Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 November 8 November >

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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Leverton[edit]

James Leverton (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 minor league baseball player, currently a free agent and unlikely to reach the majors. Prod was removed by article creator with the weird reason of "I like turtles". Spanneraol (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Drafted within the top ten rounds, was hoping he'd at least have some decent coverage from when he played in college and around when he was drafted. Alas, there was not much, and despite spending seven years in the minors, he didn't get a lot of coverage during his career. Minor league relievers just don't get much love. This is what I found: [1], [2], [3] Alex (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 00:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rule is that Minor League players are not notable without some special reason to make them notable. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by user. (non-admin closure) Tutelary (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex from Target[edit]

Alex from Target (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)

Come on now. I fully understand that this blew up and got massive media coverage over one night, but this seems to be a biography for Alex LaBeouf. And as per WP:BLP1E if I'm understanding that correctly, I don't believe this one event established notability for him. Gloss 22:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) - Personally, I have not perceived the article as a biography nor even as an article that aims to be a biography. I perceive it as the chronicle of an event, just like the viral phenomenon Edgar's fall is discussed in its article as an event or meme, not as the biography of the main protagonist.
In my opinion the guidelines to apply here are WP:EVENT and in particular its section WP:PERSISTENCE, which explains: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not." and the section WP:RAPID, which states "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary.". I would follow this recommendation of delaying the nomination and that's why I suggested a temporary "keep". ► LowLevel (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I was considering nomming this for AFD myself but had my doubts because while we could discuss the whole thing, it depends if it has a lick of longevity and felt time would either confirm notability or show it was a minor blip. For that reason it's a weak keep, either this is notable or just something that went viral only to vanish from memory in a month. tutterMouse (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It's too early to say, and we can reassess in a month or two and see if the event or the person has established any long term notability.
  • Comment I finding myself starting to agree with the keep votes. No need to keep this running, so consider it withdrawn. Gloss 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the same as before. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Democrat In Name Only (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 neologism, probably derived from the more common (and documented) term Republican In Name Only. {{Refimprove}}-tagged since 2006, but none of the article's 5 sources use either the terms DINO or in name only. I imagine someone has used the term DINO at some point, but it lacks the weight RINO has, and (we at least once believed) the mere existence of a term does not itself make it an encyclopedic subject. Lacking sources about the term, the article attempts an unsourced essay on Conservative Democrats, and is redundant with that so-named article.

One cannot discuss US Republican politics online for long before some hero asserts The Democrats do the same thing and are just as bad. However, I don't believe Wikipedia requires such a parity with the Republican In Name Only article.

I'm noticing just now there are 4 previous nominations. I should probably read those and find out why this nomination is doomed to fail. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: as far as DINO being a non-notable newlogism, some quick googling turned up a bunch of book sources with one going back 14 years. Here's half a dozzen or so
This 1998 Chicago Tribune article uses the term. I'm guessing that earlier instances of its use could be turned up.
Perhaps the article ought to use material from some of these and cite them in support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a pretty good list that was posted at the 4th nomination that appears to have led to a pretty sound keep consensus. It was posted by Croctotheface, who in turn credited Jreferee. I'll copy/paste it again here despite the articles not being linked because, assuming good faith that they do in fact exist, the titles indicate all of them deal with this concept directly: --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newsday (October 23, 1994) Campaign '04: Some Democrats in Name Only Many of Assembly's GOP incumbents face weak, poorly funded challenges in Suffolk. Section: News Page A55.
    • South China Morning Post (July 24, 2004) A democrat in name only. Page 2.
    • Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004) The Charleston Gazette Dinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
    • Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005) The Hartford Courant Democrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
    • Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005) The Charlotte Observer Out of the mayor's race, Cannon fires off shots. He criticizes Madans, McCrory, "Democrats in name only." Section: Local; Page 5B.
    • Boston Herald (January 11, 2006) Editorial; Where DINOs now roam Section: Editorial; Page 28.
    • Zremski, Jerry. (July 12, 2006) The Buffalo News At times, Higgins votes with the GOP. Record on key issues prompts liberals to attack congressman as "Democrat in name only". Section: News; Page A1.
    • Ashby, Charles. (August 20, 2006) The Pueblo Chieftain GOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
    • Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006) Times-News Many local voters are Democrats in name only.
    • Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A rare bird joins the Washington Aviary. But will Jim Webb, a Democart in Name Only, turn out to be a dynamo or dodo? Section: Editorial; Page H3.
    • Koff, Stephen. (August 16, 2007) Cleveland Plain Dealer "You're a Democrat in name only" Ex-candidate Hackett reveals Kucinich slam. Section: Metro; Page B2.
  • Keep, multiple usages of the term in reliable sources, including news, books (used as far back as 1910), and in scholarly journal articles. Although the article might have some problems, it doesn't appear to be so bad as to WP:TNT; see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Republicans in Name Only. Only merge information about the term itself and its usage, not about conservative democrats, which belongs at conservative Democrats. Yes, it is notable, but we do not have articles for all notable subjects. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like the best solution to me. I'm not quite sure how to resolve the overlap between this and conservative Democrat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article persistently have no sources for this term? Could this be like Humiliatrix, a common bit of wordplay that is by itself not a notable thing? If so, why merge it into an article about a notable thing? Republican in Name Only has Wikipedia:Coatrack issues already.
I think the considerable amount of "Conservative Democrat" content is unsourced and need not be merged to that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I would merge no more than the first two paragraphs from the lead to RINO. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first two paragraphs are completely unsourced. Sentences like "DINO is used by more ideological (politically speaking) members of the Democrats to counter fellow party members for their heterodox, or relatively moderate or conservative positions" will need sourcing; otherwise we assert that Democrats do this and it's not just something that pops up in articles by waggish writers. Of all the links provided above by Googling Keep voters, do any document this term as routinely used by Democrats with this intention? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is approaching the dead horse (or donkey) phase. AfD is not for ordinary editing fixes. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable term. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to addition of properly sourced evidence of greater notability than was originally asserted. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Chickens[edit]

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

Article about an album which just asserts its existence, and makes no substantive or properly sourced claim that it actually passes WP:NALBUMS in any substantive way — the only real evidence of notability here is "one of the musicians involved in it has a Wikipedia article", but that isn't enough to make an album independently notable. Albums get over on sales chart positions, award nominations, reliable source coverage that's actually about the album itself, and on and so forth — they do not get a free notability pass just because they exist. Delete unless proper sourcing, supporting a substantive claim of notability, can be added. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that clinches it. To be fair, the article didn't state or source that fact as written at the time. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wordekemper[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eric Wordekemper (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 former minor league baseball player who fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. References are WP:ROUTINE. His time in the CPBL no longer qualifies him as passing WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I said in the last discussion on him that the coverage was of the WP:ROUTINE variety, making him WP:Run-of-the-mill. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I created this before I had any knowledge of any notability policies and I agree that he doesn't meet notability guidelines. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Note I apologize for not including a more detailed closing rationale, which I should have done given the contentiousness of the debate. As per request at the DRV, I am adding the following rationale: The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name. While laudable, this in itself does not establish notability, just as publishing books does not make an author notable. What is needed are independent sources about Bushman's accomplishments and I do not really see those. As for the alien claims, some editors seem to be arguing that these claims are true, hence Bushman is notable. This is incorrect. Whether or not the claims are true or not is irrelevant here. What we need to establish notability is whether those claims have generated sustained and in-depth coverage in reliable sources and, again, that does not seem to be the case here. In sum, while taken together the "delete" !votes are solidly policy based, the "keep" !votes either use irrelevant arguments or fail to show sustained in-depth coverage. Therefore, although numerically there may not seem to be a consensus here, I remind the participants that AfD is not a vote and close this as delete. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Bushman[edit]

Boyd Bushman (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 GNG. Biography has two sources, one is OS (a USPTO patent search for subject's name and inventions), the other is non-RS (a UFO conspiracy theory website}. This individual has recently been making the rounds on the UFO blogs as a "respected scientist" who made an alleged "death bed confession" in which he supposedly claimed knowledge of time-traveling extraterrestrials. see: [6], etc. Many of these blogs, in fact, cite WP as a source for claims like he invented the Stinger missile and WP, in turn, cites the blogs. This article had a good run - now it's time for it to say goodnight. BlueSalix (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The man existed ( birth cert. and obit. plus 1999 documentary is proof of him and his likeness ). Regarding 'employment,' perhaps he was an independent contractor as many sensitive contributions for such companies are. The sources from the opinion websites ( like UFO discussion websites ) do not have to be added, the patent resources are enough. However, the sources from 'news' outlets DO NEED factual support to effort a real defeat to Boyd's claims. Otherwise, we are following 'news' based on hearsay and opinion without having facts and cited sources leading to clarity and an objective judgment of the matter at hand. Simply because several 'news' sources repeat the same dissenting opinion doesn't make their objection true. Facts lead to truth. We have yet to see facts contradict Boyd's claims. — Precedinuuug unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article clearly needs improvement, also the patent section seems excesive and current sources are insuficient, but a quick search revealed many possible RS hits, for example: 1, 2. Also in other languages 3.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Metro, the South Wales Evening Gazette, etc., are part of the Daily Mail media group which has been determined numerous times to be non-RS tabloids and the stories you've linked are sourced to the original Daily Mail report. As for "eluniversal.com.co" ... I've never heard of it. Have you? BlueSalix (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
El Universal (Cartagena) is a Colombian based newspaper, not a tabloid. The south Wales Evening Gazette seems to be written by a diferent author, but I admit that I did not know about their relationship to the Daily Mail media group.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:PROF. A list of patents is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's requirements for a notable WP:BIO. As for the UFO claims, WP:REDFLAG applies, the claims need to be covered by multiple reliable sources, which is not the case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC) I should add that this bio fails a major test of notability per WP:BLP1E since the individual was unremarkable until one event (a Youtube video) triggered some frivolous "silly season" reporting, per WP:SENSATION. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Cook is a past and current aerospace journalist at Jane's Defence Weekly. He states in his 2007 book “The Hunt for Zero Point” published by Crown Publishing Group:
“When I had first inquired about Trimble and RIAS at Lockheed Martin, my contacts there had recommended I interview a man who routinely talked about the kinds of things that had once been integral to the RIAS charter. A man who tended to talk about Nature, not science; a physicist who looked at things quite differently from other people. Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-16 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force. If you’re interested in antigravity, then talk to him, they’d said.”
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307419436
http://books.google.com/books?id=b97ahFqu_U4C&q=Boyd%20Bushman
Bushman discusses antigravity in this earlier video. He discusses his own experiments in 1995 with slowing the rate of fall of an object by attaching it to some powerful $5000 neodymium magnets. The magnets had a quarter inch hole in them and were bolted together such that the same pole faced each other. In other words they repelled each other, and were only held together by the bolt. This object was dropped from a height of 59 feet along with another object that did not have the magnets attached. The test was run 9 times if I am remembering correctly, and the witnesses verified that the object with the magnets hit the ground later than the object without the magnets attached. The witnesses did not know which object had the magnets in it.
Bushman also discusses this antigravity experiment (in less detail) in the 1999 Discovery Channel program "Billion Dollar Secret." See video. At a running time of 22:50 to 26:56 in the "Billion Dollar Secret," Boyd is interviewed and introduced as a senior scientist at Lockheed Martin and speaks briefly about the subject matter. Later in his comments (at 25:10) he mentions this experiment he did with opposing magnets regarding anti-gravity. Direct links to 22:50 and 25:10 in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=22m50s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=25m10s --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although it certainly needs work, it was through this article that I was better able to determine the whole thing is a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce smyth (talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At this point the fact of notability is more important than the reason for notability. Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not use citizen journalism and user-created content sites like blogs, or Find-a-Grave. Please see WP:RS for more details on what are acceptable sources. BlueSalix (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=ininventor:boyd+ininventor:bushman - and he is notable beyond that. Currently, 14,600 results in this Google News phrase search for "Boyd Bushman".
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22boyd+bushman%22 - some of them are reliable sources. As for what people think his claims are: I certainly don't trust what is in many articles online. They contradict each other about what he said. That is one reason why primary sources are sometimes allowed on Wikipedia. For example; to verify what he actually said. I have only read a little online, and heard something on the radio. I haven't seen any of the videos, and so I don't even know for sure what he claimed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A patent is not proof of employment. I can patent something tomorrow and make Lockheed Martin the assignee, even without Lockheed Martin's permission. If we have such a hard time finding proof of someone's employment that we have to dig through patent applications (which is Original Research), there's something seriously amiss. BlueSalix (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, his funeral home obituary says: "Bushman's career spanned over forty years and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin. Some of his accomplishments included being on the development team of the Stinger Missile, the F16 Fighter, as well as many other advanced weapons and propulsion systems. At the time of his retirement in 2000, Bushman had 28 patents in his name, many of which contained classified technologies." More detailed info from other references is needed so that WP:NPOV is met.
From the site hosting the obit: "Owens Livingston Mortuary does not control this third-party Content...Owens Livingston Mortuary does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content, and Owens Livingston Mortuary makes no representations or warranties regarding any information or opinions posted to or otherwise included on or transmitted through the web site." - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More references are needed. I assume his family can help verify his employment history. Maybe they have been interviewed by reliable sources that have followed the trail further. And I highly doubt most families would allow a completely bogus obituary at the funeral home site of a loved one. So it is a good starting point for finding further references. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is this so difficult? The individual is known for WP:ONEEVENT, the release of a YouTube video, and that event fails the guidelines at WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of hoaxes. There is WP:RECENTISM going on here. The people !voting "keep" are arguing from the basis of WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT. The claim that there is reliable source coverage is a bit of a red herring as I have not seen any in-depth independent sources that we would look for in order to establish a WP:FRIND status of notability for this WP:FRINGEBLP. Note that the debunking websites which discuss him do so in such an off-handed way that it's probably fine to list this in a List of hoaxes compendium and, if this story gets bigger, we can always WP:CFORK in the appropriate way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The entire context of the article is speculative. The YouTube.com interviews are obviously real contrary to the claim that the person is actually a mannequin or dummy mockup. There is a real person making these claims and appearing on camera.

The author's inability to substantiate the identity of Boyd Bushman's does not equal hoax. Engineers/scientist working black programs typically do not have public personas unless unavoidable or necessary. "Searching" or "Googling" the Internet would not necessary be the end all to verifying someone's identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grigsbyt (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without prejudice Rushing to delete this seven-year-old article at its height of popularity is absurd. There is no deadline; I'd suggest we wait a month or two until the article's daily views drop below a thousand and then reopen the discussion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability in RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 86.153.124.228 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man existed ( birth cert. and obit. plus 1999 documentary is proof of him and his likeness ). Regarding 'employment,' he was most likely an independent contractor. The sources from the opinion websites ( like UFO discussion websites ) do not have to be added, the patent resources and 1999 doc are enough for starters. Does anyone realize the 'news' outlets DO NOT have evidence to support the doll theory? They are simply running with an idea without proof of such a doll ever being on the market. What kind of journalism is that?Simply because several 'news' sources repeat the same dissenting opinion without proper sources doesn't make their objection true. Facts lead to truth. We have yet to see one fact contradict Boyd's claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 November 2014
Also, the doll photos do not exactly match the dead alien photos that Bushman was passing on. The Bushman photos are from various angles and show features that are not on any of the doll photos I have seen so far. Most importantly, the whole discussion about the dead alien photos is irrelevant in the sense that Bushman does not publicly claim he has personally seen the dead or live aliens. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of hoaxes. Per WP:BLP1E. He was never noticed or publicized until the hoaxalicious 2014 Youtube video, since taken down at the demand of some supposed copyright holder. Reliable sources have not been supplied so far to establish that he was a prominent scientist at a major company. It seems clear that a Boyd B. Bushman existed, born 20 July 1936 in Arizona, the son of Mitchell Smith Bushman and Glenda Porter Bushman. How would hoaxers have inserted him and his parents and siblings in the 1940 census for Show Low, Arizona? I also found him in the 1956 and 1960 yearbooks for Brigham Young University, and in telephone directories from 1994 through 2002 for Lewisville, Texas, all in databases at Ancestry.com. It is also dubious that a funeral home would publish phony details of his funeral. None of this makes him notable. No newspaper articles, journal articles, or book references have been found other than for the 2014 Youtube video, except for the supposed 1999 video (a barren entry at IMDB, which is not a reliable source). (added: a few fringe sources at Google Scholar, in the UFOlogy, antigravity, and zeropoint energy ream mention him a having been a scientist at Lockheed, as far back as 2002. ) The tabloid publications talking about the Youtube video are not reliable sources. If he secured numerous patents and assigned them to Lockheed, then it is high plausible he worked there at some time in some capacity, as an employee or contractor, in the years the patents were issued. 99.99% of those who worked in some capacity at Lockheed or his other claimed employers are nonnotable, and neither are most persons securing patents notable. The 2014 video (see Snopes' discussion) has sufficient coverage to justify including it in a list of hoaxes, and a redirect is preferable to having people repeatedly create articles about him and his absurd claims. Edison (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the valuable background info on him. Some links would be nice. As for whether he is hoaxing, I personally don't believe so. I finally skimmed the 2014 video. Numerous other credible scientists, military officers, government officials, and other insiders have come forward publicly saying similar things. For example; see Disclosure Project. Some have pages on Wikipedia. So the hoax argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The 2014 video is still in numerous places on Youtube. There are other videos by him on Youtube besides that one. He looks the same in each one, because he is real. We have his photo in the funeral home obituary too. We have established that he is real, and did work for Lockheed in some way. The copyright claim could well be bogus for the 2014 video. And since there are thousands of results for "Boyd Bushman" in Google News he is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barakoti[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (A PROD was removed without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article was created by a troll account (account shares same name, used ip account to contest speedy) Avono (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note there were previous claims of notability mentioned in the article but I removed them because there were unsourced. Avono (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is one sentence. MiracleMat (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we need reliable sources saying why this subject is notable. My sweeps of India-related media, world media, US news did not reveal anything that might indicate this subject meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Wittels[edit]

Garrett Wittels (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)

Semi-notable former minor league baseball player, though I'm not convinced he's notable enough for an article. 1. He never reached the major leagues, so he fails WP:BASE/N. 2. His professional career lasted two seasons, so it in itself was not notable. 3. Many of the links on his article point to WP:ONEEVENT (a dropped rape charge). 4. I'm not convinced his long hitting streak makes him notable, because it occurred at a low level (college) and was not record breaking. Alex (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Let's clear out this list a little bit. Alex (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has major BLP issues and definitely needs to be fixed in that regard, but his notability's not close to being in question. His minor league career isn't notable, but his college career is. Wizardman 15:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Nom seems not to understand that if a baseball player meets GNG by receiving substantial coverage in independent RSs, as is the case here, it is irrelevant whether any of the individual's accomplishments meet WP:BASE/N. This was explained to nom recently at his nomination here, but he appears not to have taken on the guideline language he was referred to at that AfD.
Further, it is unclear whether nom engages in the requisite wp:before search--given his focus above on refs in the article itself, rather than refs that he would see if he conducted that requisite search. Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical companies in bangalore[edit]

Pharmaceutical companies in bangalore (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 article is a list of companies and addresses, should not be included because Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia:NOTDIR, also the contents are copied directly from the commercial page indian pharma jobs, there is no copyright notice in the page.Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharma companies in chennai[edit]

Pharma companies in chennai (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 article is a list of companies and addresses, should not be included because Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia:NOTDIR, also the contents are copied directly from the commercial page indian pharma jobs, there is no copyright notice in the page.Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jitto Arulampalam[edit]

Jitto Arulampalam (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 do not believe that the subject of this article is notable, and generally only has brief mentions in news articles of his [ex-]roles in various companies. The references do not discuss him in detail, and the ones that do are not independent, such as the reference from the company he is the chairman of. The lack of coverage of him is shown by the references generally only containing brief mentions of his name, followed by nothing else about him, such as this from SMH, this from Kazakhstan Potash Corporation, and this from Computer World.

I checked news articles and sites that weren't referenced in the article, such as this one from "The Australian", which appeared to not provide much coverage of him, other than a brief mention of him and his current and previous businesses, which they seem to have done with almost every person they've mentioned on the article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: This is the right link to access "The Australian"; the quoted link doesn't navigate to the intended article; it is not the fault of the nominator.Eesan1969 (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is notable. Australian Financial Review MIS Magazine 2006 recognized him as one of the Top 25 global rising stars. The nominator is too stubborn what he/she does, is correct. He went for CSD immediately after my creation of this article. Now he has nominated this article for deletion. He is maintaining a log highlighting his/her CSD of articles here. He/she should concentrate more on expanding this project rather than displaying petty things.Eesan1969 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he/she would have placed Notability tag, I might have appreciated him/her since there are room for expansion of this page.Eesan1969 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I have added the notability tag to an article, when I consider AfD to be a more suitable location to deal with it? I can't find a mention of this "Top 25 global rising stars" list anywhere, other than on pages about this person, such as on his biography on the company's website he is chairman of. I also can't find anything that makes this MIS Australia magazine to be notable, and can simply find a mention of it closing down in January 2012, with all employees moving to the parent company. There is nothing to show that this list you speak of is notable, or that any individuals on it are notable. This mention in a magazine seems to be the one event you're attempting to establish notability on. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you consider an Afd after your Cfd even after my expansion from one source of reference to a number of other, I can consider you are trying to push your POV stubbornly.
One thing you should remember, the closure of Far Eastern Economic Review doesn't make, that was an infamous magazine.
MIS Magazine was only taken over by its parent company The Australian Financial Review.
MIS Magazine is quoted here as "..........Financial Review's MIS Magazine Australia's leading magazine for CIOs and senior technology executives.".
MIS Magazine is quoted in number of other places, makes it notable.
MIS Magazine's global rising star is fairly popular and was awarded to a number of others.
Australian Online Security Company, TrustDefender, Named a 'Global Rising Star' in MIS Magazines' 'Annual Strategic 100' Issue.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as suitable stub article which does not have any policy violations and the subject appears to meet WP:GNG through coverage (some brief some lengthy) in independent reliable sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thine Antique Pen: If the phrase published is recognised by the 2006 Australian Financial Review MIS Magazine as one of the "Top 25 global rising stars", we need to see if the 2006 source actually did so. I found this AFR from May 1, 2006 but subscription required. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found confirmed by and published in Bloomberg Businessweek, as attributed to DGAP-News. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Williamson[edit]

Fabian Williamson (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 minor league baseball player who has been playing mostly in the independent leagues the last few years. Prod removed with no explanation. Spanneraol (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be honest, I thought there would be more on this guy considering his relatively long career, the trade(s) he's been involved in and the somewhat unique trajectory of his career (jumping from indy ball back to affiliated ball ... that sometimes get a story or two). But I'm not seeing anything. Alex (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Fails GNG.--Yankees10 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Athletes are notable if they play in a fully professional league or have significant other coverage. He fails both tests. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jersey, minor league baseball IS fully professional. It's not semi-pro. It's fully pro. I understand the sentiment of your argument and agree, but don't use the 'he didn't play in a fully professional league' angle because it's entirely wrong. Alex (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Professional, yes. Fully professional, no. Without something more minor league players fail notability. See WP:BASE/N. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what fully professional means. The minor leagues are fully professional. Minor leaguers play the game professionally. It is fully professional. Alex (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this isn't clear. The list of leagues that are considered fully professional are listed in WP:BASE/N. The minor leagues are not in that list and so its players are not automatically notable as it says "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability." Afterward it says about minor leaguers who have WP:RS coverage that "Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP." --Jersey92 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using Wikipedia definitions, I'm using real life definitions. It's more a pet peeve of mine when people call the minor leagues not fully professional, when they are. It just makes people sound ignorant of the sport when they say otherwise. Alex (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize for coming off as hostile. Sometimes I have a hard time remembering there are people on the other side of the Internet receiving these messages. I am sorry for being so harsh. Alex (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Network traffic. Network traffic (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic volume[edit]

Traffic volume (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 since half a decade and likely to stay so as reliable sources are not growing in leaps and bounds. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gray (football)[edit]

Scott Gray (football) (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)

Youth footballer who does not yet appear to have competed at a sufficiently high amateur or professional level to meet WP:NFOOTY WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several contributors have pointed out that there is little content to this article. Besides an extended quotation from the group's statement (which I am pretty sure is against guidelines on length of quote) the entire article says no more than the group exists. As it stands, it would qualify for speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of importance). It is certainlya valid AFD deletion rationale that there is insufficient material to write about a subject to justify its own aritcle, a position taken by several contributors. This argument still holds sway regardless of any decision on notability. On that issue by itself I assess the debate as no consensus leaning to delete, but the lack of content issue certainly sways this to delete. SpinningSpark 18:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa Tradition Survivors[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article, but advocacy. perhaps it might fall under G11. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per G11, There is no content here worthy of being on the encyclopedia. The only source I found that may justify the article is this from the Huffington post. Fails WP:GROUP as the rest of the sources I found were wordpress sources.--Church Talk 19:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a reliable source from top tibetologist Robert Thurman talking about the group. Also we have this academic conference. Tell me how to edit the article to make is less advocacy. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :He only mentions the NKTS once in that article, and it was speaking more broadly about the criticisms about the Dalai Lama then the group itself. Likewise with the other Huffington Post article I found. I just don't see enough here to justify it's own article.--Church Talk 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have 2 Huffingtonpost articles, one written by a top tibetologist. Also we have the academic conference I linked to above. That is more than enough to justify an article. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, none of them seem to talk about the organization directly. Rather just criticisms of the Dalai Lama (Which I'm sure has it's own article).--Church Talk 20:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean none of them seem to talk about the organization directly. Robert Thurman quotes 4 paragraphs of the NKTS statement. How much more direct can you get?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. After reviewing the article better I agree this should be a Keep The first Huffington Post article mentions the NKTS specifically and criticizes a number of actions. Apologies, I should have read better. --Church Talk 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the NKT article - no meat to the article, and none likely to be found. Collect (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The user VictoriaGrayson attacks anything about the NKT on Wikipedia repeatedly and has been doing so since early June. This is another example. Two citations in the whole of the internet does not seem notable. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its has been pointed out by other users that Prasangika37 has possible COI's. I would advise his input is not valid in determining consensus.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, the thing is two days old, for chrissake, let the creator work on it and expand it a bit. Also keep for these reasons:
  1. As far as the topic goes, it is clearly GNG: Searches for "NKT Survivors" renders this, New Kadampa Survivors (without quotes) gets this and a complex search still rendered a number of reliable sources.
  2. This is an article about people who have left a religious organization and who have issues that appear to stem, in part, from their experience. To that end, this article is well within a broader category of articles about entities that oppose various new religious movements, including Cult Awareness Network, INFORM, Category:Critics of the Unification Church, Personal Freedom Outreach, Cults of Unreason, and so on.
  3. I think it is also worth noting that this topic is controversial and per the personal attack by Prasangika37 on Victoria Grayson above, please note that Prasangika37 has tended to want to eliminate or minimize any mention of criticisms of the NKT, while Victoria Grayson tends to take a view from the side of mainstream Tibetan Buddhism (which is critical of the NKT), so let's just count the input of each as one !vote each and move on. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (into New Kadampa Tradition, where it belongs, if anywhere). I'm not seeing that this is an actual official organization -- there is no website linked at the bottom, no Google hits under that title. And only 45 Google hits under "New Kadampa Survivors" and only 66 for "NKT Survivors" -- all of them blog and forum posts. Even if there were an informal collection of dissident former members, informal collections of dissident former members of any sect or group or even cult do not merit Wikipedia articles. Does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability requirement. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I gather from discussions above that the creation of this article may have sprung from attempts by other editors to suppress criticism of NKT on that article's page. My !vote remains the same; however I suggest that the proper method to address any imbalance on the NKT article's POV is to enlist more eyes and redress the WP:NPOV problems of that article, including the lack of reporting what seems to be well-deserved and WP:RS criticism of the organization. There are proper channels to go through for this; unfortunately this article wasn't one and isn't merited. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or draftify in part per Montanabw. What's here is clearly not ready for articlespace and is borderline G11. I have no opinion on notability, though my gut reaction is that a merge may be a good outcome. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think there is nothing in the article in its current form that can be merged into New Kadampa Tradition, though that other article would seem to be the best place for any suitable new content on this subject. At the moment, the content of the New Kadampa Tradition Survivors article amounts to a statement and Wikipedia should not be a notice board for political or religious press releases. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article creator has moved the article to New Kadampa Survivors today, in the middle of this AfD debate. This further proves that this is not an official organization, but an invented title. Even under this new phrase, the new phrase only gets a handful of Google hits -- all of them blog and forum posts from the same blogs and forums over and over, plus now some WP mirrors. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are a Yahoo group.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much says it all. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems then like the consensus is to delete? Can someone go ahead and do this? Its already included in the New Kadampa Tradition page to my knowledge. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Deletion debates run at least one week. And you do not get to decide what the consensus is -- an uninvolved admin does that. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion debate aside, New Kadampa Survivors does seem to be what this group of people actually calls itself - so I think the move was justified on that grounds. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - However if this were merged into New Kadampa Tradition, based on past history, it would inevitably lead to unending edit wars with activist NKT associated editors. Keeping the articles separate may slightly ameliorate that situation (otherwise my vote would simply be for Merge as putting the two together might help provide balance in the New Kadampa Tradition article). But this article is currently pretty rough and does urgently need a lot of work. If that cannot be done in the near future maybe userfy the article until that is acceptably taken care of. New Kadampa Survivors is very new as an organised group so sources are bound to be thin for awhile. One of the founder "survivors" is extensively interviewed in an article in the book "Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World" Timothy Miller (ed.) - but that article was written and published before this group was formed. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a decision/discussion about whether an article meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. As far as I personally can tell, this forum group does not meet the two standards that apply: WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. AfD does not concern itself with future concerns about edit wars, etc. (and by the way nothing is "inevitable"), as there are a number of well-known official admin boards which effectively deal with that. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This group seems to be a social media hate group. Why would you want that merged into New Kadampa Tradition? If they have a beef, keep it separate or better yet, delete it altogether. Moon over manhattan (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, also lacks reliable sources, currently there are three refs to the same source which is supposed to be counted as one. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regnant Sports[edit]

Regnant Sports (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 sources, absolutely no assertion of notability (given that it focuses too much on a redesign as an aspect of its history, plus its hosting is suspended!). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability through coverage in secondary sources and in its current state looks quite self-promotional. Fenix down (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romina Rocamonje[edit]

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

One more non-notable beauty pageant title holder. damiens.rf 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The only real issue is whether there is enough coverage right now to sustain an individual article or if this should become a redirect to the Miss Bolivia article, and that's not an AFD matter. It looks like there are individual articles for the last ten or so national titleholders, so it's reasonable to expect the same level of coverage for the current titleholder will develop, even if it's not out there yet. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - as Hullabaloo says, there is precedent for articles on national title holders who rperesent their country at a definitely significant pageant like Miss Universe. It's certainly not one of the trashy little pageants only promoted by promoters on here. Mabalu (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with keep comments above, I added an additional source, and I found sufficient RS coverage in Spanish so in my opinion it meets WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Castillo[edit]

Fabio Castillo (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 minor league baseball player. Article was deleted once before via prod and then recreated as a redirect.. but he is currently a free agent and seems to be a AAAA player that is unlikely to make the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Fails GNG.--Yankees10 17:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing much that would signify he is notable at this juncture. Alex (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Henry (baseball)[edit]

Justin Henry (baseball) (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 minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill fails GNG.--Yankees10 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to WP:IGNOREALLRULES and WP:CRYSTAL here and say a guy who has spent the past 4.5 years at Triple-A is going to make his big league debut eventually, even if he is 29 years old right now. One would prefer if this AfD was put off until mid-season. If he's not signed by a major league team then, then I'd vote to delete this. Alex (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one violating WP:CRYSTAL here is you. A "guy who has spent the past 4.5 years at Triple-A is going to make his big league debut eventually" is simply not true and is the real violating of crystal ball.--Yankees10 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, duh, that's why I said I'm going to ignore all rules and use my crystal ball. Derp. Alex (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This couldn't make less sense. Keeping an article like this does not improve or maintain Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Alex (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a guy hasn't made the majors after 4.5 years in AAA, he's not likely to ever make the majors. If he does, then recreate. Lack of sourcing, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject is not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep all, based on the discussion below, without prejudice to limited, individual renominations. I'd recommend no more than 2-3/day. I note in addition that the existence of multiple GAs in this list appears to violate WP:BUNDLE "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled" I believe this instruction has been violated in this case. j⚛e deckertalk 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fool in Love[edit]

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

WP:NSONGS: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject [non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment] of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

While these songs placed (for the most part, rather lowly) on a few national charts, NSONGS also says, "The following factors [such as appearance on record charts] suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria."

Other articles will be added to this AfD shortly. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons mentioned above:
A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breakin' Dishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stupid in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cold Case Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fading (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Complicated (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skin (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love the Way You Lie (Part II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drunk on Love (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roc Me Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Watch n' Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Farewell (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do Ya Thang (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phresh Out the Runway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Numb (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nobody's Business (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Love Allowed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Half of Me (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
–Chase (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whoever added this rule to WP:NSONGS, it's not right! Neither was discussed or voted, we can not rely only on one or two persons adding a rule so we can then acquire on it! You are wasting labor and time users put in making the articles on the site by deleting it. I suggest keep the song article and others too! — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is ridiculous. All of these songs have charted! Several of them of have received significant coverage and third party coverage!! Charting is only one of the requirements. I agree with Tomica, whoever created these stupid ideas and rules needs a slap with a cold fish. A lot of single releases don't even get single reviews anymore, so we more often than not now have to depend on album reviews for lyrical meaning, genres, composition, style and comparisons, they are fantastic sources of information about songs. And I wholly reject this whole "it chart lowly or poorly" idea; a chart is a chart. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around the Billboard Hot 100. Just because it is number 100 on South Korea, it doesn't make it "less important"; it is still that countries' national music singles chart. It is always nearly exclusively Rihanna articles that gets this treatment, never any of other singers articles which are the same sort of articles as these mentioned above. It is such a waste of not only the editors (myself and Tomica, amongst some others) who have been so many hours on Wikipedia creating these articles for readers to elevate the pressure of bulking out album articles as well as wasting peoples time by drawing their attention to articles which PASS THE CRITERIA SUCCESSFULLY. Me nor any other editors create articles which do not pass in the first place. We don't make articles willy nilly. All of these articles mention passes the criteria and I could care less what the deletion nominator has to say about it. It is jumping on a bandwagon and it is not assuming good faith. People are too quick to nominate articles for deletion because they think it does not pass. If any one has an issue with something, take it up with the editors who contributed on their respective talk pages and talk it out first and come to a conclusion. That is a more civilised way of approaching something and it also doesn't take up other editors valuable time on Wikipedia, which is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopaedia for people to find out information, instead of letting them get on with their own areas of interest on here and improving poorly written articles and articles which are vandalised; they are the articles that need attention, NOT Good Articles which have been passed by other editors.  — ₳aron 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I totally agree here with Calvin on his statement written above. I also noted that Rihanna's article always get this kind of treatment while I can find other performers articles which are awfully written or sourced and they are still here and nobody touches them. Note: The user who is AfD-ing all of this articles is a Lady Gaga fan (please check her articles: Aura (song), Swine (song), Gypsy (Lady Gaga song) etc etc etc). Also to the people who are about to come and see this discussion let me inform you that the articles I have written lately are all overwatched by users and AfD (please see this (nominated by SNUGGUMS, the article is in perfect shape), this which is still undergoing, nominated by IndianBio and now we have this. Well, a lot of users have left Wikipedia... sadly with invented rules like this and delete-happy users, not much of the old guard is staying on wiki anymore. Such a pity ! — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would seriously advise all of the above commenters to brush up on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - particularly WAX, WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, and WP:ATTP. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejecting your advise. Everything we are saying is 100% relevant to the cause. We don't need to brush up on anything related to this. You, however, need to brush up on what song criteria is. You can't have one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for others. You're nominating of these Rihanna articles surely means that you will nominate the Gaga articles mentioned by Tomica, yes? Because they fall into the same categorisations stated in your proposal for deletion above. See what I mean, you are fighting a losing battle and have shot yourself in your foot by doing this, because you have trapped yourself in your own web. The reasoning you have given for deleting these Rihanna articles apply directly to the Gaga articles that you have worked on yourself. Mass deletion of these Rihanna articles will also lead me to consider retirement from Wikipedia too, or at least a boycott or extended hiatus from going anywhere near Rihanna articles, which would be a shame, because it is primarily Tomica and myself who have completely overhauled the entire Rihanna Wikiproject and it's entire scope. One only needs to look at the amount of Rihanna articles which are GA, FA, FL and DYK to see how much work we have done improving the Rihanna scope for readers.  — ₳aron 17:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have barely touched any of the Lady Gaga song articles mentioned here, and I hardly have a bias for keeping her song articles. If you would like to put any non-notable songs of hers at AfD, that's your prerogative, but it's completely unrelated to this discussion. Please keep your comments focused on why the Rihanna articles should be kept and refrain from mentioning unrelated articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed Calv. And just to show another discussion where Chase, SNUGGUMS and IndianBio are going against this user who wants to "defend" "Tik Tik Boom" in the wrong way though. An article for that song can exist, only if it's expanded of course. I don't know how he keens to compare the article to the above nominated Rihanna articles which are in far more better condition than the mentioned. Oh, and also that's how Chase got inspired to AfD all the articles... next are other Gaga articles right? ;) We already said why they should be kept and that's more than enough! This AfD is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw while I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years! — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no interest in deleting any articles by any editors. I'm not into tit for tat. I think they enrich the music scope of Wikipedia. I agree, in all my time on Wikipedia, I think this proposal takes the biscuit and is the most thoughtless, insensitive thing I have seen yet.  — ₳aron 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several of these are Good Articles and the rest easily meet WP:GNG, before getting to the level of WP:NSONG. Seems a very misguided nomination at best. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these fail the GNG as they lack "significant coverage" (defined as "address[ing] the topic directly" and "more than a trivial mention") in third party sources - much of the information comes from reviews of the songs' parent albums and other articles related to the parent albums. These are essentially content forks of the parent albums' Wiki articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to realize that even singles get their critical reception section from the album review external articles. Today, newspapers and websites apart of the lead single they rarely do separate reviews of the songs when they are realized. I can't believe that that's pointed as a problem... — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but many notable singles receive independent coverage in reliable sources, all things besides song reviews considered. "We Found Love" is an example of a song with significant coverage - many articles have been written about it outside of the Talk That Talk parent album. The same cannot be said for the nominated songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And isn't "We Found Love" the lead single? Isn't a hit? I can tell you singles pages which contain less information than those songs you nominated above. Please check the reviews of "Talk That Talk" or "Birthday Cake", all of them are from the parent album, why? Cause publications simply doesn't bother re-reviewing songs they were placed in a review of the album. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we are looking at more than just critic reviews. We are looking at overall information. Plenty of it is available for the songs you just mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also information available for other non-singles nominated above. That's not the thing. Obviously, this AfD is for the sake. 1) Were the reviews, 2) Now the coverage was not enough. What's next? — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As clearly stated at the top of the AfD, the bulk of the information about the nominated songs comes from reviews and articles about their parent albums. Significant coverage of the albums makes the albums notable. Passing/brief mention of the album's tracks in articles about the album do not make the songs pass the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't you also AfD "Man Down" for example? All the reviews come from the ALBUM reviews and there are not much other information about the song's creation. Despite having a video and charted, it's the same thing. (I am being ironic ofc!) This AfD or the rule above is a BS! — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, "Man Down" was released so long after Loud that it's basically made up of album reviews. Only difference between "Man Down" and the articles being proposed for deletion above is that it was released as a single and had a music video; aside from that, "Man Down" is the same as all those mentioned above. But because it's a single, no one questions it's notability. "Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary" has a lot of significant coverage, "Skin" has third party coverage because of the Armani Jeans campaign, "Love the Way You Lie Part II" has also received significant media attention because of it's association with the original. "Breakin' Dishes" was a major dance hit in two different years, despite it not being a released as a single. The list goes on. Some of these articles have even more info that "Lovebird (song)", and that was a single.  — ₳aron 19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSONGS clearly says, "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears...". You and Tomica are misinterpreting it to read "If the only reviews of the song exist in reviews of the album". For many of these songs, the only information published about them in sources are from album reviews, which demonstrates the notability of their parent albums, but not the individual songs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they don't just have coverage from albums. They have coverage from other sources, too. Plus, all bar one charted, and that bar one article has a lot of information. I think you're missing the point that there is more info in a lot of these song articles than a lot of single release articles. The whole criteria is majorly flawed and that is why editors are going against it's theory and principle it is meant to stand for because it doesn't work. The old system was better and always will be.  — ₳aron 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the new guidelines gained consensus over the "old system". AfD is not the appropriate venue for you to rant about your preferences about the way things used to be. Your comments should be directed Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). As of now, NSONG is a guideline approved by community consensus. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to respective parent albums or Delete per WP:NSONGS. Chase is correct in what constitutes a notable song and what doesn't, even if the criteria has changed over time. It should also be noted that WP:NOTDIRECTORY says Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Therefore, not every song will have sufficient coverage to warrant separate articles. Being released/not being released as a single DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY determine notability, and neither do charts regardless of location. What determines notability is whether the song got more than brief mentions outside of album reviews from reliable secondary sources. Music video reviews can be used to establish notability provided there are multiple reliable secondary sources reviewing it and are not just brief descriptions. This applies for all songs regardless of who the singer/group is. Songs can also have significant coverage that are not from reviews at all, but this has not occurred here. With no significant coverage outside of album reviews, songs do not warrant separate articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, hello... the person I expected is here. I don't want to repeat myself, the statement above is pure BS. The articles have right notability to be apart articles, independent of their parent album. The reasons? We told 100 reasons they can be separate articles... — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And none of your "100 reasons" are policy- or guideline-based. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your policy based arguments are too much WP:OWN. Also please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE and for all the good articles you want to erase WP:GA. You're violating a policy so Bye, Bye, Bye (feel free to AfD this article, I really think it lacks sources...). — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OWN and INDISCRIMINATE having nothing to do with this discussion. And good articles are not exempt from the AfD process - they can be delisted at any time, so naturally they can be proposed for deletion as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charts play an important role, some of these songs above charted in multiple territories and in the top ten in places too. That makes them notable songs, because they sold enough copies purely on the strength of downloads alone to get high chart positions, not that high or low has anything to do with it. A chart is a chart, regardless of the placement of the song.  — ₳aron 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer back to NSONG which was cited at the top of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • INDISCRIMINATE is an inclusion policy that says we put data in context with independent sources. It has nothing to do at all with this discussion. Why you continue to mention it is beyond my understanding. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", of which there is enough material for all articles. The guidelines are contradictory. First sentence says all forms of media published by sources no related directly to the singer (i.e., not self published) is acceptable, then it says that album reviews are not acceptable, when it just said that all published sources unrelated to the singer is acceptable. See? Flawed. It doesn't work.  — ₳aron 20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You omitted "Notability aside," from the beginning of the quote you selected. Having enough material and a reasonably detailed article does not make the article pass notability guidelines. That quote means that even if a song is notable, it still may not warrant an article if there is a lack of info. There is no contradiction. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is because there isn't a lack of information.  — ₳aron 10:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It applies to a different scenario that is not applicable to any of the nominated articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete or redirect? Why shouldn't the sourced material be merged (with a redirect)? Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I think I understand where the nominator was coming from, and see this as a misguided but good faith nomination. However, I side with the other keep arguments on this. Gloss 23:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to speedy renomination of individual songs, but at least a few of these are solid as far as GNG is concerned. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the idea of individual discussions, but it should be noted that passing WP:GNG isn't automatically enough for songs to warrant separate articles. The only things not covered by WP:GNG that are covered by WP:NSONGS (a more specific set of notability criteria) is how it must have enough independent coverage to grow beyond a stub AND have significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews. "No prejudice against individual discussions" is a fair idea for if these are retained. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 8 November 2014
  • Most of these fail the GNG as they have no non-trivial sources devoted completely to them (not the albums they come from). For the others, there may be one brief article or so. Notice how most of these song articles reiterate information that can be trimmed down and included (in a more concise form) at the parent album pages. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be trimmed... but they DON'T HAVE TO! Just because two editors don't like having song articles on Wikipedia and invented some stupid policy, doesn't mean we have to delete a bunch of good articles who have enough material to standalone! — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Chase is saying is that these are WP:CFORK's. AFD also is NOT the place to complain about/condescend notability criteria or make snappy remarks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD should have not existed in the first place but it still does. So don't complain about the comments I mean. And what contains or not contains certainly satisfies people who have experience, ones that reviewed those articles... again most of them are GOOD ARTICLES! — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is silly, and seeing as how the respondents coming to this discussion appear to be mostly unanimous, also frivolous and a waste of time. Multiple of the articles attempting to be deleted are of WP:GA quality. — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing a GA review does not exempt an article from deletion. The articles may be well-written, but that doesn't mean their subjects pass the notability guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - considering that multiple songs in this list clearly meet GNG, and that this seems an incredibly pointy nomination, I think this debate is misguided at best. NSONG is trumped by GNG any day of the week, and at the end of the day, NSONG does not get to unanimously overrule a GNG-passing article, just because the in-depth coverage is part of a larger article about an album. Sorry, Chase; that's not the way Wikipedia works. When you take into account that most of these charted as well... the nomination's grounds become even weaker. An example of just how flawed this is; Love the Way You Lie (Part II) clearly meets both the cherry-picked part of NSONG you referenced as well as GNG; there are multiple references in that article that are specifically about the song, or are in-depth in the context of a performance review - which most definitely does not fall into the album review part. No prejudice against a speedy re-nom, by another editor preferably, of any article here that actually does fail GNG, of course. Also, nominator; I recommend you don't badger the keep !voters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Again, this is a side-effect of people thinking that passing the GNG somehow mandates the existence of an article. The reasoning behind the SNG is quite sound: when reviewers review albums, they tend to include one-liners about every track on the album. That does not mean that each and every track on the album becomes worthy of an article if the album has received two or three reviews. The thing being discussed in the reviews is the album, not the track.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of appearing to ignore my own advice in my !vote above, have you actually looked at any of the articles, or the sources in them? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Let's choose one to pick apart. I see sources all over A Million Miles Away (Rihanna song), but they are sources about things other than the song: how Rihanna was discovered, commentary about other songs, etc. What sources do you think discuss "A Million Miles Away" directly and in detail that are not discussing it in the context of its parent album?—Kww(talk) 00:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one I would be inclined to agree with deleting; but in my opinion, there are too many that clearly do meet GNG bundled in here for this nomination to be valid. The one I initially pointed out is one; Complicated has a whole MTV interview dedicated to it, which puts it on the borderline of being notable at the very least (and arguably pushes it over, with the chart position and the few sentences in some of the album reviews), Roc Me Out is in a similar situation (albeit a different type of article in a lesser publication), Skin is notable for its usage in Rihanna's Armani Jeans campaign and appears to easily meet GNG as a result... some do appear to fail GNG genuinely as well, of course. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Complicated", that MTV link is a primary source as it consists of Rihanna's own words. Regarding "Roc Me Out", the only significant coverage it gets is from PopDust, which is not a reliable source. The only reliable secondary source used in "Skin" giving significant coverage outside of album reviews is Idolator. It would need multiple reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews to warrant a separate article. Passing WP:GNG isn't always enough to warrant an article, particularly if its only significant coverage is from album reviews. The word of someone closely involved with its creation is also not something that helps pass GNG or any other notability criteria. No matter how much detail an album review gives on a song, such reviews do not count as sufficient coverage for a song as the review pertains more to the album than anything else. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, since when was an interview a primary source? That's a ridiculous claim. It's an interview/section of an interview specifically about the song, with one of the most major music sources (at least traditionally) there is; not a primary source. Roc Me Out, I can give you that one, I'm not an expert on sources in this area. With Skin, again, you're cherry-picking a quote from a guideline and attempting to use that to trump GNG, regardless of if the subject actually meets GNG or not - not how things work. Sure, just passing GNG doesn't mean that you necessarily need an article, but there's enough content that can be written about most of these that passing GNG here is enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is simply the minimal threshold to merit any article. WP:NSONGS is a more specific notability criteria. We have specific notability requirements for a reason, so they should be put to use. The additional requirement of WP:NSONGS is that it can't be from an album review. Interviews are primary sources since they rely on the word of the creator. People commenting on their own work doesn't count as notable coverage per any notability criteria, as that is essentially self-promotion. WP:NSONGS states that notable coverage excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. When much of a song article's content regurgitates its album article, that's not a good sign. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure your interpretation of what makes a source primary is completely erroneous. Regardless, it's clear we're not going to agree on this one, no point going round in circles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not against individual nominations, but some of these articles, such as "Cold Case Love", obviously pass notability. You can't just lump them all together and give the option to keep or delete all of them. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cold Case Love" does not pass notability. Bar a few passing mentions, virtually all of its information comes from album reviews. The background/production section, excluding one part about the song being Rihanna's favorite from the album, is exclusively about the album and not even the song. The final paragraph is just a fluffed-up version of the credits from the liner notes. Just because some of our editors here can do a good job of making something from virtually nothing doesn't mean that the subject passes notability guidelines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) The song has an interview from JT. 2)Interview where she labels it as her favorite song from Rated R. 3) The song is about the incident with Chris Brown, incident active in their careers more than 5 yrs. 4) It has enough composition and critical reception information to stand alone (even though it's for album reviews as you would say, that's because this is a SONG, not a SINGLE). 5) She performed it live on more than 90 concerts and reviewers wrote about the performance. And just so you know liner notes are often used in GA's and FA's. The song perfectly passes the GA and criteria to standalone. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/2. Re:Timberlake and Rihanna interviews: see SNUGGUMS' comment above about NSONGS mentioning that published works about subjects "[exclude] media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work."

    3. Notability is not inherited.

    4/5. The album/tour reviews are about the album/tour; the song is only mentioned in passing. That is not considered "significant coverage" by the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments are so lame and I don't plan to continue arguing about the notability of the article cause there is notability and that is more than obvious. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DID show my arguments why they are notable, but according to you they are not, but I don't really care, because I am so over it. My arguments and the arguments of seven other users show that they are notable so... — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of your arguments for why these songs are notable are rooted in guideline or policy, save for your erroneous OWN and INDISCRIMINATE claims. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yours OWN. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "virtually all of its information comes from album reviews" then that means there is at least some sourced information from other sources. So the album reviews are not being used by themselves to establish notability. If the album reviews are not being used as the sole basis for establishing notability, NSONGS does not override WP:GNG if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria for use as sources. Rlendog (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if the album reviews meet the GNG criteria" - but... they don't. per the "significant coverage" aspect. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nominator makes a persuasive, policy-based argument which has not (to my mind) been succesfully countered in the debate thus far. There is no need for numerous articles based on trivial references which serve no purpose other than to reiterate information already contained on the pages relating to Rihanna's albums. Plus, without the clutter of unnecessary content forks, there is genuine potential for the parent articles (i.e. the studio albums) to achieve FA status. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 07:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are basing your vote of delete on the basis that the albums would perhaps not achieve FA status when there is currently no plans to make them an FA, as most aren't even GA, then I don't think that your vote is particularly persuasive.  — ₳aron 10:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you created the article and are trying to protect it. I sympathise. But you would get on better by making arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than blindly disagreeing with any point you don't like. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, most of the material IS NOT on the Rihanna albums, because if it would be, the albums would be like 200kb long, that's the reason most of the articles from Talk That Talk and all the articles from Loud have its own separate pages... — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier in this AFD you responded to policy-based reasoning with "your arguments are so lame" and also expressed a belief that there is a conspiracy to single out articles relating to Rihanna. I'm afraid I don't see the point in trying to discuss my viewpoints with you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lolol. Trust me, I don't want to discuss with you either, but it's obvious you are a little bit confused thinking all the articles on Wikipedia should become FA. Bye! — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, myself and Tomica had to cut down Loud so much because of how much info there was about all of the songs, not to mention that 7 singles were released from it.  — ₳aron 10:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cut out some of the unnecessary text on the album articles. That would also put you a step closer to FA. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about making it an FA? No one. So your reason is invalid. Not that these articles would affect that anyway.  — ₳aron 12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I said that if the dross was cut out then the album articles would stand a chance of getting to FA. My reason is completely valid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, because it's not nominated for FA and there is no plans for it to be nominated for FA! It's an invalid comment as it is purely speculation as to what could happen if x happens.  — ₳aron 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – nominating a large number of disparate article doesn't allow for proper consideration; it's a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is plenty of sourced material specific to this song to support notability, even if most of it comes from album reviews. While WP:NSONGS suggests that "of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" there is clearly more specific information here (and in at least some of the other nomintated songs) about the song than for most songs whose only references come from album reviews. So the NSONGS guideline is being misapplied, or at best poorly applied, in this situation. And even if it is not, other guidelines such as WP:SUBARTICLE, suggest that this much sourced information about a sub-element of the main article (i.e., the album article), especially if there are multiple cases, should be split out. Even if that was not the case, the portion of NSONGS quoted by the nominator suggests that this article should be merged to the album article. So it is not clear why he is proposing deletion. Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was created before the guidelines at WP:NSONG were changed. See this version of the guidelines from the day prior to when this article was approved for GA. Under those guidelines, the article could potentially have made it all the way up to featured status. So do we go around retroactively deleting featured articles because we've moved the goalposts since that article achieved that milestone? I can understand a reassessment, but deletion? In short, I don't think we should, apart from major BLP violations, be retroactively deleting quality articles that hours of time and effort have been put into.--¿3family6 contribs 15:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Kirby[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. One contemporary news account refers to her as an "accomplished actor", but this is a trivial mention. Although it's likely that there is some bias regarding online sources due to the era in which worked, a 1974 book claims that she never "achieved anything more than serviceable professional status in the ranks of film players", which is about the closest anything is ever going to come to flat out saying "she doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER", and suggests strongly that contemporary sources establishing notability don't exist. Canadian Paul 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The 1974 book also notes she was named an "English Baby Star" in 1934 in the same context. I don't know if English movie trade mags are online to the same extent that American ones are, but she would seem likely to meet notability standards based on what we can find online.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let a Woman Be a Woman[edit]

Let a Woman Be a Woman (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 know that charting is an indication of notability but do we really need this stub? Much of its sourcing is consequential to How You Like Me Now?, and notability is not inherited. The chart information can be carried at Dyke and the Blazers. Launchballer 14:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad San Juan de la Cruz[edit]

Universidad San Juan de la Cruz (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'm aware that universities are normally considered notable. However, I'm having trouble persuading myself that this one exists at all. It doesn't have an .edu domain; it doesn't have a street address; it doesn't get any hits on Gnews or its archive. Yes it was authorised to grant degrees in 1996, but that was eighteen years ago. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rebuttal:

Universidad San Juan de la Cruz (http://www.universidadsanjuan.ac.cr), does have a street address @ 100 metros al Norte Palacio Municipal San Pablo Heredia, Costa Rica 40203 [11], (ICAES), Apdo. Postal 75, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica [12] and the U.S.A. @ American Learning Center 8300 Old Courthouse Rd Vienna, VA 22182 [13].


The University has both email as well as phone contact information listed within its websites. SJDLC University has an {ac.cr} domain, which is equivalent to a USA {.edu} domain, > example: University of Costa Rica (http://www.ucr.ac.cr), a Costa Rican State University.[14]


The University is affiliated with the Costa Rica Bar Association ("abogados.or.cr" "U San Juan"),> Google. Central America Workers Movement / as Costa Rican solidarity CMTC [15], CMTC Programs for People with Disabilities [16], Central Institute of Social Studies (ICAES) [17].


The University is affiliated with the Costa Rican, SOER [18], SOER, Disadvantage Youth Programs [19], National Academy of Sciences (ac.cr) [20], California University FCE pcu.edu (http://www.cufce.pcu.edu), and Akamai University, U.S.A. [21]. SJDLC University is recognized by several (http://CHEA.org) Higher Education Organizations as well as Foreign Ministries. > See, Wikipedia Revised Article <


SJDLC University (Campus location) @ 100 metros al Norte Palacio Municipal San Pablo Heredia, Costa Rica 40203 [22]


SJDLC University (Affiliated Campus) @ Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales (ICAES), Apdo. Postal 75, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica [23]


SJDLC University (Affiliated Campus) @ American Learning Center 8300 Old Courthouse Rd Vienna, VA 22182 U.S.A [24]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.215 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — 173.66.168.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

  • Comment. For the record, some countries use the .ac domain (as this one does) instead of the .edu domain. These countries include such academically unreliable countries as the United Kingdom! Not having an .edu URL is most certainly not an indicator that an institution is not genuine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would appear to be a degree-awarding, UNESCO-registered, university but a closer inspection suggests the "undergraduate degrees" consist of 2-3 4-month blocks; effectively 2 semesters. I think we need more information (ideally from independent third parties) before calling this one. St★lwart111 01:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________________________________________________________________

  • Comment - The National Council of Private Higher Education University (CONESUP) [25], (Spanish) [26] prescribes, approve, inspect as well as accept complaints regarding the curriculum of private universities. Universidad San Juan de la Cruz is listed under (MEP-Conesup) [27]. MEP-Conesup U.S.A. CHEA listing [28]

Department of Technical Analysis and Curriculum, CONESUP > Phone: 2221-4465 / 2233-2832 / 2233-2909 ext. 2061/2063/2079/2083 Email: [analisis.conesup@mep.go.cr]

Department of Inspection and Registration of Securities, CONESUP > Phone: 2221-4465 / 2233-2832 / 2233-2909 ext. 2075/2076/2077/2078/2088 Email: [inspeccion.conesup@mep.go.cr]

Department of Administrative Management, CONESUP > Phone: 2221-4465 / 2233-2832 / 2233-2909 ext. 2060/2064/2065/2069/2070/2071/2072 Email: [gestion.conesup@mep.go.cr] _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Comment - The degree programs for Universidad San Juan de la Cruz and all private universities that are not under SINAES, are accredited by the higher standards of UNIRE [29]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.215 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before removal from the internet due to privacy issues, excel online records revealed that nearly 2,000 students graduated from Universidad San Juan de la Cruz since the year 2000.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.168.215 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem remains that despite assertions that the university a. exists; and, b. is a degree-awarding institution such that it would be considered notable by our standards, only the former has been substantiated with documentary evidence and no instances of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources have been offered up for consideration. There are many, many certificate-awarding institutions and a great many of those describe their certifications in different terms. Proponents seem to misunderstand what they are required to put forward. St★lwart111 07:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Council of Private Higher Education University (CONESUP) and the National Council of Rectors [30], (Spanish) [31] prescribes, approve, inspect as well as accept complaints regarding private universities. Universidad San Juan de la Cruz is listed as recognized under (MEP-Conesup) [32]. MEP-Conesup and the National Council of Rectors are recognized by CHEA - Council for Higher Education Accreditation Washington, D.C. [33]
  • Yes, that repeats what has already been established - that it is registered with various institutions or associations of higher education. I'm not trying to nit-pick when I point out that "prescribing" and "approving" are not the same as "accrediting". If that is what you mean then we're a step closer, though it would still need verification. But please try to find instances of coverage, the sort that would allow the subject to meet WP:GNG, rather than simply repeating what the institution offers or who has acknowledged they exist. Wikipedia requires a higher standard than simple existence. It's worth pointing out, also, that by international standards, 2000 graduates in 14 years is a staggeringly small number when compared to even the smallest universities in other countries. That's about 140 a year, or less than many high schools. St★lwart111 11:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for 173.66.168.215: What are the geographical coordinates of the main university facilities? Does it have more than one campus? I looked at San Pablo Heredia on Google Maps and didn't see anything that looked like a university, but maybe I was looking in the wrong place? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The higher standards needed are located within the affiliate Institutions and (MEP-Conesup) accreditation. Wikipedia has plenty of Diploma Mills listed with fake locations, accreditation as well as online (internet only) presence. Universidad San Juan de la Cruz actually hold college classes at the (ICAES) Campus - Apdo. Postal 75, 2200 Coronado, San José, Costa Rica, which is a physical location within Costa Rica. [34] Universidad San Juan indicates this location in its website.[35] MEP-Conesup maintains a list of approved physical locations from which Universidad San Juan de la Cruz operate college programs. The nearly 2000 graduates in 14 years is a staggeringly small number, but that number is Costa Rica only and does not include Universidad San Juan de la Cruz international college affiliate programs.
MEP-Conesup and the National Council of Rectors are the only authorities recognized as accreditation by the U.S. Department of Education and CHEA. SINAES and UNIRE are the two accreditation programs recognized in Costa Rica under MEP-Conesup and the National Council of Rectors. UNIRE.or.cr performed an inspection upon Universidad San Juan de la Cruz and submitted an inspection report on November 3, 2010 [36]
Reference (Spanish) Page# 6
Scanned Document - UNIRE.or.cr
[37] de julio del 2010 y N°655—2010, celebrada el 21 de julio del 2010. ..... Univermdad San Juan de la Cruz sin autorización de la propia Univer5idad. 38.
There are four universities within the San Pablo de Heredia area, I believe that Universidad San Juan de la Cruz probably operates affiliate college programs from one or more locations. (Google Maps)[38]
  • Yes, it exists, but how is it notable? If you're relying on its mere existence then this article will probably be deleted. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the subject is notable and that the facts included are verifiable. And please learn to indent properly and add to this discussion in a helpful way, rather than simply adding a line rule and repeating things you've already said. Read the policies and guidelines being cited and contribute something to the discussion about why this is a notable subject per Wikipedia standards. St★lwart111 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no burden upon me in that it is not my decision. Thanks for allowing me to contribute, may God Bless everyone!
  • You're mixing decision-making with argument-making. Decisions here are based on community consensus to which you may contribute. If nobody makes an argument for this to be kept it will simply be deleted. St★lwart111 06:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many notable people that have graduated from Universidad San Juan de la Cruz, three are listed. Contributing special education to people with disabilities as well as disadvantage youth are very notable causes for any University.
  • You're confusing nobility with notability. Those are noble causes for a university, as is the cause of educating celebrities. But the institution doesn't inherit notability from its notable students. There are institutions entirely dedicated to educating those with disabilities. That does not, unfortunately, make them notable. St★lwart111 09:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite our best efforts, proponents refuse to put forward a case for "keep" beyond WP:ITEXISTS. There's nothing more that I can do to make the case or encourage others to do so. If nobody can/will make the case that this is notable, I have to assume it isn't. St★lwart111 06:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Notability - Universidad San Juan de la Cruz is noted for its prominent research in marine science and protecting the environment in the Costa Rica region. The Rector of the University has submitted many years of research findings to the President of Costa Rica as well as NASA in the United States. There are numerous research findings in the (universidadsanjuan.com) website as well as over the internet, below are just a few.
  • Research submitted to the President of Costa Rica [39]
  • Costa Rica State University [40]
  • Research (Marine)[41]
  • Research (Ozone)[42]
  • Keep but rewrite Mere existence of a degree granting university is sufficient, and we have never previously deleted a single one of them in the last 6 years. Entirely online universities and those with unconventional programs can be special cases, and it would appear that at least some of these buildings are less than traditional university facilities, but this one seems sufficiently real. Thought the rather extreme inappropriateness of the article certainly makes a case for deletion, I think it would be very wrong for us to break one of the few consistent precedents we have. But if the article is kept, I'll edit it the way I have just begun to; if deleted, I'll probably re-write a proper stub article. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except, DGG, we haven't actually established that its a degree-awarding university. Proponents here claim it is because they call the certificates they hand out "degrees". But so do the Freemasons. If you look at the website (the institution's own translation) the courses in questions are a few months long. They aren't standard 3 - 4 year degrees like the ones you would get as UCLA or Sydney University or the University of Mumbai. St★lwart111 07:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the discussion as saying they are given in multiple 3 month blocks rather than a continuous program. Many new institutions --of admittedly variable reputation--do that. But this sort of thing can be quite difficult to pin down, especially outside an educational system we're familiar with. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, which is why I spend most of the above trying to establish exactly that. They do seem to be multiple 3-month blocks but, in some cases, only two or three of those. That's less than 9 months for something they are suggesting is a "degree". I'm honestly not sure and proponents have been no help whatsoever. St★lwart111 11:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – The Bachelor Degree programs are eight semesters in length.

[43] The professional degree or master degree programs are two to four semesters in length. [44] Each semester requires 4 months of studies. Bachelor Degrees - 32 months [45] Professional Degrees - 8-12 months + Dissertation (Requires a Bachelor Degree to enroll)[46] Master Degrees - 16 months + Thesis (Requires a Bachelor Degree to enroll)[47] * Each Advanced Degree program requires a Thesis, Dissertation or Project + extra academic studies. [48]

Question since you seem to know the university, could you give us some information about how many of each degree have been awarded so far? DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Contact by email > MEP-Conesup for Universidad San Juan de la Cruz degree awarding statistics [49] or contact the Universidad San Juan de la Cruz [50]
  • No, that would require us to conduct original research and the resulting information could not be used to verify anything, let along substantiate the claim in question to a standard required for notability. St★lwart111 23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • On 8/26/2010, an archived Universidad San Juan de la Cruz website cites more than 2,000 Graduates since its 1996 inception.[51]
  • Keep. It's a university, and per DGG. --doncram 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Reed (attorney)[edit]

Jim Reed (attorney) (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 does not appear to be any more notable than thousands of other lawyers, judges, or congressmen that have lived. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Is there no place to merge this topic?  Why is this at AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, where would it be merged to? Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person whose only substantive claim of notability is as an unelected candidate in elections that he hasn't won does not pass WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other things to get past a different notability rule independently of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to gain notability from the election itself. Delete (or redirect if there's a viable target), without prejudice against recreation if he wins an assembly seat. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, although the subject does not currently meet WP:GNG, and what non-primary or secondary reliable sources about the subject out there are regarding the subjects candidacy, thus would have the subject meet WP:BIO1E, and thus be redirected to the article about the election, per WP:POLOUTCOMES; if the subject does win, the subject is automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, as the subject would be Assemblyman-elect, and an incoming member of a sub-national legislative body. Therefore, I urge that this AfD be held until at least 6 November 2014.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article on Wikipedia — it's a judgement on the quality of the article that exists at the time of the deletion discussion. If he wins the election, then yes, he'll absolutely qualify for an article at that time, because his basic claim of notability will have substantively changed — and we even have the ability to restore the deleted article if and when it's needed. But we don't have to keep the current version of the article pending the possibility that he might qualify for an article in the future — because deleting it today isn't preventing it from being recreated in the future if circumstances change. But I should also point out that given that election day is inside the seven-day AFD period after the relist date, we'll already know whether or not he won by the time this discussion is even eligible to be closed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N notability is function of the world-at-large.  A deletion on wp:notability tells us nothing about the quality of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point entirely — "not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article" was the substance of my point. A person's notability can change over time — they might accomplish something a week or a month or a year or a decade from now that puts them over an inclusion criterion that they don't pass today; the availability of reliable sourcing about them can change over time; and on, and so forth. But we don't keep an article about the person just because the possibility exists that one of those things might eventually happen; if it hasn't already happened as of today, then we delete it today, and then it becomes eligible for recreation again in the future if and when the circumstances change.
That's my point: we keep or delete an article based on the state of things as it exists today, but that doesn't prevent him from becoming a valid article topic again in the future if stuff changes. Obviously if the notability is already there and the article just isn't doing a good enough job of explaining it, then we keep and fix the article — but the claim being made wasn't that he was already notable, but rather that we should withhold judgement pending the possibility of him maybe getting over an inclusion rule in the future that he didn't pass at the time of nomination. But that's not how things work on here. We don't keep articles about unelected candidates just because they might eventually win — if they're just unelected candidates now then we delete them now, and then we can recreate them in the future if and when they do win the election. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that we are not discussing the quality of the article here, only wp:notability.  Notability is not a deletion test, it is stand-alone article test.  If the topic is not notable, we redirect it.  The exception would be if there was no target for redirection, but that exception is not applicable here, so there is no deletion to discuss here.  Which goes back to my initial question, which means that this topic could have been redirected to a suitable target without bringing the topic to AfD, and if the topic won, a non-admin could restore the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the subject does not appear to be in the position to win this election (36.7% of the vote with 28.1% of precincts reporting at the time of this post), therefore, the article should be redirected to the section about the election per WP:BIO1E, California State Assembly election, 2014#District 3. If the subject receives significant coverage outside of this event (the election), the article can be recreated at that time. Being a perennial candidate may lead to meeting WP:GNG, as other redirect targets include United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012#District 1 and United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 2 but that does not appear to be the case yet IMHO. As a former college football player the subject might have received significant coverage, but so far I have not seen anything suggesting the subject meets WP:NGRIDIRON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, with 100 per cent now counted he definitely didn't win the election. But we should always wait until all 100 per cent of the ballots are counted, rather than basing a conclusion on what the situation looks like at just 28.1 per cent — not all parts of a district actually vote the same way in the same proportions, so it does happen sometimes that a candidate is behind at 28 per cent of the count but then surges ahead to actually win in the end. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to wait until Wednesday to see what happens; it is not impossible that he could win this time. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Hughes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vern Hughes (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)

Re-nominating after the previous AfD went away from the matters at hand. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he hasn't held any elected office at international, national or state level, and has not received any significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject - an automatic fail for WP:N. His former party, People Power, was not a major state (sub-national) party and this means WP:POLOUTCOMES is also a fail. The three independent sources do not provide the significant coverage required and the remainder are not independent, except for the Latham Diaries which is apparently a single mention only and therefore an example of namechecking and in this case attempting to inherit notability. The lack of proper citations of the last three sources makes them unreliable and they only support commentary by the subject and are therefore not independent. They also appear to be only contributions and not full presentations as such. This all being the case, this article is in effect promotional and should be deleted. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking nomination in light of the work done by Jtydog. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This was closed as no consensus a week ago, and making a second nomination because you disagree with the outcome is utterly inappropriate. Take the previous close to WP:DRV if you disagree with the closer's decision (not that they could have come down any other way). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A no-consensus close is exactly the type of situation where it is appropriate to relist for further discussion — a "no consensus" is not the same thing as a "keep". So no, it's not "inappropriate". Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't necessarily see the problem with starting this AfD since the closer specifically suggested that, but I still think the article should be kept. There is a very great deal of mischaracterisation of the previous arguments in the nomination. To begin with, the nominator has misinterpreted WP:POLOUTCOMES quite severely. The relevant passage says this: Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. People Power quite clearly qualifies as a (former) registered political party at both federal and state level (they never contested a federal election so I'd acknowledge that being somewhat dodgy, although they were registered; however, they certainly did contest a state election, and with quite a bit of fanfare too). Secondly, there were substantially more than three independent sources offered. The three being referred to were supplementary sources used to bolster the case (Latham, and two well-regarded scholarly textbooks, one of which included a quote from Hughes as a chapter intro and the other of which described him as "an important figure in the disability sector"). The coverage of his involvement with People Power, including in the Age, the Australian and Crikey, was presented as the primary evidence. All of this is linked in the previous discussion. Clearly this contradicts the attempt above to imply that there is no independent significant coverage. Lastly, the nominator might have liked to acknowledge a potential COI as someone who knows the subject personally. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked further into the claim of registration with the AEC and they were only registered for 12 months. I looked for coverage of the 2006 Victorian Election, and there was very little - contradicting the above claim of "fanfare". This suggests that the nominator is right when he says that People Power is not a major party in any sense. If I have missed anything I suggest User:Frickeg provide some evidence of it. Crikey should be ignored as an independent source as there is an established relationship between Vern Hughes and Crikey through People Power's other founder Stephen Mayne. The coverage by the Age and the Australian does not appear substantive. User:Curse of Fenric presents a strong case and there is no COI that I can see within the nomination whether he knows him or not. That aspect should be ignored now because that's what derailed the first AfD. Let's discuss the sources and the notability shall we? BritainD (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, WP:POLOUTCOMES says nothing about major political parties, only registered ones. I'm not sure I'd use WP:POLOUTCOMES as the sole argument in a deletion debate (i.e. if there was nothing else, I wouldn't use it as an inherent notability argument), but let's be clear that Hughes is clearly covered by what is there. People Power received plenty of coverage, and if you didn't notice I suggest you re-read the previous discussion because there was plenty of stuff linked there. For more general People Power coverage, Fairfax News Archives has a fair amount (and that's with a fairly specific search term; there's probably more out there). As for the COI, I am quite happy for this to be the last time it's mentioned, but given that the nominator gave oxygen to what you say "derailed" the previous AfD it seems prudent to at least note it. Frickeg (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you explain how a party that was only registered for less than twelve months could assist in this matter? WP:POLOUTCOMES does say "usually" and I would consider the short period of registration to establish an exception to the rule you are relying on. It is not correct for this article to reference People Power coverage, and besides this 24 articles can hardly be described as "fanfare" when I'm certain any similar search for notable politicians would attract a lot more hits. BritainD (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just reviewed the article. He has been mentioned in major news outlets and in the book of another politician. Doesn't seem to be huge deal but meets WP:NOTABILITY as far as I can see. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable enough --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my comment in the last discussion; there doesn't appear to be coverage of Hughes that is substantial and independent. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been closed as no-consensus once, and on the second time has been withdrawn by the nominator and has four people supporting it being kept and two deletion. Relisting it appears unnecessary - is pretty clear there will be no consensus to delete - this is the zombie AfD that won't die at this point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is rough consensus that the subject does not meet the requirements of FOOTY, so that leaves the GNG argument. A list of sources is presented, and a list of arguments for why these sources don't add up to the significant coverage required by the GNG. These arguments are not refuted, and perusing them shows that indeed many cases are mere mentions, or not mentions at all, or indexes of articles that contain the name. So it must be delete. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Cárcamo[edit]

Sandro Cárcamo (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)

Relisting: Was nominated recently as second article in a single nomination and got completely ignored both by the comments and by the closing admin, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Júnior Padilla. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league and has not played in a FIFA sanctioned senior international match. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is met, WP:NFOOTY doesn't need to be The FAQ on WP:SPORTS states "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist".Becky Sayles (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Becky Sayles: thank you for the links. I had not checked those links during the last AFD because a better reason to keep the other article was already posted and I assumed the links were about the other article. I have checked the links you provided (note link 5 is about the other article), and agree that there is enough to fulfill WP:GNG. Since there are other delete votes, I cannot widraw the nomination, but I am changing to neutral. All the best, Taketa (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. There are a lot of links above, but there are major problems with almost all of them. Mainly concerning their breivty, the fact that they are simply WP:ROUTINE match reporting where the player v briefly describes a match, are simply links to searches for the name or do not discuss the player in any real detail at all. To deal with them in order:
[69] - an interview of reasonable length, could with other links indicate GNG.
[70] - routine match reporting / speculation, this is about an upcoming match not the player in question.
[71] - This is about Junior Padilla, a completely different player.
[72] - a couple of brief quotes from the player. Nothing actually about him, just him commenting on his team. No GNG here.
[73] - the same link as number 2, cannot be used twice!
[74] - v brief comments by the player himself on his own fitness. No real substance to the article.
[75] - Simply a list of articles in which he is mentioned. Does nothing whatsoever to indicate a significant level of coverage, merely that his name crops up in match reports.
[76] [77] - Simply a list of articles in which he is mentioned. Does nothing whatsoever to indicate a significant level of coverage, merely that his name crops up in match reports.
[78] - This is a mtach report from the Motagua v Real Sociadad match. This is not about the player in question at all. He is mentioned only as a part of a wider whole in a routine match report.
[79] - Briefly mentions Carcamo, but actually about another GK, John Bodden in the main.
[80] - Thisi s the same link as number one so cannot be used again.
[81] - This is not an article about the player, he is merely mentioned as one of many in a poll to see who should be thee national keeper. other players get far more prominance in this article.
[82] - five line routine match report with extremely brief passing mention of the player. No in depth analysis of his performance or interview with him.
[83] - Routine match report, player mentioned v briefly to say he had a bad start.
[84] - routine match report with extremely brief passing mention of the player. No in depth analysis of his performance or interview with him.
[85] - the same link as number 2 and 6, cannot be used three times.
Aside from the fact that five of the links are repeats of only two separate articles, bar the first link provided, everything else is routine match reports, brief quotes or links to searches for the name. It is clear that this person is a regular player for a team, it is far from clear that there is significant coverage of the player in detail. Where the player is not the subject of the article, the mentions of him are exactly of the trivial sort GNG explicitly forbids. @Taketa: you might like to have another look at these? Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Botterill[edit]

Nigel Botterill (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 person lacks notability (WP:SPIP). The article is also an orphan. GillsMan (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Data_erasure#Standards. No prejudice against changing the redirect target if someone writes the article that DGG has suggested. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFSSI-5020[edit]

AFSSI-5020 (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 couldn't establish that this meets any section of WP:NOTABILITY. It has previously been prodded (by @Oo7565:) which was removed without a reason given by @76.66.195.159:. It was then re-prodded by @Luk:, but this was removed because it had already been prodded, so needed to go to AfD. Has been tagged for notability for six years. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 19:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Obsolete method of deletion of information on hard-drives. ShoesssS Talk 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Data erasure covers the subject in the "Standards" subsection in a level of detail similar to that of its standalone article. Seeing how AFSSI-5020 gets an average of 11 hits a day, making it into a redirect is preferable to deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle According to the article itself, this is an obsolete standard that has been replaced by a more current standard; wouldn't it make sense to write the article under the title of the current standard and include information about the prior one, with a redirect from its name? DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Standard. I'm redirecting, but this doesn't preclude a merge of some of the content if someone wants to take that on. Fairly clear consensus that this should not be a separate article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Islamic State[edit]

Flag of the Islamic State (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)

Duplicates Black Standard and it is unlikely that additional info can be added that is not now or should not be in the other article Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is very new. Passes GNG. Not a duplicate. There's a lot more content out there that could be added (History, Usage, Controversy). If there's no additional information in 6 months then a Merge could be proposed.~Technophant (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (nominator) The article is very new because no one thought to duplicate the Black Standard article before even though this group using the Black Standard has been in the news worldwide for years, and particularly over the last few months. There is no unique info in the new article that is not in the old article as far as I can see. Seriously - we don't need two articles on the exact same flag. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ISIL
  • Comment the ISIL flag has it's own stylizations. Are those also used in other variants of the Black Standard? (ie. the shape of the lettering and circle) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Black Standard article has long detailed the flag variant used by ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the flag used on the ISIL page is not as circular as other similar flags, which is what I said about stylizations. As most ISIL flag images I've seen used the not-circle, while most similar flag images that are non-ISIL use a circle, is the not-circle particular to ISIL? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
67.70.35.44, No. See: File:AQMI Flag.svg as used by two of the few groups using black standard as listed at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't meet GNG. Most of the sources suggest this is a variation of the Black Standard. This does seem to have enough notability to be on wikipedia just not enough for a stand alone article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article is talking about the Islamic State's flag in general, but I agree that it duplicates the Black Standard. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Like another user said, "every flag has its own story." This applies even to flags of major rebel groups, so we shouldn't just delete the article just because it's suffering from some issues; those are common in new articles, by the way. Give it time to develop and be revised, and it will be worthy of being kept/expanded upon. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that it's not notable. The Black Standard is and ISIL is but ISIL flag doesn't inherit that notability.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 the story is that it is a flag commonly used with other groups. I don't see how the article can be develop and be revised unless its called the "such and such flag when used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This article should never have been created. The exact same flag is shared with other groups and, as such, the title "Flag of the Islamic State" is at best incomplete and is otherwise inaccurate not least as the main article is entitled "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". The development of this article under this title is, I believe, evidence that editors have been, consciously or not, following agendas that don't coincide with those of Wikipedia. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The group intentionally uses the same flag as the Shabab group, which intentionally uses the same flag as other groups, all of which try to copy an imprint of a seal on a letter dictated by Muhammad to a king in the Persian Gulf around 1,400 years ago. These groups don't even profess to use their own specific flags; they actualy advertise it as the same Black Standard used by past groups, thus their intention is even for it to be non-unique. "Every flag has a story" doesn't apply here as this flag is not the same as the Black Standard, rather it is the Black Standard and that's intentional. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Intentionally of not, this is disingenuous. External links presents:
Flag of the Islamic State at Flags of the World even thought the article, unlike genuine mid-east nations that I checked, contains no "flag of ..." designation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It isn't even remotely disingenuous as the "flags of the world" website is neither written by experts on Middle Eastern history nor is it the final arbiter of what is or isn't a separate, unique flag. It's just one website about flags. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Delete It's a FORK. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Black Standard. Almost all of the sources about this flag talk about it in the context of the Black Standard. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is about a form of the Black Standard period. It is like setting up an article on the Stars and Stripes used in Alabama or Guam in addition to the main Flag_of_the_United_States. I agree the flag needs an article, just saying it already has an article. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, if you like. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers in Korea[edit]

List of burn centers in Korea (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 serious Ueberzahl (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:IINFO, and because this is a "list" with one item that doesn't have an article of its own. Possibly even worth a speedy under A7. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Na Jeona[edit]

Na Jeona (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Prodip Joley[edit]

Akash Prodip Joley (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Kanungo[edit]

Arjun Kanungo (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 GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The mid-day link in the reference section is false/dead. Harsh (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projapoti E Mon[edit]

Projapoti E Mon (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Prithibir Pore[edit]

Ei Prithibir Pore (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aao Huzoor Tumko[edit]

Aao Huzoor Tumko (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable song in my opinion. Please tag it for expansion. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monero Ronge Rangabo[edit]

Monero Ronge Rangabo (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kajra Mohabbatwala[edit]

Kajra Mohabbatwala (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beder Meye Jyotsna (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aguner Din Sesh Hobe Ekdin[edit]

Aguner Din Sesh Hobe Ekdin (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erene[edit]

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

Singer does not appear to be notable. She is unsigned, has very few secondary sources available with little media coverage, and has a very short and non-notable discography. Additionally, the two major contributors to the article have conflicts of interest, resulting in the blocking of one due to it being an account strictly for promotional reasons User:Ereneofficial. Since then, the article has had some minor edits made by IPs, but still does not meet notability guidelines. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 16:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kotha Hoyechhilo[edit]

Kotha Hoyechhilo (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Buke Boichhe Jamuna[edit]

Ei Buke Boichhe Jamuna (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiboner Golpo Achhe Baki Olpo[edit]

Jiboner Golpo Achhe Baki Olpo (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 12:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MultiSafepay[edit]

MultiSafepay (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 have originally prodded it under the following rationale (which I believe is still valid): "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 has since been deprodded by creator, User:GameLegend, who added some sources and asked me for a re-review. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the article, even with the new sources, meets the cited policies; the added sources don't seem reliable/mainstream enough to change my original assessment. Time for a wider community discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan(banladeshi actress)[edit]

Nutan(banladeshi actress) (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. The cited source doesn't provide enough reliable information. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panchi Nadiya Pawan Ke[edit]

Panchi Nadiya Pawan Ke (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 reliable source. It uses YouTube videos and other Wikipedia articles as references. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable song. Please tag it for sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see any reliable sources or notable information in the article. Aussie78 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay[edit]

Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Na Jao Chhodkar[edit]

Abhi Na Jao Chhodkar (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chupi Chupi Bolo Keu Jene Jabe[edit]

Chupi Chupi Bolo Keu Jene Jabe (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 and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. --Rotten regard 21:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piya Piya Piya Ke Dake Amare[edit]

Piya Piya Piya Ke Dake Amare (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. The article is unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. --Rotten regard 21:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic[edit]

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

{{{This article was made yesterday, November 6, by the same editor who created the 2014_Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu_ramming_attack article with SYNTH/fabrications in its original version and has since sought to reintroduce his choice of terms ("X was a terrorist" among them, which is not in any of the sources he provided) and also attempted to POVize the title of the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, which I was able to revert without needing an admin. A summary of this editor's activities can be found here and the nature of the POV problem laid out in the section before that. Gist of the POV problem is that branding this event, and the one in Ottawa, as "terrorist attacks" is under dispute in Canada, where even major media are avoiding such terms in favour of simply "gunman" instead of "terrorist" and "attacks" or "shootings" rather than "terrorist attacks", and the Leader of the Opposition, among many others, has said flatly that they were not terrorist actions but "criminal acts", and a widespread public sentiment is that these were people with mental health problems, not members of any organized terrorist organization of campaign; both had major drug problems and pyschological issues. Another widespread sentiment in Canada is that the use of "terror" words by the government and RCMP is part of a political campaign to mandate/validate the government's long-standing desire for Patriot Act-style laws in Canada, which is widely opposed.

The same editor created Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada in 2014 at the same time as his original heavily-POV first version of the St Jean sur Richelieu articles, which I've been meaning to CfD but held off because of a then-ongoing RM and related discussions on the POV abuse of the "terrorism theme"; I will file the CfD next, as Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada exists, without any date, (and even so IMO should not include the recent events so blithely, to suit someone's "hobby" of creating /hyping politicized articles on "terrorism".

Given the false/misleading edit comments and blatant POV I've seen, I'm of the opinion that the editor in question's user contributions may need extensive review. I believe the article nominated is POV and SOAP in origin, and like the St Jean sur Richelieu article's first edit is rank SYNTH; I have not removed the passage about SJsR in this article (yet) as it is cited (though misleading) but did remove the unrelated NYC hatchet attacks and an unrelated event in Jerusalem. Vehicle-ramming has been a criminal tactic since the automobile was invented.

All of this should perhaps have gone to the POV discussion board, but it has a backlog; and the continuance and propagation of more questionable SOAP articles needs to be stopped in its tracks. Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda campaigns in the way that this has been.}}}Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "well supported by sources" is a blatant lie, as an examination of the intial version of that article vs the sources provided will clearly show, and as I have already referred to. The phrases "was a terrorist attack" and "a 25 year old terrorist" you led off with are nowhere in any of the sources provided, it is entirely your own fabrication/interpretation/distortion. Your track record of terrorism-related articles is of relevance here, as as your attempts to re-introduce SYNTH/POV wordings i.e. more additions of "terrorist attack" and the like; terms which are increasingly avoided in the Canadian media for both events and with good reason, and the government and police items stating that have been widely challenged in the Canadian media and blogspace; your inclusion of it in the creation of this article, which happened on the same day as your attempt to rename the St Jean-sur-Richelieu and also your attempt to reinsert your POV language as as "improve, I hope" and the further claim on the move of the title was "in line with rapidly emerging terminology". Rapidly emerging by your own propagation of it, is my view of the matter; and in the case of the RJsR "rapidly emerging terminology" about that event is "mental illness", not "terrorism". I repeat my suspicion that many of the other articles you have created similarly distorted sources or outright fabricated lines, and your dishonesty here and in the edit history supply ample reason for that suspicion.Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legitimate debate about whether words like "terrorist" can be properly applied to incidents in which a lone individual who drinks deeply at the well of hatred published by a terrorist group but had no direct contact with members of the group can be called a "terrorist", or whether an action must be carried out by a committed, definable organized group. Wikipedia is not the place for such debates. Let's confine ourselves to reliable sources.ShulMaven (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed there is indeed a legitimate debate and a very heated one in Canada about both events, and also about how "terrorist/m" has been used by some for environmental and native groups as well as re anti-Islamic cant; And don't presume to say "let's confine yourselves to reliable sources" when you yourself haven't done that, only imposed your interpretation (SYNTH) of sources, as already pointed out re your initial article's complete fabrication of phrases and terms and your attempt to add "terror" to the title even though it's clear by now that is POV. "Wikipedia is not the place for such debates" is why this article should be deleted, as you are advancing an idea of your own, and have blatantly twisted sources with your own imposed words. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda campaigns either, and your creation of this article to go with your attempts yesterday at re-POVizing of the St Jean sur Richelieu article and title is very much relevant to your motives and purposes re all the other "terrorism" articles you have made a career out of.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is part of a growing global trend. The article is not beyond repair, for POV or otherwise. It appears to me the entire essence of this debate is the definition of the word WP:TERRORIST as are most articles on subjects of this nature. sudopeople 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - @Skookum1: could you summarize the AfD rationale? It looks like you have problems with the POV edits of a particular editor and POV content and/or title of this article. None of the above are reasons for AfD, regardless of whether or not there's a backlog at WP:NPOVN. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, references, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, there are adequeate references provided in the article to prove the topic's notability. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Anazia[edit]

Aron Anazia (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 actor/producer/director. No credits listed on IMDB. The LVS article is a press release from him and the indiewire article is a "Tell us your story" article. No RS Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Napier[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bill Napier (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, specifically, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Our notability rules for who should be subject to a WP:BLP are much more strict now than they were in 2007 when we last discussed this article and there are no more forthcoming sources on which to write an encyclopedic article. jps (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion that there are no sources is simply untrue. You have to look under William, as well as Bill, moreover, since he is not the only notable William Napier, you have to add a search term lime "comet" whereupon you run into the other famous astronomer named Napier. I'm adding some stuff. Like many Wikipedia articles it needs more attention.ShulMaven (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2014 (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) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no significant coverage to establish WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find significant coverage anywhere, no evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, [88] and [89] establish the margin of notability via WP:AUTHOR, and [90] provides additional coverage for his academic work. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The sources above don't know any book reviews in a significant publication. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I was ready to follow j⚛e decker but after checking his sources I changed my mind. The first source is a negative review of his book; the second link is to an article by Napier (which would be appropriate in a bibliography but not as a reference). The third is a short article in a reliable resource about his work, but that's only one. The reviews of his books on Amazon are pretty low, from 2-3 stars. Given the publishing and book-selling industry today, adding so-so authors to Wikipedia would be a full-time job. (Then again, deleting their pages may be one as well.) LaMona (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a scientist and as a minor writer. I don't know anything about astrophysics, but I do know a little about universities, and places like Buckingham and Cardiff don't give honorary appointments without a good reason. (reasons vary, but sometimes notable scholars who have money, or at least enough money to pursue research without a salary, but who do not want the irksome chore of teaching, are given honorary appointments) His page is linked from a number of other astronomy Wikipedia pages. And there was a lot of press coverage of at least one major paper of his, some of which I will now add. ShulMaven (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: providing more time to discuss newly applied sources. BusterD (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the sources aren't the best out there, but they're probably good enough. In reply to User:LaMona, the fact that an author gets bad reviews shouldn't keep us from having a page here, so long as the author gets enough coverage in reliable sources for us to build a decent biography. After all, we still have articles on L. Ron Hubbard and Stephenie Meyer! Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, you are right that bad reviews don't offset reliable sources. Unfortunately, I don't find the latter. LaMona (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe notable in the future but not yet--Mevagiss (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Polyphonte. There seems to be some agreement that a redirect, rather than a straight up or down "keep/delete" closure, is acceptable to everyone and a good way forward. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrius and Oreius[edit]

Agrius and Oreius (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)

In effect I am submitting that everything mentioned in the Agrius and Oreius page is also mentioned on the Polyphonte article. Agrius and Oreius are mentioned only in conjunction with the story of Polyphonte and the only classical sources, Antoninus Liberalis’s Metamorphoses, lumps them together in one chapter. As such the presence of two separate articles leads to needless repetition. Deleting the Agrius and Oreius page would accomplish a successful merger of the topic and make things simpler for those potentially researching the subject. Nyctimene (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect. Since it appears the myth comes solely from Antoninus Liberalis and there's not much more out there to write, both topic can be encapsulated in the Polyphonte article. I don't see any content to merge and the article is unsourced, so it appears delete and redirect is warranted. If this was an actual merge then it cannot be a merge and delete as requested (though I think this may just be a matter of unclear terminology by the nominator), as this would violate copyright.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure I agree that they are notable characters. After all they are only mentioned in one source and not a terribly well known one at that. As for your point about their use in Percy Jackson & the Olympians you will note that this fact is also contained in the Polyphonte article. If the Agrius and Oreius page is deleted and redirected then those researching the topic would still be alerted to their presence in Rick Riordan's book. Nyctimene (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "Antoninus Liberalis"+metamorphoses in GBooks seems to produce hundreds of results. James500 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed 5,490 to be exact. As far as I can see from the first 5 pages though all these results are either translations of the one book, Metamorphoses by Antoninus Liberalis, or references to him in anthologies of Greek Myths. I would suggest the mere fact that an author, and his work, are frequently referenced does not mean every character in the work deserves their own article. After all I'm sure you could find even more results if you typed "Bible" into GBooks however that wouldn't justify giving every minor character referenced in the genealogies their own page.. Nyctimene (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's suggestion to delete and redirect and apologize for the unclear terminology in my initial suggestion. Nyctimene (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone perhaps point to a policy or guideline that says that a page like this should be deleted before being redirected? I cannot see what purpose that would serve and I do not support it. It sounds like a complete waste of time. CSD A10 explicitly does not apply to any page whose title is a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the relevant policy here. In effect you shouldn't redirect from an article which contains content. If nobody objects the article can have all content removed and then be redirected however people have objected and hence policy was followed by requesting deletion. Nyctimene (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unclear why you think it is a waste of time? If you are redirecting all traffic away from a page why keep the page intact? Surely it makes sense to delete the page; just because Wikipedia doesn't have the same space constraints as a written encyclopedia doesn't mean it should be cluttered up with hundreds of articles nobody is able to read. Nyctimene (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A blank and redirect does not involve deleting the page. A blank and redirect leaves the page history intact. Article deletion is a different process that removes the page history. James500 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that but you can't blank a page if another user objects. In such circumstances the policy I cited above states that an articles for deletion page should be opened which I have done. Out of interest if the page is, as I claim it is, complete repetition what value do you think there is in preserving the page history? Are you concerned simply with leaving a record or do you think keeping the history actually accomplishes something I've overlooked? Or do you think the page is not mere repetition? It would be good to know why you actually object to deletion beyond the bureaucratic scruples you have expressed. Nyctimene (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of putting this to rest once and for all here is the relevant policy in full:
"Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot reach consensus, the article should be formally submitted to a deletion discussion." (Emphasis added) Nyctimene (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. No valid rational for deletion has been advanced. There is no reason to delete this page before redirecting it. The nominator just doesn't understand how to redirect a page. James500 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly that is a rather rude assertion which doesn't assume good faith on my part. Secondly blanking the page and redirecting would be pointless and expressly contrary to policy because Rtkat3 clearly objects. As such if I did blank the page he would simply put it back and I would have accomplished nothing. It was for this very reason that this article for deletion was started. You are of course entitled to your own view on the matter but I would ask, in the future, that you advance your argument on its merits rather than by insulting me personally. Nyctimene (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the substantive point the article ought to be deleted because it is an example of needless repetition. Needless repetition is obviously undesirable and should be avoided where possible. To me that seems like an entirely valid and logical rationale for deletion. While you have questioned whether this article for deletion has followed proper policy, as far as I can see you have, at no point, actually engaged with the merits of the argument. It seems to me, therefore, slightly unfair to say no rationale has been given when you haven't even tried to address a perfectly reasonable rationale which has been clearly laid out multiple times on this page. Nyctimene (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What WP:R appears to say contradicts criteria 1 of WP:SK and criteria B1 and C1 of WP:BEFORE, which say that an AfD should not be brought to resolve a dispute over whether a page should ne redirected. I suggest the words in question be removed from WP:R, as they are obviously wrong. The correct process is a normal merger proposal. James500 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria one of WP:SK gives the following reason for a speedy keep, 'The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.' This is clearly not the case here for two reasons. First I have advanced an argument for deletion and secondly Fuhghettaboutit, someone other than the nominator, also recommends deletion. Criteria B1 of WP:BEFORE asks one to carry out the following check prior to starting an article for deletion, 'Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.' None of these criteria are met. Finally criteria C1, 'If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.' It cannot be fixed through normal editing because there is no consensus to blank and redirect. As such none of these criteria in any way contradict the text cited in WP:R. I strongly disagree that that WP:R is, 'obviously wrong' and would suggest none of the criteria you have cited have any bearing on this case. Nyctimene (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The words cannot be fixed though normal editing in criteria C1 mean cannot be fixed without deleting the page. They have nothing to do with consensus. They refer to the use of the page deletion user right (sometimes referred to as a button or tool), which non-admins do not have. James500 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text reads, 'cannot be fixed though normal editing' not, 'cannot be fixed without deleting.' That may be how you interpret it but I suggest you are mistaken in light of the WP:R policy. If my interpretation is correct both are perfectly compatible whereas your interpretation demands a conflict between them. Anyway we are getting off topic, might I refer you to my suggestion below... Nyctimene (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to clarify that despite the wording of my initial post I am not suggesting a merger. I simply meant that by deleting Agrius and Oreius one would remedy the needless repetition caused by reciting one story twice. As Fuhghettaboutit correctly noted there is nothing to merge and hence the normal merger process is inappropriate. The article should instead be redirected however, due to a lack of consensus, the only way to fix the problem was to start this article for deletion. Nyctimene (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - Let's step back a moment because I think we can actually find some common ground here. Put to one side the process by which this page was started. I think we can agree that, 1) the two articles deal with the same story, 2) that is undesirable, 3) therefore there should be a redirect. I will completely abandon any attempt to delete the page if you will support the idea of a blank and redirect. That way the history stays completely intact, as you want, but the story is only told once, as I want. What do you say, truce? Nyctimene (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this time, the only thing I object to is deletion. I have not had time to check the notability of the characters, so I am neutral on the possibility of redirection without deletion. James500 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I would be most grateful though if, when you have more time, you could take a look. I think that's probably the best way forward at this point. Nyctimene (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary and possible way forward - So far we have one editor opting to keep the page intact and two opting to blank and redirect. The argument goes that the pages in question are both essentially telling the same story, that this is undesirable and hence Agrius and Oreius should be redirected to the article on Polyphonte. To resolve this matter I urge additional people to look at the two articles. Decide if you think it makes sense to have two article or whether one should be redirected. Then respond appropriately below. Nyctimene (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The page was to detail about Agrius and Oreius. Polyphonte's article talked more about her. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - The Polyphonte article contains just as much information about Agrius and Oreius as the dedicated page, perhaps more. That it also contains details about Polyphote is hardly a problem in such a small article. I would point out that even the dedicated Agrius and Oreius article contains the line, 'their story begins with a woman named Polyphonte' and that, actually, cuts to the heart of the issue. Both pages are basically just the retelling of an incredibly small story, barely a page long, contained in a single classical source. I don't see why a one page story needs to be told twice, in two separate articles, when it could be told perfectly well in one. Sub-articles on specific characters are fantastic when they provide extra information which would clog up a more general piece. This however is not the case here. The Agrius and Oreius article adds absolutely no unique information whatsoever. Any reader clicking from Polyphonte to it just wastes their time. That seems to me to be clearly undesirable and, in the interests of tidying up content, I suggest a blank and redirect is the most appropriate course of action. Nyctimene (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this seems to be an article about some very minor figures, whose sole known appearance in Greek mythology occurs in one work of a very minor author. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology doesn't mention them, and even seems to have misplaced an article on Antoninus Liberalis, although he is cited on occasion. I'm not saying that this alone should decide the issue; but if this article doesn't contain any substantial and noteworthy information that isn't already in the parent article on Polyphonte, then it doesn't have a reason to exist. Since all of the material in question is already in the Polyphonte article, this one should be changed into a redirect to Polyphonte. P Aculeius (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:WITHDRAWN by nominator §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EPD Eukaryotic Promoter Database[edit]

EPD Eukaryotic Promoter Database (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 evidence of notability Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to RNA polymerase II. Changed to Keep, see my comment below. The database is mentioned in several books, a sentence here, a paragraph there. The are many papers that mention the database. But I have found no in depth coverage in RS. The topic seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. The database is verifiable in secondary sources, so the database of POL II promoters seems worth a mention in the POL II article RNA polymerase II. --Mark viking (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being myself the creator of EPD, I'm not going to make any recommendation as to whether or not to delete this article. I just would like to summarize a number of facts that may help to reach a decision. Global impact on research: Today, EPD is one of several promoter databases Among them, it is by far the oldest. It has been electronically distributed and regularly updated since 1986. As such, it had a big impact on promoter research. During the 90s, computational analysis of eukaryotic promoter sequences (in particular the development of promoter prediction algorithms) was almost exclusively based on EPD (see e.g. review by Fickett and Hatzigeorgiou 1997). At least 1000 scientific papers cite EPD as a resource without which the work described in these papers could not have been done.

EPD in the textbook literature: A large number of textbooks on bioinformatics and computational biology include a description of EPD, often under a corresponding subsection heading. Below are just a few examples:

Relative notability: Other promoter resources not necessarily more notable are covered by a Wikipedia article, for instance DBTSS and MPromDb. The latter is based on information imported from EPD (according to Wikipedia).

Merging with Article on RNA polymerase II: EPD could indeed be mentioned in this article, preferably together with other promoter databases such as DBTSS, FANTOM5 and SwissRegulon. --E1p98d6 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it this database? If so, the page can be kept if someone fixes it by describing the database with references (above) and providing a box, just as in MPromDb. But in present state the content is so terrible that it can only be merged. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We rewrote the article according to suggestions made here. Rdreos (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! This is now completely different page. Keep. The database is definitely notable, as justified by cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the rewrite and new sources demonstrating historical significance and impact, I am satisfied that this topic passes notability thresholds. The rewrite also cleaned up the article. so no reason not to keep and I have changed my recommendation above. Nice work, Rdreos! --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has been corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I agree with the nominator's point that WP:LOTSOFGHITS is not an indication of notability. I am open to userifying if NealeFamily believes they can go beyond what is there now and are willing to submit their draft to AFC for review by an uninvolved editor §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biomatters[edit]

Biomatters (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 started at List of bioinformatics companies, where I noticed both Geneious (a product) and Biomatters were listed. After removing the product, I noticed the product wasn't sourceable, so redirected to the company (this article). Then noticed the only source was a blog on their own website, and couldn't find anything that passed WP:RS using the most generous of definitions, so here we are. Fails WP:CORP. Dennis 2¢ 14:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info from an independent source has now been added to the article. Nurg (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the primary focus of the article isn't Biomatters, that is still respectable coverage, but by itself, falls short of WP:CORP. Still, better than what was there, so the effort is appreciated. If we had a couple more like this, it would be easy to withdraw on. Dennis - 2¢ 23:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is sub-standard, but even with a fairly rudimentary Google search is mentioned in national magazines and newspapers, has won NZ awards, and is international in spread. Should readily clear any objections with a bit of work NealeFamily (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that has insufficient "mentions", it is a lack of WP:SIGCOV or awards of any importance. WP:CORP requires that. If it has any real coverage, actual articles from reliable sources, by all means, provide the links, but simply seeing their name mentioned randomly in a google search isn't enough. What NZ awards? Are these notable awards? etc.Dennis - 2¢ 17:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a quick upgrade on the article with purely on line sources (some were self promotional so not RS, but until I find a better source I have used them to verify some statements made). The company is international, has a product in global use, and has had coverage in the major papers within NZ. In its context it is notable enough to remain meeting both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Someone with access to scientific papers should be able to add from what is now there NealeFamily (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but those new links are utter and total garbage. Those are links to instruction guides, the Reuters link was a press release from Business Wire. What you are doing is link padding with promotional links, and frankly, that is worse than NO links. All you have done is waste a great deal of time, forcing someone to read through all of those. The Computerworld is RS but it is about Candace Kinser, not Biomatters. The NZ Herald is fine but local. The rest is garbage that fails WP:RS. A flood of bad links doesn't help the reader, nor demonstrate notability. While it is not typical, I would ask for a third relisting, as only two people have opined here and we need more input. Dennis - 2¢ 00:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Team ECHL All-Star in 2004 achieves criteria 4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Cheers, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As Orlandkurtenbach points out, he meets WP:NHOCKEY criteria 4. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Notability established. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Ellis[edit]

Julien Ellis (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)

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject falls well short of wp:nhockey and there's no indication of notability per WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage and simply being in an ECHL all-star game is not enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph LaBate[edit]

Joseph LaBate (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)

Is not presumed notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the relevant criteria mentioned by the nominator and fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Playing collegiate hockey is not enough to show notability nor is being drafted by the NHL.Mdtemp (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Subban[edit]

Jordan Subban (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)

Is not presumed to be notable according to WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. See examples here, here, here, and here. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Tchaliburton. A quick search reveals there are other notable sources beyond those he identified as well. This article seems to meet WP:N standards and simply needs to be updated and expanded, and there is no deadline required to do so. — Hunter Kahn 05:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notability has been established. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that good quality sources were found towards the end of the discussion. One of the "delete" votes actually provides a bunch of independent references, the other fails to note WP:NTEMP Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sugam Pokharel[edit]

Sugam Pokharel (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)

BLP sourced solely to the subject's own website. No usable sources in a search. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subject may have been popular in Nepal at one point in the past, but with only one (almost four year old) reference and no indication of notability in the Western World, it seems unlikely that subject is still notable. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found several news articles about him, like this one from July 2014 when Pokharel apparently claimed he wasn't paid for a concert he did, and two from February 2013 detailing Pokharel's aresst for heroin possession and subsequent release, along with numerous passing mentions in the Himalayan Times. This may be indicative of notability, but unfortunately I have not found enough to say for certain that the article should be kept. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google it for its notability AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Google searches cannot prove or disprove notability. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep howicus has given the examples of the mention of this person in English media. I searched with his name in Nepalese script (सुगम पोखरेल). Several news reports came up. I can understand barely a few words in Nepalese, although can read the script. At least in couple of instances, he was mentioned as "चर्चित पपगायक सुगम पोखरेल " which means popular pop-singer Sugam Pokharel. this link names several of his songs in the last paragraph, describing him as "पोखरेल नेपाली युवामाझ लोकप्रिय गायक हुन् " (meaning, Pokharel is a popular singer among Nepalese youth). Since there is doubt about significant/wide coverage, I am giving a weak keep here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mainstream Nepali news sources refer to him frequently as a popular singer. Heathens of Nepal's pop culture, please take note of the alterate spelling of his name as Sugam Pokhrel. [91] ("The pop icon for many in the country"); [92][93]--Milowent • hasspoken 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The person never generated any coverage, as far as I can see from this debate. The event was broadly covered at the time (up until about a year after the event) and then there was a single follow-up article 46 years later (not counting one that referred to the event but did not nae the victim). Based on this, several editors find that there is lasting coverage. Personally, I would !vote delete on this one, but as this has now been around for almost three weeks, I am going to close it instead. As closing admin I have to evaluate the consensus in this debate and I don't find one, hence I close as "no consensus". There are suggestions to rename the article or to merge it elsewhere (which I think are excellent suggestions), but that can be discussed and decided on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Wasilewski[edit]

Carolyn Wasilewski (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 under WP:GNG. Search for additional coverage has turned up nothing. Author removed WP:PROD after adding one contemporary source, so I'm assuming they, like me, were unable to find any real coverage even of this event, nevermind the person. Even if the event was significant, per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS, it's not clear that this passes the threshold. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – My sympathies to her family, but sorry to say, in this time and age, non-notable. ShoesssS Talk 18:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I echo @Shoessss's sympathies to her family but tragedy ≠ notability automatically or per se. Quis separabit? 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Carolyn Wasilewski was also known as Carol Wells.[94] Wasilewski/Wells was the inspiration for John Waters' film Cry-Baby.[95][96] Might be worth a merge and redirect as a plausible search term. Otherwise, GNews Archives don't reveal any lasting notability of the event.[97] - Location (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. That's a huge bump in the direction of notability, frankly. It's not even mentioned in the Cry Baby article. Good catch there Location. I don't have time for it right now, but this might help open up the search terms a bit. Probably won't go to notability for the BDP, but it might be worth a merge to Death of Carolyn Wasilewski or, as you say, a merge to Cry Baby. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 02:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took a closer look at this and it seems to me that it wasn't such a big story that a movie was made about it, but rather that it was a local story that affected John Waters, a Baltimore native. Unless I'm missing something, I think that we should merge some of the content from this page into Cry-Baby and add a section about the inspiration for the film/musical, based on sources such as this one. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per user 0x0077BE and Location revelations and suggestions. This is clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am still a delete vote, and I think Location is as well. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would suggest a merge and redirect to Cry-Baby. - Location (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep a Baltimore murder that made headlines in Spokane, and is still being written about by newspaper columnists 60 years later is absolutely notable. Keep and add the "Cry Baby" material.ShulMaven (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Cry Baby references located above, which are powerful, along with a recent Baltimore Sun column describing the murder as a "Baltimore legend" without using her name.ShulMaven (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typing her name + murder + Baltimore into newspaper archive searches turns up scores of articles from around the world, coverage that continued for over a year after the murder. I believe that deletion would be a case of WP:Presentism. i.e., if this had happened in 2014, there would be no doubt of notability (in the category sensational murders drawing wide attention due to lurid lipstick details and failure to identify culprit). I think the same criteria should apply to old sensational murders as to recent ones, because WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ShulMaven (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched "Carolyn Wasilewski" + "murder" + "Baltimore" which turns up GNews hits right after the murder in 1954 (not uncommon), but only one recent news hit: an article in the March 18, 2000 issue of The Baltimore Sun. (A previous article in the March 11, 2000 alludes to the murder but doesn't even mention her name.) That's it. Per WP:EVENT, lasting coverage reflecting interest beyond the local area is usually required. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Sartory and a lengthy write-up of that subject in a local magazine.[98]) - Location (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shulmaven. The murder has been a source of coverage for 50 years.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be in direct contradiction with the facts. It was covered in the 50s and there was two follow-up story 50 years later, one of which, as Location mentions, didn't even mention her by name. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight, in fact, I didn't come here to fight. I came because I got curious about the AFD process, and the AFD process as it goes forward with murder cases. I am sorry if I was not clear. There were 2 Baltimore Sun column in 2000, one that mentioned the murder without naming the victim, but that provoked a 2nd columnist to revisit the affair. I have access to some archives of old newspapers, so I typed in her name and the wire service stories with their lurid lipstick detail ricocheted around the country and the English-speaking world for a little while. This happens with murders, but not with all murders, just murders that, like this one, catch the public imagination - however briefly. What is on the page is pretty much everything I know about the murder, but to me it seems sufficient to keep. Interest among Baltimoreans continued 50 years after the death. A playwright remembers the case and it influences him to write a musical about greasers and hotrods.ShulMaven (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A number of national AP and UP articles from 1954 are confirmed, as are a string of subsequent Sun articles and elsewhere to the present day. Far more notable than many other murder articles that have passed AfD in the past, except perhaps that this one is 60 years old and it requires a bit more work on our part to source it.
  • Nov 9, 1954 UP [99]
  • Nov 9, 1955 AP [100]
  • Nov 11, 1954 AP [101]
  • Nov 12, 1954 UP [102]
  • Nov 14, 1954 AP [103]
  • Nov 16, 1954 AP [104]
  • Dec 17, 1954 (Sun) [105]
  • May 17, 1955 (Sun) [106]
  • May 29, 1955 (Sun) [107]
  • June 15, 1956 (Sun) [108]
  • Oct 24, 1958 (Sun) [109]
  • Jan 14, 1959 (Sun) [110]
  • Jul 1, 1960 (Sun) [111]
  • March 18, 2000 Baltimore Sun [112]
  • April 3, 2008 (Broadway.com) [113]
--Milowent • hasspoken 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The murder was on November 8, 1954 and your results show that coverage of it outside of the Baltimore area ceased 8 days afterwards. The 2008 article in Broadway.com gives three sentences to the murder in a blurb about Waters' inspiration for Cry-Baby. This likely warrants a sentence or two in that article, but for a stand-alone article one trivial mention in 60 years outside of the local area is insufficient to pass the WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:DIVERSE subsections of WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, the murder did receive coverage in places far from Baltimore and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There is also the Baltimore Sun coverage continuing for years afterwards, and the two columns from 2010. Plus the fact that in addition to the article you mention, Waters discussed the murder in his autobiography. Why delete a well-sourced article on a murder that was once something of a thing in Baltimore?ShulMaven (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, this is an article about an event (i.e. a murder) and the most relevant guideline for events is WP:EVENT. There is no indication that Murder of Carolyn Wasilewski would ever have passed that guideline, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't apply. - Location (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you guys don't mind, I cleaned up the formatting of this discussion to make it easier to follow. Agree that WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply, since it's definitely an event. Per WP:BIO1E, I think it is uncontroversial that if we keep this article, it will need to move to Death of Carolyn Wasilewski. I would agree that there was at least national coverage of the initial murder, but there doesn't seem to have been any persistent interest outside of the local Baltimore papers. All references to the murder after 1954 are either in the Baltimore Sun (which for most of them is just reporting on the continued progress of the local investigation, and for the more recent ones are essentially local flavor pieces), or John Waters mentioning the event in connection with his film - which isn't actually about the event, just inspired by the event. The fact that the highest profile coverage of the event is directly related to Cry-Baby is a point in favor of a merge-and-redirect. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename to Murder of Carolyn Wasilewski: I think the notable aspect here isn't the person but the event. I came across this while doing cleanup/expansion work on List of unsolved deaths, and compared with many that are already there this belongs as a standalone article. If we have an article on Moors murders for their importance in Manchester's modern history (and, unnoted in the article although reliable sources are available confirming it, their influence on a young Morrissey, then we can certainly have this one, renamed, for its similar lasting influence on Baltimore's history and a film by one of its native sons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this argument anything other than WP:OTHERSTUFF? I'll also note that Moors murders is an Featured article with extensive citations from various reliable sources, including several books on the topic of the murders. As far as I can tell, the extent of the coverage of this Carolyn Wasilewski murder is a brief spat of international coverage, and then intermittent local-news (local to where the event happened) updates on the progress of the investigation, which peters out in the 60s, and then one or two, again, local-news follow-ups on the story 50 years after the initial event. The two aren't even remotely comparable in notability or coverage. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 19:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I'm very uncomfortable with these articles for local crime victims, but if we're going to have this one, it should at least be renamed to Murder of Carolyn Wasilewski, as the event is more notable than the person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. Absolutely. Keep and rename. Some murders are notable precisely because of the attention they draw.ShulMaven (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Dueno[edit]

Collin Dueno (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, fails WP:MUSICBIO ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My research didn't find any notable secondary source. The web is full of primary sources like social media profiles, but nothing else. No news whatsoever about this person, recent or in the archives. ► LowLevel (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Martínez (baseball)[edit]

Mario Martínez (baseball) (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 run of the mill minor league player. Fails GNG. Sources are all routine. Yankees10 03:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything of significance online. Alex (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa County Association for Paranormal Scientific Studies[edit]

Mesa County Association for Paranormal Scientific Studies (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:ORG, no in-depth coverage by independent secondary sources that demonstrate lasting or widespread notability, aside from trivial mentions in seasonal (Halloween) stories on a local news website. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable local ghost investigation club, which appears defunct and therefore highly unlikely to ever become notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copy vio problems have been taken care of, and consesus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pond Creek Masonic Lodge No. 125[edit]

Pond Creek Masonic Lodge No. 125 (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 building. Sammy1339 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was not as clear about it as it might have been, but as the one reference indicates, this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Grant County, Oklahoma and [114]. Note that the current text of the article appears to have been copied from the registration form; assuming this is in the public domain, it could still stand some editing for readability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The property is on the NRHP (10000622), but NRHP nominations are not public domain. Articles have been deleted as copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, given that comment, I've deleted the (possibly) copied text, which was excessively detailed in any case. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NRHP listings are notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ymblanter. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NRHP listing means automatic notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7: the creator/sole contributor has requested deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson-Campbell Subset Algorithm[edit]

Gibson-Campbell Subset Algorithm (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 garbage to me and is probably OR. It was prodded for these reasons, but I thought it was too technical a subject for that process so I listed it here instead. Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeskAlerts[edit]

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

WP:CORP - sources do not appear to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. The article was moved out of the Draft namespace by a SPA which seems very suspicious to me. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Seahorse, draft should not have been moved to article space. Article reads like an advert with no notability indicated. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I deleted this article when it was in the creator's sandbox because it was tagged as G11, restored it by request and asked that they tone it down and submit it for review. Unfortunately they moved it themselves. Any AFC reviewer would have rejected it, because there is no claim to notability whatsoever, and when I researched it before restoring I didn't find any either. I won't get into SPA or COI concerns, the subject simply does not meet the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. The refs are all incidental mentions or clearly regurgitated press releases with the possible exception of the ESJ: Enterprise Systems Journal. The ESJ source is not on its own sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_November_7&oldid=1142627630"