawn international media coverage..." and so its notability seems clear. Deciding how and where to cover the matter is not a matter for AFD. I don't like the term slow parenting which seems quite obscure but free-range parenting could use expansion and so we might merge into that to preserve the material. And I must say that the whole thing seems quite remarkable - what has happened to the "land of the free and the home of the brave?" I walked to school by myself from an early age, used to go off to the park for hours with schoolfriends, take the bus to the library, &c. Are children up to the age of 10 really expected to be under 24-hour surveillance now? Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, it turns out that in Illinois, kids have to be 14 years old to be left alone! We have had Wikipedia admins younger than that! Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. The coverage is not about THEM; it is about their parenting approach (already covered in its own article) that has led to "two encounters with government authorities." The typical article ([53] states that the situation with the Meitivs has raised a national debate about this kind of parenting. That's a big clue they themselves are not the subject of the articles. Article claims they are known for controversy; being controversial, scandalous, notorious, etc is not sufficient for GNG and for BLP is WP:UNDUE. If there were any charges filed and legal action taken, something that might indicate any kind of notability, it could presumably be an article titled "The Meitiv family case." As it is, the incidents are perfectly suitable for the slow parenting article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total misapplication of GNG. You are cherrypicking a single source. The test isn't whether a "typical" source that refers to the subject is "about" the subject or "about" something else. The test is whether any sources provide significant coverage of the subject. We have 100s of reliable sources specifically centered on the Meitivs; if even 2 of them provide significant coverage of the Meitivs, then they pass GNG. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the coverage is all surrounding the case (in the larger context of the parenting style, which is why it's preferable it be in that article.) As the NYT article you quoted states, "The case has drawn international media coverage..." It's the case that has drawn the attention, not them. How is this article a sufficient biography of an entire family? The entire article is about the two incidents in the past six months and only that, which is wholly unacceptable as a WP:BLP. WP:BIO discusses this. "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that argument. What if we renamed the article "Meitiv incidents" or the like? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the renaming. IMO it's short enough just to be in the article in the parenting style article, but I think this is a good compromise. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would consider this a viable compromise, although I still think that the information is thin. I also think that we're temporarily too close to the incident, and that a look back in the future may clarify the notability. LaMona (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to OIL (incorporations and corporate services). The consensus here seems to be for a selective merge, i.e. don't just dump the whole Offshore 2020 article into the target, but cherry pick the well-sourced and most relevant information (and leave a redirect behind). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore 2020[edit]

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

This publication certainly isn't notable enough for its own article. And I don't think any of the information is relevant or well-sourced enough for a merge to make sense. It seems to me that the best option is to delete this article and just put a mention in the OIL (incorporations and corporate services) page that they have a publication called Offshore 2020. Wieno (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge any useful/notable information to OIL (incorporations and corporate services). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to OIL (incorporations and corporate services), which presently does not mention this market research other than a link in its See also section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. Disclosure: In my real life I am one of the regular participants in this market research (and scheduled to do it again this year). The article as written is not great, but the Offshore 2020 publication does have unusual value in that it is one of the very few publicly available sources which shines a light under the hood in terms of the normally pretty opaque world of offshore finance. That probably tips it to a 'keep' for me, but appreciate because I am in the industry it probably appears more interesting to me than to lay people. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 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. SouthernNights (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Media Center[edit]

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

This seems to me to be an advertisement. It also doesn't really assert its claim for notability. It doesn't explain what it is very well, either. It's disguised effectively, and could become notable, but I don't think it is yet. I hate to suggest it, but I think it should be deleted. --Magnus Puer (sermo) 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's fair. OSMC is a popular Pi alternative to OpenELEC which seems to have its own page. It does seem notable (a quick search reveals some mentions in Wall Street Journal and on technical websites as well). Perhaps the article is not neutral, however I do feel it is relevant. According to the Vero website which seems to be an OSMC product, Raspbmc, which is now called OSMC had 200,000 regular users, at least at the time of writing. The http://openelec.tv/ website claims that they have 400,000 users. Granted that these are both sources that would benefit from inflating these numbers. However this does seem to show OSMC is notable. --User:Tim4345 (User talk:Tim4345) 01:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no attempt to meet WP:N. This does not seem to meet WP:GNG nor any subject-specific guideline. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 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 Consensus to delete due to a lack of notability. Chillum 20:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Drunvalo Melchizedek invented this neologism to describe a particular design he seems to like. It is not acknowledged to have relevance outside of his ideas. Much of the article is in violation of original research prohibitions and the subject lacks notability. In particular, there do not seem to be independent sources which describe this as being an actual encyclopedic topic. jps (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Weak Delete - Hmmmm.... This one is a toughy. A number of books out there cover this topic (granted most are from Melchizedek, but there are a significant number of mentions in other sources). Most of the sources on this topic are "New Age" religious in scope. While they don't really strike me as "high quality" RS, it's hard to completely discount them. This article has been around for quite a while and attracts a number of views. I know that's not a rationale for or against delet\ion, but it suggests we consider this cautiously. NickCT (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if you look into all the books you will find that they are written by acolytes or erstwhile believers in Drunvalo Melchizedek's channeling of Thoth. This means that there is essentially no source that is independent enough on which to establish notability or neutrally write about this fringe theory. jps (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but isn't the requirement for notability simply that a lot of people have written about a thing? I don't think it matters whether those people are acolytes or not. Once a fringe theory gains enough popularity, doesn't it deserve an article (e.g. Alien abduction)? NickCT (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not just a lot of sources. Reliability means that we need to find independent sources otherwise we will never be able to write the neutral article. This is why the notability guideline for fringe theories includes WP:FRIND. Unlike alien abduction, there simply are no independent sources written about this subject. For alien abduction, there are actually a large number of sources written about the subject by non-believers including psychologists, UFO-debunkers and astronomers, sociologists, and even literary critics. jps (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - NickCT No, a lot of people writing about it is not sufficient. It must have received significant coverage in secondary sources. The concept of alien abduction has been well-covered in secondary sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Wikimandia and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: - Ok fair enough. Secondary sources are tough to come across admittedly. Shifting position to Weak Delete. Still a bit surprised that this article managed to survive so long, and that it gets so many visitors. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @NickCT: - I'm actually not that surprised it gets good traffic. It's not an outrageous amount (nowhere near top 5,000 I'm guessing) and there's a ton of people into New Age thinking/study who are trying to find the meaning of life and all that. His entire movement is based on the symbol being the center of the universe, and he writes about it being an ancient secret, along the lines of the Da Vinci Code: His book summary on Amazon: "Now we are rising up from that sleep, shaking old, stale beliefs from our minds and glimpsing the golden light of this new dawn streaming through the windows of perception. This book is one of those windows." People eat that up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - notability is dubious and true subject is unclear; article is full of original research/synthesis. Author leads article with the unreferenced statement, "New Age writers associate the Flower of Life with symbols and decorative motifs from cultures throughout history," followed by all the known places somewhat similar symbols have occurred throughout history, crediting Melchizedek for most of it, and some other similar symbols that Melchizedek calls the "Egg of Life" and "Fruit of Life." Other references are very weak, including "Many New Age websites use this phrase as does the Dallas, Texas architect Stephen B. Chambers." —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you take a look at the previous AfD, the subject of this article's notability was never established. "Keep. These are pretty" is one person's rationale. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol. Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this neologism has gained traction outside of a fringe --_nonsense ferret 17:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The search mentioned above returns only (1) some early 20C books on an entirely different subject (2) A Wikipedia digest containing the same article and (3) Melchizedek's own work. Peter Damian (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Some of the information in this article seems valuable and could possibly be merged with another related article. By itself, the article doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:N. Ormr2014 | Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ormr2014 (talk • contribs)
Keep any information about the geometrical figure and its history, delete any dubiously sourced material on religion and the like. Pishcal — ♣ 14:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and shorten, +1 to Pishcal’s statement before. This is the way the German w:de:Blume des Lebens did survive the deletion discussion. (It was kept on the base that "Blume des Lebens" is found as naming for jewellery etc. also outside of esoterics.) Shorten the introduction to a pure description of the figure, keep the "Occurrences" section", delete the "Sacted Geometry" and "Composition" sections completely. -- Karl432 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did such a shortening, near to the "stubifying" proposed by the following statement by Shii. (If, surprisingly to me, the deletion decision would be to keep the full article in the version active when starting this discussion, my shortening easily can be reverted.) -- Karl432 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Stubify~~ The article as it stands is based on untrustworthy sources and misleading to readers. But I am confident that this subject is notable enough that trustworthy sources can be found, in religious studies publications or similar. Shii (tock) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it behove you to show us these sources so that we can all be confident of this? Nobody can give much weight to an argument that suggests there must be sources because of the warm glow you get in your tummy when you think about the subject. --_nonsense ferret 21:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually creeped out by the thing, but I assumed someone must have written about it. I did an extensive check today and it seems I'm wrong, so change my !vote to ~~delete~~ Shii (tock) 02:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I change it again, because of the rewrite that located sources. Weak keep Shii (tock) 10:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, misleading and innacuracies. The flower of life is not completed, and I think it'd be more relevant to put the fact that the actual symbol has been around for thousands of years and used by ancient civilizations and perhaps a clearer notion of what it actually represents to people rather than the fact that the name for it was 'coined' by Drunvalo recently who threw some claims behind it, this and geometric patterns of the like have been used in mathematics, in the creation of ancient architecture and sculptures, throughout nature, sound, etc. Also there's a flower of life design on an ossuary in the ROM from Jerusalem dating back to 100BC-100AD that I've seen, stating the 6-pointed rosettes were commonly depicted on them. From what I've seen online, like X, they date back to over 1000+ BCE. KATRINA 8:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.200.57 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with cleanup which has been somewhat done. This article is good information from RSes, though it has been said that it needs more secondary sources. People have commented here, linking to the important core policies of Wikipedia which describe the criteria of encyclopedic content as is provided by secondary sources. Thanks for doing that, and for having already cleaned it up. This content is good and plentiful and well established, the subject is important and popular, and it needs to be preserved somewhere even if it was merged like with a biography of Drunvalo Melchizedek. WP:NORUSH and optimistic eventualism in this case. Deletionism sucks; deletion is not an answer to fixable issues, and AfD is not a valid (even if sometimes coincidental) basic method of attempting to explore or establish them. The talk page is. Thanks! — Smuckola (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is almost decent now but it still leans dangerously towards WP:OR. How do we know Melchizedek's symbol is a notable thing? Well, we have Schneider 2009, but otherwise it's just a bunch of other random people saying it's interesting, even a TV show. Shii (tock) 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the notability, e.g. enter "Flower of Life" in a Google "shopping" search. You see several offers by different mail-order companies, not all related to esoterics. This proves the use of the term outside of Melchizedek's follower circles (and was an argument for keeping the German article). -- Karl432 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no question that this is a design that appears in multiple places throughout history -- and that shouldn't be surprising since it's something one can easily come up with using a compass or copying a set of circles. As a common design, however, it has not risen to its own notability (c.f. the Swastika, which has appeared throughout history, being a relatively easy design to come up with independently). It's really just another Pattern. Therefore the only remaining possible notability is its meaning in the New Age religious sense, but this seems to have limited adherence and no RS. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a neologism for a well understood geometric pattern that dates back to before my school was founded. That's over a thousand years. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologisms can be notable in and of themselves. Shii (tock) 00:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for noting that obvious fact, Shii. It illustrates the fact that several people have valid (to varying degrees of relevancy) observations about the general subject, but their conclusions may be drastically inappropriate. That is just one of the votes for deletion which was not even a relevant vote. This article has been subject to gratuitous deletionism, even if just by having initially (wrongly) framed it as a deletion instead of as a simple discussion and call to action, whereas there are so many actual possible valid courses of action. This is like asking the military "which country should we invade next?" — Smuckola (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no deletionism going on here. We're simply following WP policy. This is WP:FRINGE and has not been covered extensively in reliable secondary sources. This is the most-used source and it's completely self-published. I'm not sure why you judge our conclusions to be "drastically inappropriate." The other is a German symbol dictionary that is offline, the other is an incomplete reference to a Sci Fi Channel presentation (What is the date it aired? Where can we see it?) and the final one is from 1904 and as such does not cover the concept of the Flower of Life. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't understand policy. WP:FRINGE doesn't mean we don't describe pseudoscience, it means we demarcate it as such. Shii (tock) 09:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand policy. I especially understand that part right on top where it very specifically states fringe ideas (like this) must meet the test of notability, which is apparently lost on some people who like pretty designs. I've reviewed the sources below, one of which was complete crap. Are you really serious about saying this article meets GNG? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has five sources. First, obviously, Melchizedek, who is a primary source. Second, a self-published website that I cannot see passing as WP:RS. Then there was the reference to the SciFi channel program - I found it on YouTube and it says nothing whatsoever about these symbols or even the Great Osiris Temple, but is entirely about the Sphynx. So that's a total fail. Then there is the mention in the German dictionary of symbols, that is offline, and no page is even cited. We need WP:VERIFIABILITY - is it even discussing the Flower of Life or just the symbols themselves? Additionally this reference is used one time to support the statement that the Flower of Life was not a term previously used. Finally there is the work from 1904 that obviously says nothing whatsoever about the "Flower of Life" concept. So I really would like to know how anyone could possibly claim, based on these references, that this topic meets the WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your assessment of the other sources, but are you saying that an academic source is unverifiable if you can't find a PDF copy on the Internet? Shii (tock) 10:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that it is more than plausible considering the promotionalism from which this article suffers that German dictionary doesn't mention the "Flower of Life" at all since there is no page number nor a quote. Wikipedia:Resource Request might be able to help. jps (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shii no, I tend to WP:AGF whenever it's reasonable, but because of the other sources being essential non-existent, everything relies on this one source. And even then, it is only used to reference one relatively minor fact. (And it may not have even mentioned the term "Flower of Life" - maybe all it said was "this pattern has no name" which was synthesised into "Nobody has ever used the term 'Flower of Life' for this pattern"). I also have to wonder if these sources were taken right out of Melchizedek's book in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. The video was right there on YouTube since 2009, why wasn't it linked? It's just weird to me. But even if it were just a mislabeled episode title from honest error, that reference is only used to support the date of the ancient carvings at the temple, not anything to do with the Flower of Life theory itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete A pattern rediscovered by every person who picks up a compass doesn't need an article under some fringey "authority"'s name. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it's notable as a fringe theory and has been picked up in hundreds of New Agey sources, although I was unable to find a secondary source describing those sources. A crucifix is a simple design but it's notable. Shii (tock) 06:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there are no sources written about this from the perspective of how this particular design has become the inspiration symbol of these hundreds of New Age writers, then it is not Wikipedia's place to start an article on the subject. We need those secondary sources to write a Wikipedia article. Eventually, some academics might come and write on the cultural phenomenology (just as they have for the crucifix) and then we can properly write the article. On the other hand, it may happen that the idea never grows beyond this parochial industry. The article is simply running on fumes right now before it is even possible for it to be substantively curated. jps (talk) 12:47, 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) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Umar Hayat[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman and politician with multiple searches finding nothing aside from Books (few results but nothing apparently significant). Unfortunately, this is going to be another case of language barrier and offline sources but let's see what happens. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject would pass WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a national legislature, but I'm not finding reliable sources to verify that in an initial search. There are a few less-than-reliable hits though. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NPOL as a former member of the National Assembly of Pakistan (the lower house) representing Lahore III. Added refs to support this. Cowlibob (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above and references added by Cowlibob. As a verified National Assembly member, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable career in politics. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:16, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Tales: Fatboy Slim[edit]

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject outside of an AllMusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 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 Norman Cook. Being extremely WP:BOLD here - The first !vote is basically WP:ITSNOTABLE, the other irrelevant as we ofcourse judge on notability not on whether listeners listen to it,

I haven't found anything either so being bold and redirecting, If anyone disagrees with the closure I'd be more than happy to discuss it or to reopen it, Thanks (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Series Volume 1[edit]

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to pass Wikipedia's album standards for notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources, but remixed songs by Fatboy Slim would be of interest to music listeners, as he clearly fits notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:22, 28 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in São José dos Campos area[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTDIR. Also an uncited list LibStar (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to São José dos Campos retaining only entries with an article or citation: Noyster (talk), 09:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — São José dos Campos article already has a section about its industries —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yebbut that section doesn't name any companies, instead directing readers to "see also" this list article: Noyster (talk), 08:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:NOTADIRECTORY, I don't know that listing a bunch of companies is necessary, unless it was sourced as a major employer. We would need some reference as to which companies are truly significant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And listing non notable companies, where does it stop? LibStar (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did specify retaining only entries with an article or citation. There are 25 companies in the list with their own article: Noyster (talk), 08:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate rap league[edit]

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

Notability has been asserted but not established. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep – Seems to be very notable in the rap world, per the references in the article, but the article does need some help, however.~~SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 29 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 04:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Singh[edit]

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

The one source in the article is the extent of the available coverage for the subject, the rest is all social media. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- all primary sources or social media. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would YouTube videos be considered a primary source or social media? Hsking24 (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the video or social media was created by the subject himself, yes. Sometimes videos may not be reliable, significant or in-depth, YouTube may be used with some cases and less so with social media as it may not be accurate. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, primary sources have been deleted and more secondary sources have been added. I will continue to update the page day by day. Let me know if there's anything that stands out that needs to be fixed. Thank you Hsking24 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be removed from articles of deletion because it has enough credentials and secondary sources to support it. Hsking24 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG per coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:36, 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. Michig (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Air Systems, Inc.[edit]

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

Essentially a promotional rewrite of Firefighter air replensihment system. Most of the content is not specific to the company., If the firm is indeed the first or major manufacturer, a new article should be started over by an editor without COI. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with deletion. - Arr4 (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is neat and sourced, but with further examination, you can see there aren't that many good sources such as news coverage. My searches found nothing aside from one News result (other News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary results found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not satisfied as to the article's notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So spammy, fails WP:PROMO, and fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90 Minutes in Heaven (film)[edit]

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

editor continues to remove notability tag. Fails WP:GNG. dailymail source has a different name for the film and is focused on a star, not the film. Obviously a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the time being. A wrapped production based on a notable book with a notable director and a notable cast; no release date, though. Deletion would not be appropriate: instead, content from this article should be incorporated as a section of the book article until such time (if ever) as the film becomes notable on its own. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film will be released this fall. I have already seen rough cuts of it. Deleting makes no sense at all, and people who want to remove valuable information that could benefit others make absolutely no sense. I do understand the idea of merging, but am fearful that this would not provide all the necessary information to those seeking it. There is already an OFFICIAL WEBSITE for this highly anticipated upcoming film (http://90minutesinheaventhemovie.com/) and still there is talk it's too soon?? Puh-leeeez. Donmike10 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Creating an article about a subject that is not notable makes no sense at all. I suggest not doing that in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Walter Görlitz: However, making an article on something that is arguable as notable DOES make sense. He would benefit from reading MOS:FILM and understanding WP:NF and WP:RS, but the topic is determinable as meeting inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MichaelQSchmidt: It does make sense, but as far as I see it, this film is not yet notable. You would benefit from reading WP:GNG and undestanding WP:RS, but the topic is not you or me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response @Walter Görlitz: yes, this is not about us... and while I know you've been around for eleven years, and I accept that in some eyes I am merely a dumb-ol'-seven-years-long editor, who is somehow also an administrator, and a coordinator of Project film, I do wish to thank you for your kind suggestion above, but I am no ignorant noob and I do understand...

WP:GNG telling us "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article",
WP:RS telling us "an article should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy",
the inclusion criteria of WP:NF telling us to look for multiple reliable sources, and
know that Christian Today, Charisma Magazine, Christian Post, Religion News Service and Hallels are reliable enough sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy which treat this topic in a more-than trivial manner just as guideline suggests. And too, Deadline and Daily Mail and even Woman's Wear Daily are reliable enough for us under WP:V.

I have addressed some article issues. And while we have no mandate that sources have to be solely about a topic being sourced, enough available are and do offer substantial and direct information about the filming or completion of this film. In my understanding the cautions of WP:NFF telling us to at least wait for a film to begin, and with this one completed and receiving coverage, this production per our community standards meets GNG and thus merits inclusion per WP:NFF (paragraph 3). And thanks, but as the author of WP:TOOSOON, I do have decent sense of when something is premature or not, and when guideline is met or not. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Arxiloxos.Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Filming has wrapped and the production is getting coverage. Walter, it's not "too soon" as WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met, and Arxiloxos, it can certainly be spoken of elsewhere, but it has met WP:NF for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry MichaelQSchmidt, it's too soon as there no GNG. Paragraph 3 may be met, but can you show it in reliable sources? I checked the longs you provided and the answer is no, unless I'm wrong about sites like big-trailers.com and www.2015auditions.com not meeting RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Walter Görlitz: I am beginning to think you may not have looked at what is available. We do not expect an unreleased film to have the same level of coverage as one that has been released, however Christian Today is reliable coverage and far more than a brief mention... same for Christian Post [54] and other Christian Today articles.[55]... WP:SIGCOV is found in expected genre sources. And too, Daily Mail speak about film production when discussing actors by telling readers where filming took place. Women's Wear Daily tells us lots of unrelated stuff about Kate Bosworth, but it does tell us a slated release date for this film. And Daily Mail also shares that filming has wrapped. San Francisco Examiner tells how Dwright Yocum has a cameo. There are more Walter... and WP:GNG for production is met. Thus WP:NFF (partagraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Majority of sources are reliable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough evidence to keep - Just to show that this is done and it's not too soon at all, here's a scene from the film: https://vimeo.com/125955502 Donmike10 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Donmike10, but the Vimeo link does not show coverage to meet WP:N. However, it is the actual coverage in expected reliable sources which shows coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per prior comments. It has already generated sufficient coverage in reliable news sources, even outside of Christian-focused sources. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y and rather than just argue about it Walter, I went ahead and improved the article on this completed film and added some of the multiple substantive coverage which is available. What began as a 490 characters (94 word) stub is now a 1230 characters (219 word) Start Class. I was happy to do so, folks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that was my goal when Donmike10 deleted a notability tag, twice. Thanks. Perhaps Donmike10 can refrain from calling editors morons and actually add references instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that was your goal, why not then take care of it yourself and add whatever information you deem necessary? Is deleting an article in any instance better than adding info, which could then, in turn, help people with access to information? I can think of no example in which it would be. If you want to make this all about me, go right ahead. I just will never understand why anyone would want to remove information that could possibly help people. Donmike10 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmike10: shhhhhh.... calm. Sure he could have done it himself, but he is not required to do so. And sure, AFD is not to be used to press for improvements and improving articles is for anyone to do and topic notability is based upon looking first to determine if sources are available even if not citing an article, the result here is that the article is now improved (you're welcome) and will likely not be deleted. Peace. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: - Much appreciated. I wish more people on here thought like you. I'm actually not remotely personally interested in this film over any other, and have no actual desire to even see this film; I just am for this site being something to provide information, most especially to the outside world. I'll remove myself completely from this discussion from here on out. Donmike10 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmike10: I personally find fixing up weak articles so as to serve our readers to be far more satisfying than deleting improvable topics. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current ver of article shows that there are several notable cast members, principal photography has begun and even completed. There are reviews linked above and it seems fairly likely that it will have a wide release. NFF Paragraph 3 appears to pass as stated above, so I'm seeing no issue. I'm almost leaning towards Draft until release per WP:NFF paragraph 3, but if we assume that the production itself is notable per the reasons above, I'm okay with keep. ― Padenton|✉ 18:16, 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. Withdrawn. much improved article. Sometimes I do move to fast, and I'm glad to be corrected. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Ritblat[edit]

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

no actual evidence for notability; relatively minor businessman DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable company founder, political donor and philanthropist. However, the article needs to be expanded, by using the 'external links' and other articles as in-line references. It would've been better if the page creator had started a draft and then moved it to mainspace once the initial work of using the weblinks to add content had been done...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets the GNG. Surprised by DGG's suggestion that Ritblat is relatively minor, I don't think that's so, or at least not anymore. In 2011 he partnered with the Qatari ruling family to buy the Olympic Village from the London 2012 Olympics in a deal that received wide media attention. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Nomination fails to cite specific flaws and any relevant policy. What does "relatively minor businessman" actually mean? Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Thanks to User:Philafrenzy for excellent sourcing work. User:DGG is vigilant about bouncing self-promotion. Since they spring up like weeds, he is doing yeoman's service with his AFDs on wannabes of all kinds. But sometimes he moves too fast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 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 Ego Likeness#Discography. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the Wolves Return[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Flat Out talk to me 03:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ego_Likeness#Discography. The album hasn't released yet but it's possible that it may gain coverage once it releases in July, so redirecting with history would be helpful in this instance if/when it gains the necessary coverage in reliable sources. (IE, reviews, news articles about the album, etc.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with Tokyogirl79. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support a redirect. Flat Out talk to me 03:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably need to check the other albums for notability, though. I redirected Breedless since I could only find one review and even then that was just a rating by a staff member by Sputnikmusic and not an actual full review. The article asserted it had a review from another site, but the link came up as dead, so redirected. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Farniok[edit]

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

He is a recently signed, undrafted (amended, as noted below) player, so does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON. I do not see anything in the article that satisfies WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG either. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to close this before wasting anyone else's time. Thank you to Cbl62 for doing what I should have done in the first palce. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually he's a recently signed, undrafted player. Not that that factoid helps his case in anyway. Delete per nom otherwise. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based off of new sources provided by Cbl62, clearly has significant enough coverage to pass WP:NCOLLATH. I made the mistake of only using the refs already listed in the article, which left something to be desired, should've done my WP:BEFORE. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't looked at it in detail, but a google search does turn up a fair bit of coverage, e.g., this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:48, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vajrakaya Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, no reliable sources, just some press releases, WP:SPS, and nonsense mostly. Tried to speedy as A7, but another editor believes there is a claim of significance which I fail to see. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not one of the current references is a good news article and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found absolutely nothing therefore nothing to suggest this company is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article which makes no claim that the firm is notable; the given references confirm only that this small firm exists (one says it has 1-10 employees) and issues press releases but nothing indicates WP:CORPDEPTH, nor are my searches finding anything better. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- fails WP:CORP. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shackshakers[edit]

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

I came across this via another article up for speedy (which I deleted), which led me to this article. While the article would assert some notability via the Rockabilly Hall of Fame mention, that's really the only thing that this group has going for them. I don't know if this listing would be enough to merit a keep on this alone and I can't find anything to show that they're otherwise noteworthy. The article says that they were covered somewhere, but I can't really find these mentions to show if they were in-depth articles, brief mentions, or if all of the magazines would be usable as a RS. If anyone can find enough coverage to merit an article I'm open to closing this. In any case if it is kept then it will need some cleaning for the slightly promotional tone that was added by a COI editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another band with a similar name, Legendary Shack Shakers, so be careful of false hits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those recognitions are probably the only thing holding the article and I searched and confirmed a few of them. A News search found results but mostly for performances and not much at Books while a browser search provided a few websites like Storm Lake Pilot Tribune and nashvillescene.com. Both highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing and that's not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 16:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skopactel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

web design company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for notability since 2014. A search turned up no WP:RS significant coverage. Dialectric (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches at News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam found absolutely nothing. The first consensus barely even mentioned the fact this company never seems to have gotten news coverage and taking care of notability issues has certainly improved and expectations have changed from 2005, enough time for this company to have received attention as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standards have changed a lot in the last ten years. I was also unable to find an indication of notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability at all and unreferenced as well. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the company's article is completely unreferenced, and has only a single sentence, shows that it is completely un-notable. The only source I could find for it was here, and that is a primary source – primary sources are generally frowned upon. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:05, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexican English[edit]

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

Under Wikipedia's Reasons for Deletion, this article meets #7, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and #8 "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." Here are specifics:

Though several sources have been referenced here by previous users, their reliability or relevance is mostly weak or plain absent (some cited sources simply don't even address the information they're supposed to be verifying, while much of the information seems to have no citations whatsoever); furthermore, none of the sources here actually seems to use the term "New Mexican English" or even imply it, except one Encyclopedia.com article, which uses the term "New Mexico English" in a single sentence, to vaguely refer to "a mixture of dominant Midland [English], with some Northern features... and Southern and South Midland features." This source does mention six phrases used in New Mexico (mostly borrowings from other dialect regions, and some from Spanish), but this alone certainly does not confirm a local variety of English that is its own separate or significantly distinct and notable dialect. Where is all the linguistics research on this topic? This brings me to my next concern...
No linguistic or other scholarly resources have been found by myself or previous users that delineate a uniquely New Mexican form of English. Major works on regional varieties of American English, for example, like William Labov et al's Atlas of North American English, are noticeably silent on New Mexico.
Most of the lexical and phonological characteristics mentioned on the WP article suspiciously match those exactly mentioned in a pair of viral YouTube comedy videos: "Shit Burqueños (New Mexicans) Say." The listed terms and pronunciations (that supposedly define this English variety) cannot be found anywhere credible online, even with a quick Google search. The videos themselves give a view of a "New Mexican" accent that the creators have admitted are exaggerated at best.
One source used here (Busby 2004, pp. 270-1) merely talks about a general Southwest English, and other than giving a brief history of linguistic intermixing in the region, gives no actual evidence of significant linguistic uniqueness in New Mexico today; it does, however, refer to a Spanish-influenced variety, Chicano English, which already has its own Wikipedia page. Wolfdog (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as both a New Mexican and a linguist, I assure you that the topic is notable and can be sourced. Skyerise (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise Can you provide info about said sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few:

Reading America: New Perspectives on the American Novel. ISBN 9781847187772
Problems in applied educational sociolinguistics: readings on language and culture problems of United States ethnic groups ISBN 9027977267
"A milestone study: Structured variability as the key to unraveling (contact-induced) language change" in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Characteristic features of New Mexico English between 1805 and 1890, WA Heflin - 1941 - University of Chicago

Here's a link to the above one for anyone to check out, with thanks to 75.173.98.22. Wolfdog (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you could give any kind of a gist of what these sources contribute to the concept of a New Mexican English? Wolfdog (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need more information about what these sources say. The one with the link appears to simply discuss bilingualism, as do the links on the article. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest New Mexico English exists; nor is there significant coverage of it as a proposed dialect. Is there anything that suggests there is a substantial difference between New Mexico English and Arizona English? or Texas English? The study that lists pronunciation isn't sufficient, as there is no indication there is anything notable about the pronunciation ie there is any significant variation that is unique to New Mexico. It would also be nice to have some sort of context for "Characteristic features of New Mexico English between 1805 and 1890." I'm not sure if this is a thesis or what, or if, like the pronunciation study, it is just documenting the English there. For something as major as a dialect of American English, there should be extensive resources, and this is failing hard. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In spot checking the references I came to the opinion that some of them do not feature this topic as their subject. If someone shared the best 2-3 sources then I might reconsider. Right now some of the sources are passing mentions or otherwise are not typical WP:RS for establishing WP:GNG. The topic may be notable but it is not obvious that this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability as well as notability. The article seemsto be original research and handwaving assertions, with some references which do not even mention the supposed dialect, or which make only passing reference. Edison (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per references provided by the New Mexican above. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain what the references provided actually do to lend credibility to a New Mexican English variety? Wikimandia claims to have reviewed the sources, deciding that they aren't sufficient and do "nothing whatsoever to suggest New Mexico English exists." Blue Rasberry also claims to have spot-checked them, even concluding that "some of them do not feature this topic as their subject." What more can you add to this discussion to bolster your side? Wolfdog (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The delineation of language dialects is difficult, especially at the level of a microchasms like the Southwestern United States, which contains multiple English language variants including varieties like Navajo English. I agree with Blue Rasberry that "The topic may be notable but it is not obvious." And, I think, they might might agree with this assessment; as seen in the "Assistant Professor & Coordinator of Sabine Ulibarri Spanish as a Heritage Language Program at the University of New Mexico", "International Journal of Bilingualism", and the exaggerated comedy viral videos, there is a clear interest in this particular dialect. The terms "or what", "land down", "oh si", and "omber" are all mentioned in the Spanish as a Heritage Language Program citation and the comedy videos. Another smaller assessment I can make is the example of Montano, being pronounced with an "ñ" sound, which definitely not standard American English. Spot-checking languages is difficult as they can get very oddly delineated, "New Mexican English" may not be the only term this dialect falls under, but this terminology is preferred under WikiProject Languages, so we don't end up with multiple articles about the same language, imagine; Burqueño English, Eastern Southwestern American English, Southern New Mexican English, Northern New Mexico English, English in New Mexico, Southern Colorado speech, the English language as it is used in Western Texas and west of Texas, etc. You catch my drift, we don't want that, lol. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I've discovered that the act of creating, as well as most of the editing, of this article, has been done by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry: see more here. The user appears to be connected with a business called "Heaven Sent Gaming," which also has an article called "New Mexican English" that I nearly allowed to stand as a potentially credible source; now I have enough doubt to keep it off of Wikipedia. Here is the website; feel free to try to get a sense of its credibility, though I can't think of any solid, quick ways to test it: http://newmexico.heavensentgaming.com/lexicon/new-mexican-english/. Wolfdog (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is a fairly common with organizations, and is not grounds for banning using them as a source, if they have credible sources. Unless we are to ban sources from the the United States Congress, Church of Scientology, or, another New Mexican company, Blake's Lotaburger. That source in question states that it is "a New Mexico cultural encyclopedia, lexicon, and news." I would agree with its removal if it were unreliable, however the website cites its sources and is not user-editable, meaning that it should be fine as long as its not overly referenced. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about banning the source. I'm talking about avoiding it. A website's calling itself an "encyclopedia" certainly doesn't make it genuine in any academic sense, and actually I can see nowhere that the site lists its sources. In fact, I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of that site due to its own sockpuppetry scandal on Wikipedia, which I've dug up at this location. Let's just avoid it. If there is evidence for the "Keep" side of this discussion, I'm sure it can be stronger than that. Wolfdog (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 75.173.98.22, your contributions reveal somewhat questionable canvassing tactics, since you've defied the guideline on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion (under subsection "Notifying substantial contributors to the article") that states: "One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article" (my emphasis). Please be careful to keep this discussion as impartial as possible. Wolfdog (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! And according to Joseph2302's striking out of the sock comment, we do, as I worried, have sockpuppets involved in this discussion. Now what do we do? Wolfdog (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea- they weren't specifically a sockpuppet for this AfD, but have commented in quite a few (I decided to help someone else who was striking their comments from AfDs). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sockpuppetry does not seem to be related to the article itself, we should be fine. I believe that this article has enough merit to continue building the article without deletion. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing, and is standard practice here on Wikipedia to notify interested parties. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know they were interested parties if they've never edited the page? I've just quoted the Wikipedia page's guidelines. Did I interpret it out of context? Wolfdog (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Notability requirements. 76.113.82.215 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Like others before you, I'm going to ask, could you please explain a little further your thoughts? We still seem to be a long way from consensus and we need some more robust discussion. Wolfdog (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not vote if you have no user name. Which is why I have not voted. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was all set to say "delete" - thinking "come on, are we going to have articles about the dialect in every state in the country?" Well, it turns out we pretty much do; see Category:American English. I checked a couple of articles in that category and found they have no better references than this article. Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I also did a search at Google Scholar and found the term "New Mexican Engilsh" used in a book and a scholarly article[56] so local and regional dialects like this do appear to be a real subject of scholarly study, which has inspired many articles at Wikipedia. The article could use some work ("coyote" as a distinctively New Mexican word? Come on!) but that's not a reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, dialects like this. But this one itself? We've above discussed (briefly) how the two articles you've found on Google Scholar don't seem to actually define a New Mexican dialect. And obviously, your "otherstuff" articles should also be vetted. (Are there any ones you specifically think seem insignificant?) Wolfdog (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason that this one itself shouldn't have an article? As far as I can tell there are no Wikipedia articles detailing any of the accents or dialects of the American Southwest. This one, at the least, has mentions in academic research papers. You keep bringing up that the articles on Google scholar don't "define" New Mexican English, yet they both concur that it is a contact-induced dialect. They both also discuss the voice onset time and certain characteristics of the dialect. There is even an assistant professor, from an internationally recognized university, attesting to the dialect's unique traits. That's more than some English dialects have here on Wikipedia, which is fine, since English is a diverse and ever-evolving language. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we're talking in circles here. I'm just as in favor of deleting any dialect pages that are as poorly sourced as this one. Having passing mentions in academic papers doesn't make it achieve WP:GNG. WP:IINFO states that "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." So far there have been a few independent sources (and almost none specifically about an English dialect of New Mexico), but even fewer links between the information on the WP page and what is actually said in those sources regarding "New Mexican English" as a distinct dialect. I think the page is plagued with WP:OR. Again, 75.173.98.22, I've noticed you're putting back uncited information onto the WP page or adding back citations that don't actually confirm the information they're being linked to without explanations, even though I've put in an effort to explain all my edits on the talk page. Why do you keep doing this?

The assistant professor source does seem to be one credible example. At least by its abstract, however, the article called "Spanish-English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching" directly equates a "New Mexican English" with "typical non-contact English." So that certainly doesn't delineate it as a unique dialect. And the "A milestone study" article I have no current access to, or way of vetting; it doesn't mention New Mexico in the abstract.

Here: Why don't I just list the credible sources that I think directly bolster the idea of a New Mexican English:

The Burqueno Dialect/Damian Wilson video source
"New Mexico Facts, information, pictures"/Encyclopedia.com source (though this source seems to provide relatively insubstantial characteristics)

As far as I can see, that's it. Other sources are not reliable or only mention an imprecise "Southwest English" or provide pronunciations without any scientific backing that the pronunciations belong to a unique dialect or give recordings of people speaking interesting ways (but which may be a special Navajo dialect or Zuni dialect or broader Southwest dialect for all we know; How can we know? We have no sources telling us that they're speaking with a specifically New Mexican accent of English)

Wolfdog (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Rezaei Ghaleh[edit]

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

One line articles about not notable wrestlers, never won a medal in a major competition, Olympics, World Championship or Continental Games. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment - flipping through the first few, it seems they all won medals at the Asian Championships. It isn't the Asian Games, but it's still continental and I'm assuming is a major international event. IMO that should count toward keeping the profiles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In this case, still the main article Morteza Rezaei Ghaleh remains not-notable as he didn't even wrestle in a continental championship. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Competing at the Asian championships is not competing at the highest level. Even after success at that tournament none of them are ranked in the world top 10[57]. None have a record of any success (or even competing) at the adult world championships and none of the articles show significant coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete All - One line articles en-masse about a subject cast serious doubt on the notability of the subjects themselves apart from the topic that groups them together. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all At this moment it doesn't seem like any of them meet any notability criteria, including GNG. Given the strength of the Iranian wrestling team, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them have success at the adult world championships (my first pick would be Yarahmadi) but that falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have no objections to these being saved in someone's user space. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 28 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 per WP:SNOW. With zero hits other than this article (not even junk hits), I have to assume that there is nothing to be found. I'll re-open this for the full week if anyone really wants it, but with the complete and total lack of coverage elsewhere I doubt that the outcome will be different if it did run for a full week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gyronian Trilogy[edit]

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

This may or may not become notable in the future but for now, I'd say it's just WP:TOOSOON. --Non-Dropframe _talk 00:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-published book with zero coverage. Blackguard 00:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability for first book, much less trilogy as a whole —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would be a prime candidate for speedy deletion under caegory A7, but books are specifically excluded. I know this is not the best place to ask, but can anyone explain why the exclusion exists? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club Football Elo Ranking[edit]

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

"Non-notable". SLBedit (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As far as I know the ELO ranking for clubs is not used in any competition, just an alternative ranking, and it is not notable. Qed237 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC
Delete- Excluding non-notable, this page does not have any citations as well and looking at the article it seems the page is not that significant)Sammanhumagain^t@lk 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elo is a widely used ranking system, but it is not used in any official capacity in football. No issues with noting the Elo ranking of clubs in their individual articles, but no need for a stat dump for an unofficial listing. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Elo is the only rating system that is independent on criteria/match/system (think: league, cup, champions etc.), so its importance is central to rank clubs in a non capricious and non arbitrary way.

The parallel Elo rating article - World Football Elo Ratings is widely linked to [58] even if it seems not to have any competitive legal consequences.

Regarding the low level of references, it is a new article, hence its a starting point. But a well known system like Elo rating is not something that can be said "lacking references" Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories added Jazi Zilber (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football ranking seems to be a rich field in Wikipedia see association football ranking category ([59]) Jazi Zilber (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:34, 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 was speedy deleted as G11 by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Solutions[edit]

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

Strong Advertising. --AM (Talk to me!) 00:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok--AM (Talk to me!) 00:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11. Obvious advertising. --TL22 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Yeah, it's spam and there's no media coverage whatsoever. gargleafg (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obvious spam is obvious. –Davey2010^Talk 04:55, 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.