< 26 May 28 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing nomination with no outstanding delete !votes, plus enough sourcing found. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishela Rapo[edit]

Mishela Rapo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and not likely to be notable per WP:MUSBIO, no sources except one probable self-published source here. Esquivalience t 23:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:02, 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 speedy delete. Hoax. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Adolphe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Adolphe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this is real or not-the dates seem off. There is a guy on the IMDB with this same name born in 1985 which this was a article previously XFD for. Wgolf (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:02, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entheos Academy[edit]

Entheos Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Elementary/primary schools are not inherently notable. Nor are middle/junior high schools. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeshan Qureshi[edit]

Zeshan Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads like a resume-not sure how reliable the refs are given that only one is a link and he isn't even mentioned there. (And you have to love how he was given a award in June 2015-yes the future!) Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Have: 1. Added a reference for the award, and reworded the statement. 2. Added more hyperlinks to some of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.104.55 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material has been added to make this seem less like a resume Secondary sources have been added where work is referenced, see what you think, and open to any other suggested changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.13.154 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samadrita Deb[edit]

Samadrita Deb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay I do remember this article has been prodded a couple times already-anyway I'm not sure about notability. She has some notable films here like Men in Black 3 but given that she does not have anything like award backup or any major role in the films from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:08, 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. North America1000 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaco van Rensburg[edit]

Jaco van Rensburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references even mention him. I found no substantial independent reliable sources that discuss van Rensburg in significant depth. Besides a few passing mentions in reviews cast lists and theatrical publicity was all I found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:10, 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. North America1000 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Vision Music[edit]

Indie Vision Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficient sources to establish notability; article has been tagged for notability for two years. A few mentions for reviews but only article I found about the site was this one asking for donations. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring something to notable is not sufficient; article must meet the requirements of WP:GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Maktesh, I agree that it is one of the major players in Christian music journalism. However, that just means that it is reliable to support statements about artists and musical works. That does not inherently mean that the publication itself deserves an article. Please demonstrate with reliable sources why this publication deserves an article, not just why it is trustworthy as a news and review source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not about to go spending hours researching "viable sources for proof of notability." Anyway, I would simply point to the amount of pages that have cited it with news, reviews and album scores, etc. It's not a major player in the big picture, but in terms of its field, it's one of the major websites that has shaped the coverage of the Christian music industry's non-major label acts. Why don't we take a look at how redlinks would pop up if we were to remove it, eh? To be blunt, I'm stating what I know to be fact, hoping that someone with more of an interest will show up who is wiling to start sourcing. I write this stuff for my job, so I'm not about to engage in hours of debate. A better questions to ask is "why should this page not exist?" Enough people and wiki pages seem to think it's worthy of notability, so why go to the effort of killing it? —Maktesh (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of those news reports and the like contain enough information actually write an article from. I myself tend to be very lenient toward meeting notability standards. I actually was surprised that there isn't anything significant written about this publication, considering that it was so important within the scene. But if there's nothing written about it, it's not notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a creative way of declaring them notable, but no, excerpts or mentions do not meet GNG —МандичкаYO 😜 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed at seeing two "Strong" keep votes in the absence of ANY demonstrations of significant coverage of this publication, apart from a single HM post soliciting for donations to the site. The Cross Bearer, you are grossly misinterpreting the guidelines. Excerpts taken from a review are not significant coverage dealing with the publication ITSELF, they are merely quotes in another publication discussing what IVM said about an artist or work. That can be a marker of reliability, but not notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: The creator of the article was HotHat, who later on revealed themselves to be a sock-puppet engaging in paid editing. While much, even most, of the content they created was within policy (I was very surprised when the editor outed themselves), there is the possibility that this article was created as paid advocacy. This shouldn't inherently mean that it should be deleted, but it does provide some explanation as to why it was created.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, Jesus Freak Hideout has been discussed in reliable sources. New Release Tuesday I think also has. I was considering creating an article for New Release Tuesday, though I think might just barely squeak by the notability standards. The deletion discussion for NRT resulted in a soft delete, actually, because nobody participated. But, absolutely your argument is OTHERSTUFF exists. Please demonstrate why this article is worthy of inclusion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete, because the website is going the way of the dodo bird anyways, and closing up shop. I just don't think or see it fitting and useful for my time to go down this fox hole and sinkhole of a Wikipedia morass of an engagement. I'd rather get more stuff done that matters extremely more to me as a holistic believer, creature, and human being made fearfully in the image of God in Jesus Christ, My Lord.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, one of the claims to keep Jesus Freak Hideout was that it had coverage by Indie Vision Music. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia - so? Reliability isn't the same thing as notability, as I've elaborated above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3family6 Notability is achieved through coverage in reliable sources. If Indie Vision Music is not considered to not have any notability, it's not considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. It could however be used as a reference in an article that already has notability established. That's the way that works. You're welcome for that free information. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: That's not at all how it works. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of books out there that are perfectly reliable for use in articles but are not notable. Please show me where in the reliable source guidelines and/or the notability guidelines that in order for an article to exist, the reliable sources must also be notable/have articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun! Why don't you take a whack at those articles, Jesus Freak Hideout and New Release Tuesday, and see what others' say about their merits?The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! I have asked my personal savior Xenu if this will please him, and am awaiting his response. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're not going to find anything searching under those terms. An organization such as this would never be referred to as a "company." Additionally, music news coverage would have no reason to even use it's local state (California) as a keyword. I feel as though many of the people "voting" here are less than qualified by their understanding of this general niche/branch/corner of the industry. —Maktesh (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I've often seen they'll show if they're referred to as that ("a webzine from California...", etc.). I would also think twice before thinking some users aren't qualified to understand. You may be connected to this industry but where are the significant and notable sources talking about IVM? SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See, isn't this rich? Here we are, having a civil discussion on the merits of the topic, and suddenly you come in. You admit to knowing nothing of the context, are rude and using profanity. You are the kind of editor who contributes to hostility. The bottom line is that the article exists. You are of the party going out of your way to make an effort. Again, the proof of notability is found within the connected articles which continually cite and link. If you so desire to create 500 redlinks in your cantankerous quest, go for it. Or maybe you could actually be productive and learn how to Google it yourself, Sherlock. I simply cast a vote as one who knows the difference between crap and ice cream. —Maktesh (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maktesh, you yourself said "I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not about to go spending hours researching 'viable sources for proof of notability.'" And you complain that another editor hasn't taken the time to research the notability of the subject? I agree with NukeThePukes: if the site is notable, prove it. It doesn't have to be an online source. If CCM Magazine or HM or some other publication did a print write-up on the site, that counts too (print sources tend to be given more respect anyway, so that would definitely satisfy notability concerns). I have nothing against this site in particular, and I agree that it is highly cited as a source, both on Wikipedia and by reliable publications, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the site itself in any reliable sources. Escalating things after another editor was abrasive in their comments does not help things at all, either.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a curious notion as to what constitutes "profanity" -- mind telling me what words in that last post you think qualify? Anyway, I did Google the sucker, and lo and behold, I couldn't come up with a single reliable source. As far as being rude or hostile goes, dude, it takes some stones to toss ANY rocks after the "Deletion Nazis" crack. I'll quote from one of those policies for you: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." If you're unwilling to provide any sources and you don't understand the relevant notability guidelines ... who's posting here in ignorance, exactly? Nha Trang Allons! 17:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Medical torture. If anyone thinks anything can be merged they can do so. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dental torture[edit]

Dental torture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this is a notable topic separate from Medical torture, no sources. I would support a redirect to Medical torture. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pertemps People Development Groups[edit]

Pertemps People Development Groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:12, 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 redirect to Logan Mader. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once Human[edit]

Once Human (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band whose debut album doesn't drop until September. I've only been able to find a couple third-party sources that even mention the band and those seem like a parroting of a press release. Per WP:BAND, an independently notable member could lend notability to the ensemble. However, the only member who seems the least bit notable seems to JUST squeak by in regards to notability in order to have his own article. --Non-Dropframe talk 21:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Norris[edit]

Pippa Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely the person is notable per WP:NPROF, however this article is so promotional and spammy. It's an autobiography that's now being maintained by the user. Needs a complete rewrite, and I believe the only solution is to stubify, per WP:TNT. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been trying to add references to external published materials to the existing text, as requested by an editor earlier. I am not sure why it is said to be 'spammy' or 'promotional' when all the contents can be verified from materials in the public sphere, such as books published, prizes awarded, positions held, and so on and so forth. In this regards, its the same model as most Harvard faculty bios in Wikipedia, and I have been seeking to comply with Wiki policies. I can easily add more references to other secondary sources, if useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PippaN (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreshnik Krasniqi[edit]

Kreshnik Krasniqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer. Has not played in a fully professional league. Youngest ever appearance in the first or second tier, he appeared in the second not-fully-professional tier. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 Speedy deleted as G11 by User:Michig. (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar Hospital[edit]

Manohar Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hospital. As far as I'm able to tell this fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Does not appear to meet notability criteria for hospitals specifically as detailed by wikiproject hospitals either. No evidence of notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Closing per WP:Speedy Keep. Greedo8 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Gaylords[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chicago Gaylords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia standards for notablity. Seems full of original research, and I was unable to find reliable sources that verified the content. Greedo8 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of war veterans associated with neoconservativism[edit]

List of war veterans associated with neoconservativism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A half-hearted mini-list that serves no great encyclopedic value. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was quick. How many minutes do you allow for a stub to become whole-hearted? There has been substantial media focus on the conspicuous absence of war vets among the neocon movement. Thus it is valuable to the public to know those who have served. Sure, a list of notable neocons who have not served would be quite extensive, but that would be a little odd, no?Wormcast (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit obvious that this article is not going to work, primarily because its basic concept seems to be making a political rather than an encyclopedic point. And it might make sense to remove John Bolton from the list, as he never participated in combat during a war. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One has only to serve in the armed forces to be considered a war veteran; participation in direct combat is not required. -Wormcast (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "associated with" phrasing of the title was based on the language appearing on the Neoconservativism page; i.e. "Notable people associated with neoconservativism". I am unopposed to altering the title to "Neocons who have served in the armed forces" to avoid your objection. -Wormcast (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Gonzalez[edit]

Kim Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful candidate in a Texas House election last year. The sources I'm finding are simply brief mentions of her political run, like this one from Texas Monthly. Happy to withdraw if there is evidence that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1962 Dunant[edit]

1962 Dunant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America1000 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3841 Dicicco[edit]

3841 Dicicco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was redirected by Tom.Reding and reverted by Exoplanetaryscience. I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moon discovered in 2014 with a diameter of >1.67 km and a distance of 12 km.
Redirect, if said information is not referenced and in the body of the article by close of AfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's now referenced.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Exoplanetaryscience is the one that added the source and Exoplanetaryscience is not a bot. As of 1 June 2015 I have never edited the article. I wish people would quit making up "facts" about me. The information about the satellite does not come from the common JPL SBDB lookup and Wikipedia is nothing more than a copy of other sources. It appears as if Exoplanetaryscience is so intimidated by the AfD process, that he is not even voting to keep articles that he has recently expanded. -- Kheider (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Alexander William Hayes[edit]

Thomas Alexander William Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BPL1E No notability at all save for the Libor Scandal KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BPL1E could be a snow delete, a redirect not appropriate because subject seems to be known everywhere as Tom --nonsense ferret 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article indicates nothing about the notability of this person. He was charged with a crime (so are many every day), he has house in Surrey (!), something about his marriage, all too trivial, vague and generally non-notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Presley[edit]

Brandon Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability guideline (WP:POLITICIAN) for politicians. Should have qualified for speedy under A7. Geogene (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Commission acts as a body with statewide authority, this nomination is in error, per Johnpacklambert. Withdrawn. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:POLITICIAN includes "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Presley's office isn't elected statewide, but the office is elected by 1/3 of the state (in population) and it makes decisions for the entire state. He's clearly on the same level as minor statewide elected officials and state legislators. Orser67 (talk) 00:34, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Foroozani[edit]

Sara Foroozani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic. 2 of the papers listed as publications appear to be conference papers only, no evidence her work is widely read or cited. Fails WP:SCHOLAR, sources provide no evidence this person satisfies GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.L. Beshimentob Mayfield[edit]

E.L. Beshimentob Mayfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable judoka - lots of triva but nothing particularily noteworthy. High rank is not enough. Not enough independent references to satisfy WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


i can reasonably say Keep He is highly notable in helping Veterans to deal with PTSD via the use of martial arts. This should also be listed in military related discussion.71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victoria II. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria II: Hearts of Darkness[edit]

Victoria II: Hearts of Darkness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expansion pack to video game Victoria II, can easily be integrated into main article. Fails notability by itself. Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 27 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) 00:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. (If anyone wants it userfying let me know.) Davewild (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Rats[edit]

Pie Rats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like promotional information for series of the selfpublished books. All references lead to the self published materials. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this two awards is that they are both Commercial Organisations, where you submit the book for a fee and they promise to promote the winning entries. So, from one hand they are independent, but from another still there a no any independent reviews and mention in the media, which is customary in literature Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're compiled information is correct, that kind of complicates my attempt to optimise the article Wikipedia standards. I fear despite my hours of sifting through the internet, the article may very shortly be deleted. I had hoped the article would get a "Week Keep" status. Live and learn I guess. Unfortunately those books series are relatively new. There may not be the best reliable sources for months if not years. If anyone's up to it, an article on the author himself could be in order. I've backed up the article content just in case anything reliable turns up. Just who shall I pop the question to if the time is right to recreate the article? Deltasim (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 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 merge to List of Side degree and related bodies to Auxiliary (fraternal orders). MBisanz talk 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side degree[edit]

Side degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic. This list is sourced mainly out of one book (Alan Axelrod's International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders, published in 1997, and the overarching definition is questionable on several levels. The idea is that they aren't major things, but while I can't speak for the non-Masonic groups on the list, the majority of the things claimed to be side degrees are incorporated, independently-run, non-profit organizations (like the Shriners and the Grotto, for example). There were several women's groups listed as well, which I removed because they are not considered "side degrees" for the women. The major ones already have articles. So there's really an issue over whether the content is appropriately encyclopedic - the basic definition is suspect, and we can't have a list based on one source. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "side degree" is also used in other sources, such as Preuss, Arthur, Schmidt, Alvin J. and Stevens, Albert C. Basically the idea is an organization within a larger fraternal organization, originally for humorous effect. I think the Shriners were the original ones within the Masons, but then other fraternal bodies copied the idea.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree though, it should be reformatted into "List of side degrees".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title should not be changed during the AfD. What are your other plans? Article do seem fine. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't know that was a rule.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:08, 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, North America1000 01:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double Degree is an academic term. Side Degrees are fraternal orders "clubs within clubs" like the Shriners for Freemasonry. Other groups have developed side degrees like this to and it made sense to me anyway to create a list for them.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC) I suggest Rename to List of side degrees and related bodies - this will clear up the confusion of whether women's groups are side degrees and will more correctly identify the content as a list article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That won't help - it's an even broader category, doesn't address the issue of what a side degree is or isn't, and doesn't address the women's groups, because the women's groups are clearly related to the men's. MSJapan (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look I only wanted to make a general list article on side degrees. Womens auxiliaries of side degrees are at least related to them. Do you of an authoritative source for a definition of a side degree.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you've cut right to the heart of the problem - you don't have a source defining what is a side degree and what isn't, so you must have engaged in original research to come up with a definition. Nobody is going to put Shriners International, with 191 centers and 23 privately-funded hospitals, in the same category of "side degree" as whatever that Rotary thing was. In the same way, a "ladies auxiliary to a side degree" is a pretty understated definition for an organization with 243 chapters worldwide, such as Ladies Oriental Shrine. It's fine that you thought it was a good idea, but this is an overly vague dump list of everything you could copy out of three books. This is also what happens when the majority of your sources for modern organizations date back to a hundred years ago. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followup on further editing: I have removed the Rotary heading in the article, as Rotary is not a fraternal organization - it is a service organization and doesn't have degrees in the first place. I have also removed the information given by Axelrod on the Shrine; it was incorrect in almost all respects. The Shrine uses a "Middle Eastern" theme, not an "Islamic" one, and the membership requirements claimed have not been true for 15 years. The latter is a matter of timing, but if Axelrod gets a publicly visible organization like the Shrine wrong in basic detail, I'm skeptical of the source. None of the ladies' organizations related to the Shrine are "side degrees" for the women - they are the main organizations, as there is no membership prerequisite for them to join. So aside from the Masonic groups covered elsewhere in greater detail, there are now all of eight entries, most of which are based on one reference in one book. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of which seems to be just so much hair splitting. They are all defined as side degrees. We have a definition from Axelrod, which is a published WP:RS. Some side degrees have larger organizations that other (like the Shriners) but that doesn't mean the other versions of side degrees that exist (or have existed) for fraternal orders or service clubs should be assigned to oblivion. BTW, I think your differentiation of a pseudo-Islamic and Middle Eastern theme is symptomatic of the larger problem. Axelrod rightly states that the Shriners imagery is based on 19th century orientalist misunderstanding of the Islamic/"Near Eastern" world. It is what we would today call cultural appropriation and aspects of it, particularly allowing alcoholic beverages in the "Shrine" would be very offensive to Muslims. But the point is, that is hair-spiting - and I can find other resources that make the same statements about different "appendent degrees". The fact is that most of them have become defunct and only the Shriners still exist as a large organization. Whether one wants to call the womens orders side degrees, appendent orders, etc. is - again - a semantic question.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for not having information on the other orders, I have been busy in grad school the last few months and have not had time to enlarge the entries. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a list of womens auxiliary groups, I already have a list for them as well, though I have a feeling you will try to have that deleted too. Auxiliary (fraternal orders).--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the differences between a service club and a fraternal order are vaguely defined on Wikipedia. The Category:Fraternal service organizations includes the Kiwanis, Rotary, Elks and Masons. Some of the service clubs had side degrees like the fraternal orders did.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems appropriate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so have we decided we are going to merge.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discarding the last !vote by a banned user, I don't see that the subject necessarily meets the inclusion guidelines as argued by the nominator (perhaps just barely), but there doesn't seem to be enough consensus to delete, either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Armstrong (diver)[edit]

Brian Armstrong (diver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Many of the sources are affiliated (e.g. self-published by Armstrong or from the Rubicon Foundation, of which Armstrong is a founding member). Other sources are primary, or give passing mention of Armstrong (or none at all). Being a crew member of a team that does something noteworthy does not grant notability, just as the workers who build a famous skyscraper don't warrant individual articles. The television appearances may possibly indicate notability if they focus on Armstrong specifically, rather than just in passing or as a crew member, but this needs verification. Lastly, the article was written by User:Gene Hobbs, who is also a founding member of the Rubicon Foundation. We need significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the B25 and Gertrude Tomkins projects received significant media coverage and Armstrong was mentioned by name in at least one project related publication. My failure to expand the project specific sections to show the notability of these projects should not reflect on this nomination. If requested, I could find time to expand these sections.
Thank you Animalparty. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sheck Exley award indicates someone has completed 1000 safe cave dives. While that's certainly more than me, and probably more than many divers, the award only counts towards notability if reliable, secondary sources routinely use it as a metric of notability (the low number of awardees in itself means little unless put into context such as how long the award has been available). And I would argue being mentioned by name alone in multiple sources does not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) no matter how much public good (should every crew member on the Gertrude Tomkins Project be granted a biography?). My own name has appeared in a couple newspapers and technical reports, and I have worked with people who probably satisfy Wikipedia notability guidelines, but that does not constitute significant, verifiable coverage to merit my own biography, no matter who writes it. Notability and the Core Content Policies require that we as editors cannot imply or assume importance or prominence that is not adequately documented in secondary sources. With all due respect, we need sufficient evidence that people aside from yourself or affiliated sources have considered Armstrong particularly noteworthy in his field. Should such secondary sources exist and be cited I have no objection to the article's retention. If not, Armstrong could plausibly be redirected to perhaps Rubicon Foundation and/or discussed in articles about the recovery projects, if appropriate per due weight and balancing aspects. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Hobbs - unfortunately those things you listed (multiple television appearance, cover model for dive magazines, being requested to join projects) are not sufficient on their own to establish notability. What we need is enough reliable coverage (i.e. secondary sources) in which he is the subject. We have to have material from which to write a credible biography after all. This is a very strict guideline that you can read about here: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also about the award, there is almost no information about it. Searching for "Sheck Exley Safe Cave Diving Award" or "Sheck Exley Award" brings up mainly online forums discussing it. For an award to be considered, it must also receive coverage in secondary sources. But has he ever been featured as a profile or interview in any of the diving magazines? Diving magazines are considered secondary sources; any kind of feature on him would probably satisfy the basic requirements, so this is probably your best bet. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned Peter. It turns out that he and his wife were both interviewed quite a bit in the “Return To The Bermuda Triangle” special on TLC (TV network) but I doubt that is enough to make this group happy. I'd need to spend more time to find more and I just don't have much time at the moment. Thanks though! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so clear that he has come to the attention of the public for his actions? Notability requires verifiable evidence and notability is not inherited by working on notable projects nor with notable people. The first clip from Return to the Bermuda Triangle shows contains about a minute in total of Armstrong talking about things he did or saw with his team, and while verifiable (and interesting), does not help establish independent notability. The second clip is more of the same. The interviews are not significant coverage about Armstrong or his contributions (nor are they independent of the subject), and assuming his appearances on Mega Movers are the same sort of first-hand testimonial, would contribute to notability no more than a firefighter who's been interviewed more than once about the causes of a fire, which, even if quoted in a newspaper, don't extend beyond the normal duties of a professional, even if that professional has some neat stories to tell. You state "This isn't a stub based on a couple of passing mentions", and I would say no, this is a beefed up start-class article stretched over a couple of passing mentions, padded with some other sources that don't mention Armstrong at all, implying but not demonstrating that Armstrong was a significant part of the story. The Background section is largely unsourced. I haven't found more than one sentence about Armstrong in any independent source (not even the Rubicon Foundation website). If Armstrong is independently notable or played an objectively important role, the current sources simply do not not support this. He is often simply listed as one of several crew members (does every one listed in The Gertrude Tompkins Expedition achieve instant notability? Per WP:Golden rule and WP:GNG, we need multiple, significant coverage from sources independent of the subject. The fact that very few articles currently link to Armstrong suggest that Wikipedia would not be significantly disrupted should the existing article be removed or condensed into a section of Rubicon Foundation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a hypothetical example, pretend someone wanted to write an article on their good friend John Q. Person. "Person went to XYZ high school, where he was head of the Chess Club (verified by yearbook). Person graduated with High Honors from notable University (verified by list of names in commencement ceremony), which has several Nobel laureates as faculty. While in college, Person marched in some notable anti-war demonstrations (verified by caption in a photo) that received international press coverage. Person later got a job working for a notable Company (verified by HR documents), which is a well known Company in America. Person has written many documents for his company, as well as editorials published in newspaper and trade magazines (verified by said articles), and has presented at several conferences (verified by list of conference presentations and abstracts). When Person retired from Company, he was honored for his contributions with a life-time achievement award. Person died in 2010 (verified by obituary)" All of the above might be true and verifiable, and appear to show a person was widely known for something, but is actually a cobbled-together narrative from primary or passing mentions when the published record actually shows an individual was only tangentially or trivially involved in notable entities. Relevant essays include Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability and WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you don't need to badger every commentator at this page with walls of text.
Next, your understanding of our notability guidelines is seriously flawed. It is clear that Armstrong and his work has been brought to the attention of the public through reporting by independent third parties. The Learning Channel did the interviews with Armstrong and had editorial control over what was broadcast. You can't simply dismiss TLC's part in that documentary as if Armstrong had made his own video and uploaded it to YouTube. When a programme maker with the circulation of TLC devotes a significant amount of screen time to Armstrong's expeditions, that does amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your firefighter scenario is a false analogy; notability for a person is concerned with the attention that the media has paid to the individual for what they have done and it clear that Armstrong is unique in his contributions in that particular field, which cannot be said for a firefighter who was doing their job in the same way as any other firefighter. You might as well say that coverage of a soldier who receives a medal isn't notable because his actions did not "extend beyond the normal duties of a professional".
I do state that is a lot more than a stub and you concede that it's a "beefed up start-class article", for which I'm grateful. One of the features that distinguish start-class from stub-class is the question of notability: "The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant." - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment,
Which are these sources that don't mention Armstrong at all? The Background section actually has five sources, which is not "largely unsourced" as you claim. If you feel the first paragraph needs a source, the correct action is addition of ((citation needed)), not deletion of the entire article. Armstrong is independently notable and the current sources do support this, despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary (assuming "the current sources simply do not not support this. was a typo, not a double negative). The criterion for notability is significant coverage in independent sources, which Armstrong has - TLC, Mega Movers, ABC, etc. - not whether or not the encyclopedia would be disrupted by its removal. After all, there are plenty of articles on notable topics with fewer than the four proper incoming links that the article Brian Armstrong (diver) possesses.
Take the hypothetical example of John Q. Person, who did all the things you say, but was also a major player in several well-publicised expeditions that attracted public interest; so much so that two well-respected documentary makers interviewed him to get the story of what he did on those expeditions. Not only that, but a published author chose him for his expertise in these sort of expeditions as a collaborator and wrote about him. Enough for notability? You betcha. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, unless I'm missing it, there's nothing on his article nor mentioned here about him being featured in a book or article by said "published author" - what are you talking about? Additionally, let's look at the "five sources" you mention for the "Background section"
  1. something called "'Continuous service award (10 years)'. North Carolina State University Physical Education Department." - no link, no publication given, clearly not even an article based on the title, by all guess it appears to be likely a list of people who have been working with the North Carolina State PE department for 10 years, and strangely is the exact same reference on Gene Hobbs aka Brian's friend (who wrote the article about him);
  2. the article of incorporation for his own organization!!!
  3. cover photo of Florida Scuba News; which appears to be a self-published free publication like that's mainly ads and given away at scuba stores, yet, still didn't write anything about him, and for all we know, the photo is a group shot of 27 people
  4. documentary not about him but in which he is interviewed as a witness
  5. same as #4.
The same pattern goes for all the rest of the "sources" in the article - how in any way are ANY of these the required significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail (the topic is Brian Armstrong himself, not his observations or thoughts on an activity or job he did or movie he saw or sandwich he ate) in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Is there a single source that meets that clear requirement? One? —МандичкаYO 😜 21:16, 27 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) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He appears at around 7:45, 8:05, and 10:15 on this clip. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yeah it's doesn't change my vote. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What else can be added? —МандичкаYO 😜 01:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasq[edit]

Hasq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent assertions of notability, article reads like an ad in places, and some of the material looks like it may have been lifted and slightly tweaked from someplace on the net. On top of all that this reads somewhat like a how-to guide. I am there fore listing this here for community input on the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence[edit]

Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Most of the google results are just dictionary and abbreviation results. --☣Anarchyte☣ 06:50, 27 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) --☣Anarchyte☣ 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --☣Anarchyte☣ 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Il Mio Bambino[edit]

Il Mio Bambino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete it "books" soon!Devbasdev (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nel nome del padre[edit]

Nel nome del padre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete his "books" soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devbasdev (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 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 Menotti Lerro. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aforismi e pensieri. Cinquecento gocce dal mio mare[edit]

Aforismi e pensieri. Cinquecento gocce dal mio mare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting cleanup with the author's article. The unfortunate thing is that I'm finding that many of the otherwise promising sources are primary or otherwise unusable. Andrew Mangham works at the University of Reading, the college Lerro received his Master's Degree from. He also appears to be a visiting academic at UoR, so there's a tie there and it's well within the school's best interest to have someone write about someone that attended or is otherwise affiliated with them. I'll post this on some of the other AfD as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tokyogirl79, thank you for looking at the author's article. I had a glance at it and also thought that, after the removal of non-RS it might be greatly reduced. I will take a look at any Italian sources there. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaMona, that would be wonderful- I used Google Translate as much as possible but there were a few sources that I was somewhat unsure of since I couldn't tell how they accepted reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 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 redirect to Menotti Lerro. I'm generally against awkward title redirects, but the article has existed for long enough in this case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raccontarsi in versi. La poesia autobiografica in Inghilterra e in Spagna (1950-1980)[edit]

Raccontarsi in versi. La poesia autobiografica in Inghilterra e in Spagna (1950-1980) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the amount of SPAs for the article I think that I may open an SPI for this just to make sure that they're all unrelated. There seems to be some socking or meating going on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: Seems to be a good idea. I just find it hard to believe a number of new editors suddenly decided to collaborate on this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, I've started an SPI up if you're interested in weighing in. One of the accounts have stated that they're a group of 3 student friends editing from similar computers, but the problem is that there are a LOT of accounts. Some of them are here to just vote delete or blank the pages, which I think is a separate but probably related group. It's kind of fishy that these other accounts start signing up along the same point in time. One way or the other, I do think that there is a pretty organized attempt here to add Lerro to as many articles as possible. I can somewhat see this as a task for students, but this seems to have been going on for years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can ping me on the SPI, I'll take a look. Through I am less worried about SPI than just spam in this case; I don't think most if any of those books are notable; and the writer himself may warrant investigation. This smells to me like not-too-good-faithed attempt to use Wikipedia as vehicle for promotion/vanity :( Multiple confusing SPI-like accounts don't help, neither. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you are the only without good faith. You talked about Lerro's book as his "books" / you went in the main page of the author suggesting to an user how to try to delete the author. / You talk about "vanity". I think you should try to respect people and authors even if you think they are not important to be on WIkipedia. I think you have personal reasons. Maybe you know the author and have a sort of obsession about him... Try to relax!Foliinastr (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tokyogirl79, I think you are going in the wrong direction. The article of Lerro has been created years ago (I have not idea from who), after me and I can assure you also others, because the article was "within the aim of wikipedia" and was a stub (so that we were invited to improve it) started during the time to improve it. Other people wanted to help, so they did their part. There was just the aim to give a complete picture of his work. In this last period I decide to write about the opera so I created pages of his work. I did not have any idea it was prohibited to do it with more accounts (I don't see where is the problem). I don't think it add something. So Sometime, for instance, I did it from my place of work or whatever. For sure I am not the only user working on this progect. Anyway, Piotrus has been not nice towards the author, maybe he has personal reasons. In any case there was and there is perfect good faith: I think he is notable and I develop his work. If you think he is not, do what you can do. But please, don't go too far with your immagination. This is just an important website, nothing else. So, please, don't think people is there to attemp at this or at that. I always create a new account of wikipedia to improve articles. It is just because I don't remember passwords so If I do it from anothe place I create a new account because wikipedia advices to write always with an account to not leave IP. It is the only reason. I never thought it could be better in the time to develope his article with mosre account... DO you understand what I mean? I think you are exagerating. The author is a notable author and I don't think he needs these stuff. SO please, try to be nice (dear Piotrus) and if there are good reason to delete just delete, butr try to respect users, people and authors. Take care. Rainermaria27 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Let me add I never gave a "keep" vote (I did not want to do it just to be correct, because I was one of the main contributer) with some account or blancked any pages. Lerro received many personal attacks on his talk page from people in the past. Such "invitamia", (an italian user) who was always unkind while I was creating the page. The same did "Erodiade" in the Lerro talk page, talking of the author like a "self-published nobody". Sometimes I had some reaction at these behaviours because it is not nice to talk of an author in this way. He can be suitable for Wikipedia or not, but he is a person and an author and we have to respect! I know that things could appear different, but trust me, the only thing I did has been creating freely pages of an author I thought (more because I read that he was within the aim of wikipedia) he is enciclopedic. There are not PIS-PIM-SOCKS-SPA- and similar things :-). I even don't know what are these. I am not professional of wikipedia, that's why I added so many references. I thought more I add nicer the page would appear. I did not think, for instance, they were not always good or unusable. I don't know if it is making a sense what i say. In the end I just would recomand all of us to be correct (dear Piotrus, to be honest, when you talked of his books as "books" I thought you were a new or the same "Erodiade"...) but probably you just were in good faith. I belive it and understand. I hope you can belive and understand me too. All the bestRainermaria27 (talk) 13:44, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin (video game)[edit]

Ronin (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator with the following comment left on his/her talk page: "I can't seem to understand why the article does not cover enough sources or external links, since it has nine sources, of which some are published ones e.g. tweets or blog posts. You might need to have published sources and commentary, of which both cannot be many available yet, as the games has not yet been release but is going to be in just one day (May 27) into Steam Early Access. From that point on, ratings, mentionings, etc. from different gaming magazines will go into the article. ". As it is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON, the article should be deleted or userfied until such a point as independent sources (reviews, etc.) can be added. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The game was released today, May 27, as I mentioned before; we will probably see a lot of reviews soon. Lordtobi (✉) 12:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what a release into Steam Early Access signifies, relative to a full release for sale. But we can indeed wait a few days for reviews. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 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 BBC_Persian_Television#Nader_Soltanpour. MBisanz talk 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Soltanpour[edit]

Nader Soltanpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Only one of the article's references is about the person (a brief bio sketch at his employer, BBC), rather they are news stories he was involved in. Found one source behind a paywall [24] but there doesn't appear to be robust independent sourcing. Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't find the obituary. Whatever else, it appears that he is still living and broadcasting on BBC. Jpbrenna (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Travel & Tourism Academy[edit]

International Travel & Tourism Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:CORP Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Humrahi[edit]

Mere Humrahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced TV show with no signs of notability at all Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 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 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Cyber Girls of the Month[edit]

List of Playboy Cyber Girls of the Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft; no indication Cyber Girl is particularly significant that it needs one list, let alone three —МандичкаYO 😜 03:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Cyber Girls of the Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Cyber Club celebrity photographers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SATMAP (system)[edit]

SATMAP (system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a technology product. The article's references consist of primary sources, press releases and superficial news coverage generated from press releases. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - MrX 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Minus the sock !vote below. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

32 Bita[edit]

32 Bita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, doesn't show why the article or the company in question is notable. --☣Anarchyte☣ 03:46, 27 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) --☣Anarchyte☣ 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --☣Anarchyte☣ 03:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So of course I find corroboration as soon as I post, via hr:Videoigra at http://www.poslovni.hr/tehnologija/racunalne-igre-u-hrvatskoj-proizvodi-sedam-tvrtki-11260, towards the bottom. It confirms Sraz as the first Croatian computer game, though I'm not sure there's a notability guideline for such firsts. It also has the founder's thoughts on why the market is so small. I think this warrants some investigation from those familiar with Croatian sources. – czar 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AirMedia Group, Inc.[edit]

AirMedia Group, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I considered endorsing the PROD but I removed it thinking AfD would be better as a News search found several results but now looking them, I'm not sure if the company is notable. There are some good sources along with some PR and searches at Highbeam found some links but nothing looks significant and notable and thefreelibrary found mostly press releases along with browser finding some results and Books finding one not helpful result. I'm not a Chinese speaker so I'm no use there but I'm not sure if there are more non-English sources. With an article like this staying from November 2008 with no improvement, it's particularly concerning. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apotheosis (group)[edit]

Apotheosis (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary searches all found nothing and the French article (which probably also needs to be deleted) only has a discogs link. I've watched this article for the past three years and it has not improved and I think there is no chance of it improving. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liisa Ladouceur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Liisa Ladouceur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relist for further consideration following a no-consensus closure on the first nomination back in February. This is a WP:BLP of a writer which is not supported by adequate reliable sourcing to demonstrate that she passes WP:CREATIVE — while she has published books, the only sources provided for them are the books' entries on WorldCat (but directory sourcing doesn't count.) While she's been a magazine editor and journalist, there aren't independent sources covering her for those things. While she's been an occasional guest on radio and TV programs, an appearance on radio or TV cannot confer notability in and of itself. I've done a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, further, and found that while she's occasionally the bylined author, she's never been the subject of even one article in that entire database. What we have, accordingly, is an article that's almost literally just a cut and paste from her own website (OTRS filed to eliminate the WP:COPYVIO issue), but that just makes it a promotional/PR profile. Again, this is not a comment on her as a person — but the quality of sourcing that Wikipedia requires to legitimately support an article simply isn't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 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 Gerde's Folk City. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Porco[edit]

Mike Porco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my field, but the information here does not show notability. (I agree the venue is notable). FWIW, this article was written by an obvious COI editor. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 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 02:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Brockley[edit]

Ross Brockley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actor "known" only for his participation in an ad campaign, and thus making no claim of notability that would pass WP:NACTOR. Article has already been nominated for speedy (which is what it really deserves) and then escalated to prod, with the (WP:SPA) creator removing the templates both times without providing a rationale or any improvement to the notability claim. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1559159/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1%7CIMDB
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVIC SE[edit]

CVIC SE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced orphan with indication of notability that fails to meet GNG and NCORP 3gg5amp1e (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:53, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:18, 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 no consensus. If desired, a merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page. North America1000 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAM image[edit]

RAM image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced orphan with no indication importance or notability and seems to fail GNG. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.google.com/search?q="ram+image"+embedded —Ruud 11:48, 16 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) 00:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 01:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Quilliam[edit]

Wayne Quilliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy does sound like he could be notable but with no reliable sources other then a page that is basically a el. (also almost sound like a advertisement) now if someone can make this article better and more better source I will withdraw. Wgolf (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 16 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) 00:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 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 speedy delete. Although trees do not fall in the class of articles where A7 can be used, the article was actually about an individual. Quite apart from A7, it was essentially an attack page, and I deleted it accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack sargent tree[edit]

Jack sargent tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Miura[edit]

Toru Miura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he is the founder and president of AIC, there is hardly any information about his personal bio that couldn't be covered by the AIC article. I propose that information (if any useful amount) regarding the producer be merged to Anime International Company and that Toru Miura (musician) be renamed to Toru Miura. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC) updated 16:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, exactly. There's no bio. The source in passing was added by myself recently in order to get the tag off for BLP sources. The Japanese Wikipedia article lists about a line of bio and then all his works, most of which are covered by AIC anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Memija[edit]

Kerim Memija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a claim that the Bosnian premier league is fully pro, an assertion contradicted by reliable sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hadžiahmetović[edit]

Amir Hadžiahmetović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer. As the Bosnian league is not a fully-professional league, see WP:FPL, the player fails WP:NFOOTY, and they also fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fully professionally yet clubs from that league participate in both Champions League and Europa League qualifying.Bosnalopta (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not a requirement to participate in UEFA club competitions. There are any number of leagues, including the Bosnian premier league that are confirmed as not fully pro whose clubs compete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is fully professional, I don't understand the judgment or qualifications.Bosnalopta (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - because no consensus has been achieved here along with reliable sources to confirm the FULLY professional nature of this league. This doesn't mean that a source has to explicitly use the phrase "fully professional" but documentation needs to be presented that shows that essentially all of the clubs in the league pay their players sufficient for them not to require other jobs. this could be from an official FA document (for example this from the Albanian FA) outlining the requirements for club membership in a given competition or even a reliable third party source that confirms FPL status indirectly. For example this report notes that there is only one semi professinal footballer in the football league. To all intents and purposes, this confirms that the English football league is fully professional. It is important to note that no one is saying the B&H league is not fully professional, just that it has not been shown that it is and the WP:NFOOTY essay, commonly accepted as a baseline for notability is an inclusive view. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youBosnalopta (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 01:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besim Šerbečić[edit]

Besim Šerbečić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer. As the Bosnian league is not a fully-professional league, see WP:FPL, the player fails WP:NFOOTY, and they also fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fully professionally yet clubs from that league participate in both Champions League and Europa League qualifying.Bosnalopta (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not a requirement to participate in UEFA club competitions. There are any number of leagues, including the Bosnian premier league that are confirmed as not fully pro whose clubs compete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Mihojević[edit]

Marko Mihojević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer. As the Bosnian league is not a fully-professional league, see WP:FPL, the player fails WP:NFOOTY, and they also fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not fully professionally yet clubs from that league participate in both Champions League and Europa League qualifying.Bosnalopta (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not a requirement to participate in UEFA club competitions. There are any number of leagues, including the Bosnian premier league that are confirmed as not fully pro whose clubs compete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 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.
More