Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 19 February	21 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neilly Davies Consulting Engineers[edit]

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

This article about a professional engineering firm reads like an ad. It has been tagged since 2008 for relying on primary sources (its own website). I could not find the nature and quantity of coverage needed to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small private company that's been around under this name only since 2006. They appear to have attracted close to zero independant writing. The page is, at best, an advertisement - Peripitus (Talk) 21:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant third-party references. The two here are the company's web site and a directory of companies. Neither establishes notability. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sobrang Monastery[edit]

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

The article lacks enough content to identify the context of the article. It only says "Sobrang Monastery is a Buddhist monastery in Bhutan.", then a few stub tags, then nothing else. The article does also not cite any sources. ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Oh geez, it looks like the article has been expanded since I tagged this for deletion. Looks like I have to withdraw this, though I had to tag the article with {{one source}} since almost all of it is seem to rely on the same source (except on the Festivals section, where 3 sources are linked to in a row). Anyone else before I get to withdraw this? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real place and apparently of some significance. There are even a couple of photos on Commons. As so often with this part of the world, the problem is primarily one of spelling; so many variations: Sobrang, Sombrang, Sumthrang ,etc. This seems to be the best source. Have expanded the article a little; more could be done if anyone feels so inclined. -Arb. (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has an interwiki link to RU
Keep. It's highly unlikely that a still extant 13th century monastery wouldn't be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient to pass WP:GEOFEAT criteria 2.--Antigng (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shaamiu[edit]

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

Unotable footballer who has yet to go pro Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oops didn't notice that the article was only 10 minutes old when I put this up, I read the time wrong on it, well he does seem to be a unotable player but yeah. Wgolf (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Hoseok[edit]

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

Unotable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin (singer) Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside his band. Random86 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-looks like there also is J-Hope which has been changed a few times from being a redirect, maybe a salt for these? Wgolf (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability outside of his group. Looks like this was created under his real name to try to stay under the radar because J-Hope has definitely been eliminated before. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Church[edit]

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

Article about a single church/congregation established this year, no third-party references. Perhaps the only interesting fact beyond what could be said with minor modification for any other church is that it serves a Chinese community and its services are in Chinese. (That "the church is notable for the upbeat worship music, focused setting and friendly congregation" doesn't come close to meeting the notability guidelines.) Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mike Rosoft. Geogene (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep requested instead because article has been edited based on feedback, with more interesting facts about the church. Chn3a (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Chn3a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG - nothing extraordinary about this church. St Anselm (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. I looked in local newspaper indexes (Berkeley voice, SF Chronicle, and Oakland Tribune) and didn't find any references to this church. If there are articles in local Chinese language papers (which I am not able to search), then I might change my vote. LaMona (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonotable church org, building apparently not notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill church, established only last month. My hunch is that they were setting up their social media sites and mistook Wikipedia for a social media site - not realizing that it is an international encyclopedia with inclusion standards. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. per sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt Sam Walton (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Warnings[edit]

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

Can't find any sources for this film, via its US title (Silent Warnings) or apparent other title (Warnings). Does not appear to have been reviewed in any accessible publications. Sam Walton (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF through coverage and wide distribution on film and television. Sorry nominator, I do not think you looked deeply enough. It's apparently a pretty crappy film, but in a deeper search, I found Dread Central, Movie Gazette, Movie Scene, Review Stream and others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jonas Live[edit]

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

Page fails to meet the notability for a concert tour. Simply because it is a concert tour by Nick Jonas does not qualify it on basis alone to be a standalone article. Page fails to achieve anything aside from establishing a concert tour took place; third-party context failed to be met. As much, sources provided may not even meet the the secondary sources policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why can't we let articles snowball anymore? Major concert tour by notable artist. Sure, it could use more references and expansion, but add the appropriate tags... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this stub's AfD was just closed as keep less than three months ago. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nothing has changed since the first afd.--Antigng (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As was found in the previous AFD, this subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McNulty (footballer)[edit]

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

G4 speedy declined.. as "it is significantly changed from the previous afd of about 18 months ago." Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-non notable football player. Wgolf (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep - Meets WP:GNG. Keeper of the year [1], [2]. Also with interviews such as [3], [4]. And other headlines in national papers [5], [6] Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the sources Nfitz has provided, the first two are essentially brief announcements / press releases with the fifth and sixth being routine match reports that do not cover the player in any details. The third and fourth could help assert GNG, but I cannot view them at the moment and anyway, I would need to see more than two interviews given that the player is 34 to satisfy GNG Fenix down (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. List is found to fail WP:CSC. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavy vehicle fatal accidents involving brake failure[edit]

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

Unworkably vague list article. There are a vast number of accidents, inevitably many of which will have involved brake failure. However does this make an encyclopedic topic?

As to the practicalities of sourcing, then even this currently tiny article is failing that with only one reference (the recent Bath accident has no publicly identified cause as yet). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't figure out what the role of this list is; what purpose it serves. It isn't a list of notable topics, and it isn't a list of non-notable topics that fall under some other clear topic. And it's certain to be ever-expanding yet never close to comprehensive. So I don't see where it fits in WP:CSC. A comparison with List of hydroelectric power station failures is not apt. That list fulfills several list criteria, such as being short, complete, and containing notable topics. It's very similar to List of food contamination incidents, which is also of dubious merit. I could see keeping this if there were a clear statement as to what it's for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as previously noted, it is so that people who are aware of similar accidents from personal knowledge can add them. It does not matter if it is ever expanding, generally users will be interested in the series of accidents near a hilly location to see what could be done to prevent recurrence.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the UK during the last two months there have been two accidents where a runaway lorry has hit pedestrians: one in Glasgow, one in Bath; and both made the national news. There has yet to be a formal report on either which would confirm or deny brake failure as the primary cause, and I suspect that the article was created out of WP:RECENTISM. Road accidents happen every day. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, lorries out of control due to overheating breaks or break failure killing people do not happen every day, but they happen with regularity in hill areas which have not been fitted with ameliorating measures eg escape lanes, restrictions etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear case of WP:LISTCRUFT. Topic is too specific and trivial for a list. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its not trivial, there have been at least 5 fatal accidents in Bath, over the last 30 years, yet there is no accesible place to find them. The same will apply to other hilly areas.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dont Delete

Yes it is recentism, but accounts of the lorry hooting the horn as a warning on the recent accident in Bath as he descended the hill implies brake failure due to incorrect driving technique or lack of maintenance on brakes - no doubt when the results come from police the item can be corrected or removed. The topic is very specific and there aren't that many accidents in fact with such a cause nowadays because lorries are generally prohibited from using dangerous hills or roads are fitted with escape lanes for historic accident reasons. In Bath, with its steep hills, there have been a number of previous fatalities caused by the topic in question, with lorries descending hills, and yet information on this is not readily obtainable - nor the specific brake related cause - (e.g. driving technique or failure of maintenance. Actual brake component failure is very rare ) - including 3 into the same hotel, Royal York, 1 at least fatal. There have been others on the A46 into Bath descent also fatal, and this was one of the reasons for the A46 diversion now fitted with escape lanes but information on these is not easily available since internet research does not discover them although they definitely used to happen regularly until the road was diverted ( partially due to a little girl fatality) The local paper no longer has an archivist and so this is no longer a source. This widespread loss of info from local newspapers, where you used to be able to call the archivist, is a direct information loss from the internet age and it behoves us to at least replace it. Comparison with List of List of road accidents Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) where some of the ones I have used are gleaned shows that Brake Failure causes only a small proportion of accidents, and so the topic is much more specific than that articles' remit. The article is only a beginning and can no doubt be improved over time - i'm not going to spend a lot of time on it now to improve to have it deleted - leave it and I will. I think the list of food contamination events is an excellent article and draws this information together in a useful manner for those interested in this topic ( me for example). The hydro electric dam failure which I started was also criticised in a similar manner when it began for the same sort of reasons. Brake failure on heavy vehicles is a very specific type of accident and I doubt from news reports if the Scottish one counts. I would see this topic article over time being segregated into eg. Accidents caused by brake fade on long hills during normal driving with correct maintenance and technique - very rare. Accidents caused by lack of maintenance of brakes Accidents caused by lack of proper driving practice eg premature pumping of brake to exhaust air reservoir prematurely, failure to engage low gear,Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Engineman (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Brake component failure ( very rare in fact) etc Thus the article will be useful guide to traffic engineers and those interested in public safetyEngineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 February 2015Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list is very specific, it is about a) heavy vehicles ( ie no cars) b) brake failure causing a fatality.

The existing listList of road accidents is readily searchable even though lengthy and is therefore useful in its own right if you want to verify details of an accident that you can recall in general but lack specifics ie date. however, i have mined this long list for brake failure accidents and this has yielded the low number included here.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) The points is that for example in the recent Bath crash, which appears for various reasons to have been brake failure, i know from personal memory of at least 4 other fatal accidents all caused by brake failure, all ultimately due to the fact that Bath is approached by a number of long hills. Yes I could find no detailed record of these accidents. It is therefore definitely worth having an article so that the public and highway officials can assess the repeatability of such accidents and install necessary corrective measures eg escape lanes, restricted routes etc. What will happen, is that when a similar accident in some other hill location occurs, local journalists can search the web, and this time find a central compilation and add that accident to it, and other interested parties, eg like myself, can add examples that they know off from living in eg a hilly area. This cannot be done at the moment without this list.Engineman (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Akanakimana[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The claim that he has played for Burundi is not supported by reliable sources. PROD was contested by the article's creator, who is probably also the subject of the article given their username, without providing a reason, though the claim that he has played for Burundi has since been removed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behna...Ek Safar Ki Khushiyon Aur Pyaar[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG notability if it even exists. Possibly a hoax. See previous speedy deletion by RHaworth. - Mr X 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Díez[edit]

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

~~Professional Spanish cyclo-cross cyclist, but fails WP:NCYC. His best performances are winning national cyclo cross races, 12th in the national championships and competing in several World Cup races~~. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw by nominator

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per new rules For WP:NCYCLING, this rider is notable. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 15:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep both. Nakon 03:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Uhlmyer and Adella Wotherspoon[edit]

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

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

These two people are simply the last two survivors of the PS General Slocum disaster. They did not have any significant role in the event and thus clearly fail WP:ONEEVENT. Note that both articles include one "fair use" image which should be deleted if these articles are deleted. They are both already mentioned at PS General Slocum#Survivors (where I found these articles).AHeneen (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. They were notable during three news cycles: 1) Surviving the Slocum in 1904 for which they were in the news as a survivors. 2) Then they were in the news as the oldest or second oldest survivor when interviewed by the New York Times in 1989 and 3) again in 2002 and 2004 when Catherine Uhlmyer (2002) and Adella Wotherspoon (2004) died with obituaries pulished for their deaths as the last or second to last survivors. See for instance the blue links at Last surviving United States war veterans, List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest women, or Millvina Dean the last Titanic passenger to die. WP:ONEEVENT is for people who are in the news for one news cycle then disappear. These people are in the news through their lives with continued coverage until their deaths, and at their deaths get large obituaries in prominent newspapers, and magazines, and from news agencies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, ONEEVENT refers to a noteworthy event, not the newscycle. These individuals can be adequately covered by a paragraph each in PS General Slocum#Survivors. There is nothing significant to say about these individuals. The articles mostly contain biographical information unrelated to the incident. Naturally, there will be something to say about an individual in an obituary, but these two did not receive significant coverage during their lifetime. The existence of articles for other last survivors and oldest people does not imply that this article is worthy of inclusion. There are many articles on those lists that likely fail WP:BIO and should be included on list articles rather than have their own page. For example, many blue wikilinks of Americans on the List of oldest men/women link to the person's entry at List of supercentenarians from the United States.

Merge to PS General Slocum#Survivors as these are potential search terms. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting GNG. While they became notable for one event, as pointed out above, last survivors attract significant coverage as last survivors. For example, see the ten page entry on Wotherspoon in the aptly titled The Last Leaf: Voices of History's Last-Known Survivors. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are significant references. LaMona (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeworth Economics[edit]

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

An article on this company was deleted in Feb 2014 after WP:Articles for deletion/Edgeworth Economics. Recently new user Wikimikework (talk · contribs), correctly disclosing that he is a paid advocate for the company, approached The Bushranger as closing admin, asking permission to create an article. Learning that The Bushranger is currently inactive, he placed a new draft on the article talk page. I noticed it there, moved it to a Draft page, and advised him about COI and notability. He has now completed his version and asked me about posting it. I am doubtful about the depth of coverage in the references, but it could be argued that coverage of the work the company has done indicates importance. I believe that DRV would say "relist", so I have decided that the best course is to accept the article from Draft space, and bring it here for a community view on notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JohnCD. The first article was deleted because it primarily referenced promotional articles. I believe the revised entry addresses these concerns by referencing articles in the Wall Street Journal and other reputable, third-party sources. In terms of notability, I understand that there could be some debate. My argument - as JohnCD noted - is that Edgeworth Economics is notable based on the high-profile work that they do, and the high-profile media outlets that have featured Edgeworth in their coverage of these cases. If any reviewers would like more information or context, please do not hesitate to ask, and I will provide whatever I can. Thank you for your time. Wikimikework (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this company; fails wp:corp. None of the cited sources are about the company, and the references lean heavily on two areas that are specifically designated as trivial coverage in the wp:corp policy: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." LaMona (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are many Reliable Sources cited in the references, they are all passing mentions, not significant coverage as required for WP:CORP. In a search I found passing mentions and press releases. Bottom line, this is the kind of company that works in the background and rarely gets significant coverage, thus rarely meets WP:CORP - so that an article is unlikely even in the future. I would like to compliment Wikimikework for doing the best they could to create a valid Wikipedia article, and for being upfront about their position as a paid editor. It meant we could focus on the article itself, without side-issue suspicion about whether the author had a COI. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close Up (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no proof that their singles and EPs ever charted. The Banner talk 21:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A plethora of sources is not an automatic qualification for notability. Fails to meet WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This band does in fact meet WP:BAND, they have been placed in rotation by Penguin Radio, and also the band has been featured in broadcasts on NPO3, XITE TV, 3FM and Radio 538. Antiabed (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from this the band has also performed in multiple large venues in the Netherlands, performed on festivals in the Netherlands, Germany and Norway, Successfully held a crowdfunding campaign for a new EP, recorded with well known Dutch producers, and won a few well known national band contests. Antiabed (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What means that they are not signed to a major label... And there is still no proof ant of their singles or EPs charted. The Banner talk 15:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nowhere on WP:BAND it is stated the band has to be signed to a major label or has to have a single or EP that charted. 82.173.190.144 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then you better start reading again:
        2 Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
        
        5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
      - The Banner talk 00:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I might be wrong but doesn't the WP:BAND article state 'may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:' meaning that not all criteria have to be met. The band does meet point 1, 4, 9, 11 and 12. Antiabed (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The sheer fact that you have to start a fund raising campaign to make an EP is already a sign that your band is not important enough. Beside that, you sounds like the bands marketing employee but you did not declare a possible Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Banner, only one criteria needs to be met, and the crowdfunding is meaningless. Major bands and artists regularly crowdfund for albums, often because they don't want to deal with the paperwork/deadlines/creative control/licensing problems that comes with funding from a label. And in terms of coverage and reviews, crowdfunded albums are treated exactly the same by the music press as albums with private funding. Earflaps (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coment: It seems quite clear to me that Antiabed/82.173.190.144 from Utrecht or therabouts are only here to promote a new band on the block. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the coi accusations out of it, shall we? It's a violation of assume good faith, doesn't solve the issue at hand, and doesn't improve the page. Earflaps (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I do honestly believe this band is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. It meets several of the required points on WP:BAND, and I am in the belief that if a band meets those points a page can be made for the band. I created this page not as a promo page but as an objective informational page. I'm not protecting anything related to the page, so everyone can edit it. I have not been paid to create this page. All I tried to do was create a page for a band that meets the requirements on WP:BAND Antiabed (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep.~~ The English references are crap as is, but I'm not about to claim they aren't notable in The Netherlands. They seem to have a documented national tour, and got some radio play, so deletion seems pre-emptive until someone who speaks Dutch can go through the available references and assert the publications are reliable. Earflaps (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By now, the Dutch version of the article is removed as not-encyclopedic. The national concert tour was part of a serie of concerts not by Close Up, but by the "Herman Brood Academy" where the band was involved in, the foreign concerts were part of an international exchange with bands of several countries, the concert at Appelpop was won in a contest with ten bands what they won with about 300 casted votes. There is no evidence that Close Up was the main band at the "multiple large venues in the Netherlands". The Banner talk 21:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I change my vote to Delete. Would you mind doing the cross-outy thing on my vote earlier? Never figured out how to do a strikethrough. Earflaps (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that you place a <s> in front of your vote and a </s> straight behind it. That will do the trick most times... The Banner talk 00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh yay, it's so simple Earflaps (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND and removend on Dutch Wikipedia Agora (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hristov Martin[edit]

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

~~Article was deleted before (made by another user even) just recently-a player who has yet to go pro. Wgolf (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article now meets WP:NSPORT per sources below. @GiantSnowman:, @IJA:, you may want to review you're !votes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has made his professional debut. Article needs improving. Giant Snowman 09:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made his début in a fully pro-league, now passes WP:NSPORT. IJA (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-A really strange page moved happened and now the AFD is gone...Wgolf (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently at Martin Hristov (footballer born 1997). There's a duplicate article now redirecting there; its last revision isn't quite fully merged, and should probably be looked at a bit closer. —Cryptic 23:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NFOOTY with his fully professional debut this weekend [7]. Nfitz (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well at the time the article was made he was unotable, so that was the problem there. Probably should withdraw but I will wait for other people also. Wgolf (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though what's the point for players who are recently signed to fully-professional leagues, nominating articles for deletion days before the season starts (or resumes after the months-long winter break in this case). This is a systemic problem, and we need to find a better way of dealing with this. We deleted another player on the same squad last week, and did a DRV as well, and now after all that, restored the article because he played in the same match. Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player meets WPNFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-article was made before he was notable but since that has changed. Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elza Maalouf[edit]

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

author of one non-notable book; extremely promotional article. The many references are either press releases or mere mentions. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the promo aspect can be cut out, but I had trouble finding any impressive looking reviews of the book. She is all over the web at seminars and such, though, so I don't feel comfortable voting as is, since there may be reputable publications/organizations that feature her that I'm just not familiar with. Would be easier if the page poster had formatted the references better. Earflaps (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the overly many references on this page, I don't find any that are about the person, and of the ones I checked at most I found mentions of her, and in some she was not mentioned at all. Other references are to blog posts, or to promotional sources like Instant Teleseminar which seems to be a form of webinar self-publishing. Her book, from 2014, shows as held in all of 8 libraries in WorldCat, which means that it is a quite minor publication. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaMona. Earflaps (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her work does not rise to the level of notability for writers of academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A fine example of ref bombing. I did not go through all the references, but checked only those that looked like there might be some substance. There wasn't. I skipped references such as the home page of the University of Virginia. If I was mistaken and there is indeed significant coverage about Elza Maalouf on the home page of this, or any of the other various home pages in this list of spurious references, then please let me know and I shall go through all 58 references in detail. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joejo[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced musician bio. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 16:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Stanleytux (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the admin who declined the speedy because it asserts he signed a record deal and that could be construed as asserting notability. However, it is not sourced and really doesn't pass the smell taste. My decline was out of an abundance of caution...maybe an overabundance. JodyB_talk 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Earflaps (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Wong[edit]

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

Okay so there is a page in Chinese also that looks like it is under a speedy. Trying to find any notability here. (I had to do some edits on this page first as there were some odd text in a form of Chinese-which I don't know any version of it but I could tell what it was trying to say) Either a userfy or a delete it seems. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he passes the notability reauirements for artists or businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical keep - he has two significant mentions in two reliable sources, per WP:42. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 15:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. The sources are dodgy - social media platforms aren't reliable. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Bassi[edit]

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

Not a notable researcher. Discussion of him I can find online consists entirely of papers he's authored, and a solitary news article on his company that mentions him by name once in the trailing commentary; I'm sure he's a fantastic researcher, but he doesn't pass our inclusion standards. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. H-index of 7; Google turns up no independent coverage despite an easy-to-search-for name. Article is an autobiography. Seems like his career is going fine but this is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 15:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. ~KvnG 04:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wos shows 9 papers with 1 citation among the corpus. Agricola44 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mila[edit]

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

Model and actress. But is she notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mila is a famous celebrity from Indonesia, you can check at google and other search engine :) Jagoganteng 19:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagoganteng (talk • contribs)

It is not up to us to go searching for the information if you want the article retained. You need to read Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people). You need to demonstrate that notability by references to significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up only the standard PR fare sure to found for any actor no matter how unknown, pictures on the red carpet and stuff like that. Msnicki (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless some reliable sources showing notability are provided. Eeekster (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and other editors ought to remember not to WP:BITE. It is, in fact, up to us to go searching for information! We are not judging articles, but topics, and this topic is clearly notable as a cursory google search will demonstrate. I don't read Indonesian, but [8], [9] and [10] all look reliable and significant to me. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These look like standard vapid red carpet and minor celebrity PR fluff to me. Here are the translated versions: 1, 2, 3. Please explain why you think these look significant to you because they certainly don't to me. Msnicki (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the impenetrable machine translations. Significant doesn't mean "serious" or "important." According to our policies, significant coverage means "that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That you consider the material vapid does not make the coverage insignificant, and it seems pretty clear that, in addition to WP:GNG, the subject passes WP:NACTOR, as she has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. Pburka (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is poorly sourced, but subject has sustained enough of a locally notable career to become a TV commercial celebrity endorser for multiple products. Pax 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It Is up to US to look for information to improve articles, if we are going to bother to do something useful on this project. I do not read indonesian, but she appears to get significant coverage in major newspapers of that country.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources here and here and here, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They look like blogs and unreliable tabloids to me. The first one is in English and reports only that the subject likes to stay in shape, the absolute essence of trivial reporting. Translated, the second [11] and third one [12] report that the son-in-law of the president said something about her in his blog (these are blogs about a blog). You may think this satisfies WP:GNG but I do not. I think they fail, per WP:NOTRELIABLE, as "websites and publications ... that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." Msnicki (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jakarta Post is a daily broadsheet with circulation of 40,000 which won numerous awards for journalistic excellence. Perhaps topics like staying in shape, or who is dating who, or whether the president's son thinks a person is beautiful -- perhaps these topics may appear trivial but they are important to many people, particularly in certain industries such as fashion, film, entertainment. I do not see how this would lead anybody to the conclusion that these newspapers reported only "gossip" or untruths; for example, I believe that the president's son or son-in-law really commented publicly that he thought this actress was good looking, as reported. There is another source here. If you further examine this search, lots more articles turn up, although they are mostly in Indonesian (translators are not that good yet). Indonesia is an important country, and she gets lots of media attention there, clearly meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think these newspapers reported only "gossip" or untruths. I'm looking at the content, not the publishers. It's quite possible that every one of these publishers has a sterling reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, exactly what we ask of a WP:RS. I just never got that far because I don't believe the content, no matter who published it, amounts to more than trivial gossip and red carpet coverage. WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" that addresses the topic "directly and in detail". This is just not it. I don't think we will agree and I'll tell you why. If you were !voting that the subject must be notable based on articles you couldn't read and hadn't attempted to translate, I don't think content matters to you the way it does to me. I totally respect that you're entitled to your view but I think WP:GNG offers more support for mine. Msnicki (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 15:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alvan Lafargue[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being mayor of a town of 20k people, which doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. As far as WP:GNG goes, sources consist of an Angelfire site, genealogy sites, and a few mentions in Louisiana historical publications. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person is notable as a physician of fifty years. He was also a mayor of Sulphur, LA. The article has been on Wikipedia for four years. The principal source is from the Louisiana Historical Assn.:^[1] Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Lafargue, Alvan Henry". Louisiana Historical Association, A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography. Retrieved February 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Delete Just being a physician, even if for 50 years, does not make one notable. Nor does having been a mayor of a very small time. Length of article on wikipedia does not show the person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The age of an article is not a measure of its quality or notability. This subject's medical career does not meet criteria for notability by extension from wp:PROF, and WP:NPOL #3 is pretty clear that local politicians don't meet criteria for notability unless they get significant coverage from independent sources. A mention on a historical website doesn't seem to meet that standard. BakerStMD T|C 16:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The Louisiana Historical Association says that Dr. Lafargue is notable.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 20,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources meet GNG. If the Louisiana Historical Association say he is notable enough for their encyclopedia, he meets GNG. The size of the city is a red herring. Sources determine notability, not population statistics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC The Louisiana Historical Society and the Louisiana Research Collection at Tulane University both consider him notable. There is further significant coverage from reliable sources appropriate to the time period. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Louisiana historical groups consider him important, that should be enough for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suppafly (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have not handed over the determination of Wikipedia notability to the Louisiana Historical Association. Entries in local biography compendia are not adequate to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NPOL.The online biographical dictionary has no explanation or criteria as to how the persons listed are chosen, or what qualifications a submitted biography would have to meet, so it appears to be an indiscriminate compendium. The collection of papers at Tulane are primarily those of other members of his family, and notability is not inherited. The site says "The papers primarily concern Arnaud, Pierre-Adolphe, Adolphe J., and Annie Lafargue." The fact that he was mayor of a town of 20k and a physician for 50 years are not adequate to justify a biography in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Louisiana Research Collection overview also contains a two paragraph biography of Alvan Lafargue that refers to Lafarge as, inter alia, "a noted physician, civic leader, and politician." Far from handing over determination of notability to Louisiana authorities, these authorities' biographies constitute WP:SIGCOV going to meet WP:BASIC, in combination with the other references in the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography has an article on Dr. Alvan Lafargue; it does not have articles on Adolphe Lafargue (a state legislator and judge and Alvan's father) nor Malcolm Lafargue (a U.S. attorney and Alvan's nephew). But Adolphe and Malcolm have met the notability threshold for Wikipedia. I have looked for other sources for Dr. Lafargue. There is the 1981 book by Erbon W. Wise (a Sulphur author), Brimstone! The History of Sulphur, Louisiana, which has information on Dr. Lafargue. However, I don't have access to that book for the material there. It could be obtained through Inter-Library Loan; that would take some weeks to do, beyond the decision on whether this article stays. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Cornely[edit]

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

The article has a large conflict of interest problem because it is

Almost entirely written by its subject
Almost entirely cited by self-published articles written by the subject.

Ignoring the self-published articles, it's difficult to see notability for this person. If anything, I think it would be more beneficial to have an article about their charity rather than the person themself. tommylommykins (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that this conflict of interest problem has already been raised, but not in the context of AFD. The relevant discussion is here: User_talk:Tinacornely. The outcome of that discussion was that the author should be given extra time to establish notability. In the time since then, no new indication of notability has appeared in the article, and a web search does not indicate much other presence on the web that isn't self-published. tommylommykins (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 'reliable' source are available if you search, I've added one. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A COI is never sufficient reason for deletion and here the article is neutral on top of it, so doesn't even need a COI tag. The Miami Herald article (ref #2) and the Huffington Post article (ref #4) are both quite extensive and biographical That should be sufficient to establish notability. Pinging @Bellerophon: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was accepted because the refs at the time of acceptance were sufficient to demonstrate that the subject had a fair claim of notability. The nominator here seems to be confusing the issues of COI and notability. While the username for the key contributor for this article is problematical (for purely policy reasons) and indicates a likely COI, this has no bearing on Cornely's notability. As Thaddeus notes, COI (as a deletion rationale) is almost never supported at AfD unless accompanied by rampant promotionalism, which is clearly not the case here. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have edited the article and removed most of the self-published sources as they seemed unnecessary padding. I have also expanded the article, tidied it up and placed citations at relevant junctures in the body text, rather than all piled together at the end. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 12:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi (TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a short-run soap opera. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. I was only able to find a couple of very brief mentions. The article is full of original research and unsourced WP:BLP content. - Mr X 14:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Laughing Comedy Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Created by a single purpose editor, the sources merely confirm people have performed there. Obvious this is an advert, given the creator has tried to add this to the Dubai article. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): This is the only weekly comedy club in the United Arab Emirates. It has been featured in many publications and is growing in popularity. What would be achieved by deleting this page For anyone interested in comedy in the UAE or Dubai it is invaluable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

and it appears you have a close connection to this club. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have, its awesome and go every week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do you work for this club? LibStar (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonylemezma: why did you decide to start this article? Just asking. —George8211 / T 15:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George8211 because the longest running free comedy club in the UAE is notable. It attracts international acts and gives local performers a chance to get on stage. Its not particularly well known that the UAE has an active comedy scene and this club is a largely responsible for that. Deleting this page would be like deleting the entry for the comedy store in London, had it been written on wikipedia after 2-3 years of operations. If people find this page it may change their perceptions of UAE comedy and it will also let them know that there is a place they can perform and where the public can watch emerging performers without charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article seems to be an advert rather than an encyclopedic content. Ayub407 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: contains a lot of trivia, and doesn't have reception in reliable sources. Even if it is notable, a blowup would be easier. —George8211 / T 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ There isn't enough documentation of the comedy scene in Dubai. We need pages like these to record the history of what is happening, as it is being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs)

Struck as you can't !vote more than once. –Davey2010^Talk 03:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dubai Laughing has given me repetitive opportunity to get on stage and exercise my talent as a stand up comedian. Not only that but they've also attracted international well known comedians that I had the opportunity to rub shoulders with, and shared the stage. They have been providing free comedy nights in a city like Dubai that's highly notable. They are trying to bring in a social change by using humor to bring in different cultures together. Must keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidakram83 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Junaidakram83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Dubai laughing comedy club is the only place in Dubai that actually resembles a comedy club. Only venue in Dubai which have a weekly comedy night every Wednesday and that too free of charge. This is where part time comics like me retreat to after our regular day jobs and we try out new material. They've played a pivotal role in starting up a comedy scene in Dubai which used to be completely dead a few years ago. A lot of international comics have performed in this venue alongside local comedians, therefore has attracted a large fan following. Keeping this page will get the word further out there, that there is a an actual comedy scene in Dubai.Iceman53y (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Iceman53y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as promotional, Also per the fact all those are above are affiliated with this club and are clearly doing everything in there power to keep it ... they'll need a lot of luck!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This club is by far the best known and best referenced in its category compared to Comédie-Française, Hollywood's Comedy Nights, Nightwash, Off the Wall Comedy Empire and Tokyo Comedy Store. Why do they not have deletion notices? Tonylemezma (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonylemezma (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as you can't !vote more than once. –Davey2010^Talk 03:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be consistent. Why discriminate against this entry? The best referenced, most notable entry in its category. Tonylemezma (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still a valid question. Tonylemezma (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

valid question, are you an employee of the club? LibStar (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what we've got so far:
- Keep:
  - "only weekly comedy club in the UAE"
  - It's becoming more popular
  - It's invaluable for anyone in the UAE interested in comedy
  - "the longest running free comedy club in the UAE is notable"
  - It attracts international acts / famous comedians
  - It's a way for local people to get on the comedy stage
  - It's not well known, so we should keep the article to make it more well known
  - Deleting this would be like deleting The Comedy Store (London) after it had only been open for 2 or 3 years (note: it opened in 1979)
  - Keeping this page would make UAE comedy more famous
  - There isn't enough documentation of Dubai comedy
  - We should record history as it's being made
  - It's been useful for me to perform comedy
  - Either providing free comedy nights in Dubai is notable, or Dubai is notable -- the comment is ambiguous
  - They're bringing in social change
  - It's the only place in Dubai that resembles a comedy club
  - It's the only place in Dubai which has a comedy night every Wednesday -- it's even free
  - It's where part-time comedians go and try out new stuff
  - They were a major part in starting a comedy scene in Dubai
  - It's the best known and best referenced compared to Comédie-Française, Hollywood's Comedy Nights, Nightwash, Off the Wall Comedy Empire and Tokyo Comedy Store -- we shouldn't discriminate against just this one
- Delete:
  - It fails the notability guideline for companies/organisations
  - The sources only say that famous people have performed there -- this doesn't make the club notable itself
  - It's an advert
  - Just because the above (Comédie-Française, Hollywood's Comedy Nights, Nightwash, Off the Wall Comedy Empire and Tokyo Comedy Store) have an article doesn't mean this one should have an article
  - Created by a single purpose account -- also only keep arguments are by those "are affiliated with the club"
I also suspect sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. —George8211 / T 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Ambulance Service[edit]

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

An abandoned article for an organisation which no longer exists WP:GNG Rathfelder (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BakerStMD T|C 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page was started in 2007 and still has no references. BakerStMD T|C 12:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template or transclusion to log page. Fixed--no comment on the nom itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to South East Coast Ambulance Service - I can't find anything at all to verify its existence, I assume this was short lived ?, Anyway Merge seems better than deletion IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep..... Well I'll be damned!..... I for the life of me couldn't find anything so am surprised, Anyway Keep per everyones findings :) –Davey2010^Talk 03:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Davey2010 above. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above two (if I don't count the note) m'encarta (t) 23:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is based on the flawed arguments that the article was "abandoned" (no, it's a WP:STUB, perfectly acceptable) and that the organisation no longer exists (so what?). This was the statutory public ambulance service for two counties with a total population of about 1.5 million people. Any emergency service covering a jurisdiction that size is notable. This nomination really doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Have added refs for start and end dates. Article could doubtless be expanded further should anyone care to make the effort. -Arb. (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the assessment provided by Necrothesp. Although the organisation was in existence for only a little over 10 years, it was a statutory provider and over that period of time there were a lot of changes to the way services were run. I have added some further information about the service to the article, supported by appropriate references. Drchriswilliams (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These improvements probably mean it's worth keeping. But it seems unlikely that anyone will do any more work on it. It's quite difficult to find information about NHS organisations that have been abolished.Rathfelder (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per sk1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allameh Tabataba'i University[edit]

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

Firstly this article was mostly filled with copyrighted material taken word for word from its website[13] which was deleted with this diff [14]. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I was unable to find a reliable third-party source or significant coverage of the university itself. According to WP:N and WP:ORG, if no reliable third party sources are found then it should not have an article. If this does not appear to be the case, do let me know and the deletion proposal will be withdrawn. Mbcap (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The nominator was quite right to remove the extensive apparent copyright violation from the article. But it is easy to confirm from independent sources that the institution exists and is an accredited university - and experience shows that there are always enough independent sources on such institutions to write an article giving at least the basic information about them, even if (particularly outside North America and Europe) it can sometimes take some effort to find the sources. PWilkinson (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining PWilkinson, I will withdraw the deletion. Mbcap (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dungeons & Dragons-related products#Board games. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clue Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

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

Non-notable board game SageGreenRider (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any real coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge to either Cluedo#Variants or Dungeons & Dragons-related products#Board games. BOZ (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability as does the main game. − Gaming4JC (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of BOZ's suggestions. Existence warrants a small mention, but not a separate article. And nothing special needing to merge beyond content already there. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Provided this is not kept, closer should note that several others entries at Cluedo#Games (the best redirect target, IMO) also have separate articles, and perhaps should be dealt with similarly even though not formally bundled into this AfD. Pax 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 13:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several other clue variants have pages. Suppafly (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" isn't a good argument for keeping it.SageGreenRider (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lam[edit]

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

Don't believe that this author meets WP:AUTHOR or GNG. Article lacks WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is another Laura Lam who writes on Vietnam. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Delete I would call this a case of slightly WP:TOOSOON. Found one source (other than book reviews) of her being signed to a publisher [15], yet a book would not be published by 2016. As of now, the article is suffering from lack of a claim of importance (i.e. what's special about her beyond being a writer and published some books), probably deletable by WP:A7. I would ask for no prejudice of recreation when her career really takes off. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree with the assessment that this article is slightly WP:TOOSOON. Her novel "Pantomime" did get publisher and is stocked in almost 300 libraries see World cat. She did get a "Teens book of the month" listing from the Scottish Book Trust [16]. She made an appearance at the 2014 Inverness Book Festival [17] which led to a mention of her name on the BBC News website. She also had a passing mention in a Guardian article about the best LGBT books for children, teenagers and young adults. She hasn't yet had the depth of coverage needed for WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lam has won a number of awards, her works are seen as important in bringing intersex characters into the YA genre, she is noted enough to be a guest speaker at 2014 Worldcon. She is anthologised in Solaris Rising 3, she does book signings at Forbidden Planet. Her books are regularly listed by other authors Emma Carroll, Cindy Pon. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC).
- You say "won a number of awards" but I cannot see any information to support this claim. Her book "Pantomime" has been selected on a number of promotional reading lists, including some that are specifically aimed at increasing awareness amongst teenagers. The only award I can see that she has received is from GLAAD, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy organization in the US; she picked up one of the 8 awards at their second Bisexual Book Awards, which had 60 books submitted to them. When you say "her books are regularly listed by other authors" this also doesn't seem to accurately reflect things. Of the two examples you quote: one author (promoting her own book) names "Pantomime" in her "top 10 children's books about the circus" and the second example is an interview with Young Adult fantasy author Cindy Pon, who when interviewed name-checked "Pantomime" part of a list of books that she was asked to recommend. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree that at this particular juncture, this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. For a rarefied elite class of literary awards (e.g. the Pulitzer, the Booker, the Governor General's), a nomination is sufficient to demonstrate notability in and of itself, because those awards and their nominees get actively and extensively covered in gold-standard national news sources like the BBC or The New York Times — but for many genre or specialty awards which generate much more limited media coverage, such as the Bisexual Book Awards or the British Fantasy Society, even a win might not be enough in and of itself if the reliable sourcing ain't there to cover it. The quality of sourcing here, further, is very poor, relying almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources like WordPress blogs, examiner.com, BuzzFeed and the websites of the award organizations themselves — so the sourcing is not solid, reliable or independent enough to claim that she gets over WP:AUTHOR for the awards, or that she's garnered enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG instead of WP:AUTHOR. It's important to understand that a deletion result right now does not mean that she can never have an article — lots of people have flunked an AFD at one particular point in time, but then later became eligible for a new article again because their basic notability claim, and/or the availability of reliable sourcing, had substantively improved in the intervening time. So this doesn't mean "never" — it just means "not yet". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when she can be sourced better than this (and no objection to sandboxing in draft or userspace.) Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's just barely enough here to warrant a keep in this instance, although it is a very close call and I can understand if the closing admin thinks that the consensus is to delete. What kind of pushes it for me is that she has been on the ALA list, has received a review from the Scottish Book Trust (along with being one of a book of the month), and she's received reviews from Booklist, MuggleNet, and from the British Fantasy Society (along with a nomination). That's just enough to where she could probably squeak by notability guidelines with the closest of shaves, although I generally prefer to have more stronger sourcing than this for articles. I also found a review by a publication named Vada Magazine and I'm not entirely sure if that's usable or not- they have a set amount of contributors and an editorial team (a fairly large one, actually) so that does make it a little more reliable than others. That it's written by one of the editors of the site does give it a little more legitimacy than others, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonmead[edit]

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

The article has been round for more than nine years but the only reference is to a local newspaper. I am a great fan of microbreweries and their products but unfortunately they are, almost by definition, very local things which cannot qualify for this encyclopedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage exists; see for example [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. There's enough there to hang an article on, in my opinion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep There has been coverage. Finding it may take some time. I don't have easy access to archival copies of the Detroit News, Macomb Daily and Detroit Free Press. Meanwhile, you and your fellow admins have deleted all the material that was on the page, and left the bowdlerized version. Which you now deem promotional and not sufficiently covered.

You deleted this without notice to any of the major contributors, and with instant deletion, if a notice was posted at all. It was restored. You immediately followed up with WP:PROD. Looking at the whole transaction, this is a self fullfilling prophecy and a kangaroo court. I will WP:AGF, and hope that this only looks bad, and that we can develop this article further.

I have added lots of compelling content and citations. Q.E.D., this is a "Strong Keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Just signing and dating the changes I just made above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the prior article talk page which was deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage history restored; I've also added the references mentioned above to the article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just selected at random ten breweries whose brews were on sale at the Rochford Beer and Cider Festival 2014. the analysis is: 1 - too big to count as micro, 1 - has an article but it is hopelessly stubby and unreferenced (created by an experience editor who ought to know better!), 1 mentioned in the Beer in England article, 7 no article but I suspect that for any of them I could find references comparable to those offered for Dragonmead. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to @RHaworth:: You're a very capable admin, with loads of experience in notability issues. Why do you think that the links presented by Yunshui are insufficient for passing WP:GNG (and thereby WP:V)? --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing to establish notability under the GNG. Also a trouting is in order for an inappropriate use use speedy deletion by RHaworth - there were many past revisions without the slightest hint of promotionalism. Can I get any article I want speedy deleted by dumping promotional text into it now? Additionally, speedy deletion is only for unambiguous advertising, not mere promotional language, and the text and the time of deletion did not meet that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RH made a mistake; we all do from time to time. Let's focus here on the merits of keeping/deleting the article, rather than arguing whether the original CSD was justified or not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 36 references. Putting aside the procedural snafu, RHaworth may have been right about about the lack of sources when he unilaterally deleted it, but his analysis has no application to the article as presently constituted. WP:GNG and WP:V are amply fulfilled. WP:Snow and WP:Speedy keep in February? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Hafspajen (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to more than adequately meet the hurdle of GNG. Some small local companies are more notable than others. If that's down to their promotional efforts, then kudos to their promotional efforts, but we can't take a view on that. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted notice of this debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though this is being turned into a truly dreadful, excessively detailed promotional article based largely on beer websites and 'stuff on the internet'. My initial reaction was a firm 'Delete' but, taking into account the few Detroit news articles and couple of book sources, the company probably squeaks over the notability line. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable and the article seems to be well-sourced. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was the page when it was nominated for deletion. The article has been very well developed by 7&6=thirteen and clearly meets GNG. The article is vastly improved and provides and overview of the history, product and recognition received. A clear keep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are now 44 references and more than a dozen notes, including inter alia the Chicago Tribune. Lots of other references from around the country. I presume that this discussion will close in the next day or two. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article is nauseatingly promotional. Maproom (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Assault[edit]

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

Article looks like an advertising, has insufficient media coverage Verbal.noun (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no evidence of notability, No objections to recreating proving actual evidence of notability can found. –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; I checked Google News for his name (in quotes) and the results are very unimpressive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boons offered to Kaliyan[edit]

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

Besides sectarian references, no scholarly references go in this detail about the subject. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources to confirm this topic. Delibzr (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja :talk: 09:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep South News[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper. The article itself acknowledges that its distribution is very limited. Google finds 52 hits for "deep south news", many of which aren't related, and none of which include substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep South News is a small news company by definition. Having a presence on Wikipedia provides a sense of pride for our employees they have not experienced before. If Wikipedia cannot accept pages that define small businesses, that is disappointing. Is there additional information we can provide to have the page reconsidered? Thank you for the help. Lindsey.kim (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in the interest of its value as a reference work, Wikipedia is restricted to notable topics. If anyone in the course of this discussion can provide evidence that the paper meets any of the applicable notability criteria, the article is welcome to stay. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 AFC U-22 Championship squads[edit]

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

Recreated article after being deleted by PROD. Unsourced list of players, with no prose. Fails WP:NOTSTATS and bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT. Previous consensus not to have lists of players here & here... JMHamo (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT, consensus is there is no need for squadlist articles outside of major senior international tournaments. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, where has the consensus been reached ? Those two links above by JMHamo are for not very well known friendly competitions. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is this, this and this for junior / minor tournaments organised by FIFA confederations. The issue with these, beyond WP:NOTSTATS, to my mind, is that players who play in these tournaments are not considered inherently notable per WP:NFOOTY so, as in this instance, you end up with a load of redlinks, many of which may never result in WP articles. As such, aside from simply being a data dump, the articles are not even particularly useful aids to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as LISTCRUFT, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The competition itself is notable, so the article for the squads is notable as well, just like we have for every other competition. See 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads, 2013 African U-20 Championship squads, 2015 South American Youth Football Championship squads, etc. Not sure why this particular article is being singled out when we have squad articles for literally every competition. TonyStarks (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refresh your knowledge of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and see the AfDs now noted above. To my mind, all those you note should be AfD'd as well. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - It's generally common practice to have competitions organised by FIFA and confederations to have their squads listed on a stand-alone article. Those mentioned above (excluding the SAFF U16 Championship) should be reinstated (though I personally don't care about beach football). Ideally, we'd compile a list of all U17-U23 competitions organised by AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, OFC and UEFA and put their 'squads' article up for AFD. This way, we won't have these regular exchanges. Incidentally, the 2015 edition of this competition is now the Summer Olympics' qualification tournament. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The AfDs above illustrate consensus that non-senior tournaments do not need their own squad articles. The argument that others should be reinstated is not relevant to this. What guidelines / consensus are you using to support your opinion? Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, and agree with Fenix down interpretation of Wikipedia:Listcruft and that it fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add referances: Notable tournament which can benefit from having the squads listed out. No other squad list has been singled out for failing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and I can't see how this fails either. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro:, @Davykamanzi: please have another look at the discussion, examples have been provided which show all such articles for non-senior FIFA or confederation organised tournaments have been deleted in the last couple of years. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not means alone for deletion either. If another reliable source can be provided and the article therefore passes the WP:NOTSTATS requirement I personally can see no reason why this article should be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with TonyStarks and Inter&anthro; the tournament itself is notable, lists contain names of notable players and no other squad lists for other youth tournaments have been picked out for failing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Can't see why it should be deleted. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TonyStarks ,Davykamanzi and Inter.Notable Continental tournament Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Expired WP:BLPPROD — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zazhi Qmer[edit]

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

Unable to verify Postcard Cathy (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, unable to find any sources that would help to verify the contents the article. At first, it appears to be failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
true. If he really was award winning, then info would be out there. Could it be that there is info out there but you have to search sources in languages spoken in India, Pakistan, and other countries in the region? Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–Florida State football rivalry[edit]

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

Not a notable rivalry, hence they don't schedule one another. Looks like maybe a handful of interesting games, and yes there's the recent national championship game, but even then one does not remember even marketing exploiting some semblance of a rivalry. No mention of the rivalry on the FSU Seminoles page. The only mention of it is on Auburn's page. "Rivalries with Clemson, Georgia Tech, Tulane and Florida State were more prominent during Auburn's membership in the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the Southern Conference, and the early days of the Southeastern Conference." Well FSU was never in any of those conferences, and you're stretching early days of the SEC to say Auburn ever played FSU then. Compare this "rivalry"'s beginnings with either of Clemson, Tech, or Tulane. Perhaps UF and FSU were confused. The only mention of the rivalry I find, is of it never coming to be Auburn ends football rivalry vs. Florida State. Cake (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one looks like it is not now, and was not historically, a true rivalry of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as explained above. Neutrality^talk 02:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delsey[edit]

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

Unable to locate any independent sources (only social media and press releases found). Company sources (facebook and company website) indicate founded by Émile Delahaye, but he died (without heirs) either 6 or 41 years before the company was supposedly founded by him. Fails WP:NCORP. Tgeairn (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm scratching my head on this one. The company apparently exists, but their company history doesn't add up. Even their own history is self-contradictory (see Facebook where they simultaneously say founded in 1911 and 1946, or their DELSEY USA Facebook page which is an apparent duplicate, but does not mention 1911). --Tgeairn (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Appears in the Encyclopedia of American Industries, "Delsey is considered to be France's largest luggage manufacturer and among the top three worldwide...". The 1911/1946 dates are explained right at the start of the article, "In 1911, the Etablissements Delahaye specialised in the manufacture of cases for cameras and covered cases for typewriters and record players. Mr. Delahaye and the Seynhaeve brothers joined forces in 1946 to create Delsey." This indicates that the nominator hasn't actually read the article. Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew: Contrary to your assertion, I have actually read the article and spent a couple hours going through poorly translated French articles and lists. The passage you quoted in no way explains how Mr. Delahaye joined forces with anyone in 1946, given that he died in 1905 with no heirs. I explained this concern in the nomination. Tgeairn (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Établissements Delahaye was obviously a business which continued long after the founder died. It merged in 1946 with the Seynhaeves and the name of the new business was derived from the combination of their names - DEL + SEY. It seems easy to find more sources in French which confirm this — for example, see De Mémoire de Marques. All that's needed here is some improvement of the article per our editing policy. If an issue of this sort is found in an article then a cleanup tag such as {{contradict}} should be used. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew, if you have sources that demonstrate meeting WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH, please provide them. Bad-faith assumptions that the nominator did not read the article or did not follow WP:BEFORE do not address the notability concerns. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have already presented multiple sources. Again there seems to be some difficulty in understanding what is already there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - the article is terrible, full of NPOV violations and badly-written COI self-promotion and very light on resources, but Delsey is a household name, market-leading company with worldwide which easily satisfies WP:NCORP if someone can be bothered to put some sources in. Just a couple of quick Google searches for "Delsey luggage", "Delsey market leader", "Delsey household name", etc. bring up dozens of hits from newspapers, magazines, travel websites and trade journals. The issue over the dates of founding of the company is an irrelevant red herring when determining whether the subject of this article satisfies WP:CORP, where I'd say it obviously does. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerlinde Thomas[edit]

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

Artist is the subject of a brief article in a local paper. I was not able to find any info in other RSes. She does not otherwise meet the requirements in WP:ARTIST. The article reads like an autobiography and much of the info is unverifiable. Note that another person with the same name appears in other news articles. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I am a new editor. I have added more references and am happy to be guided by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventthomas (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response posted to contributor's talk page. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the lack of notability, the text is highly subjective and spammy. The second paragraph, for example has no factual content and is pure self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 09:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources asserting notability, apparent COI issues, fails WP:N. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An artist going about the normal endeavours of exhibitions and entries, but at best WP:TOOSOON; no evidence of attained notability to the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaison Morgan[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:BLP. Being interviewed once does not establish notability. Any thoughts? Tigraan (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial references amounting to pr writeups. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to be in violation of WP:BLP and not notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Swanner[edit]

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

This page was tagged for speedy delete as "attack page", but this page has stood since 01:31, 14 April 2007‎. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Manadel al-Jamadi per WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a G10 speedy delete intended only to disparage a living person by association. The talk page is a BLP violation. Length of time is not a G10 requirement. Fails WP:BLP1E. WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME and WP:PSEUDO --DHeyward (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in the article. What happens if the article tells the truth? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What truth beyond false-light libel? Let's say we had an article with Anthony Appleyard, a school teacher, lives alone in a neighborhood where children were molested by one or more persons. One of the children lived next to Appleyard. A neighbor reported seeing the child enter Appleyard's home on a day a molestation was reported but other neighbors disputed those accounts. One of possibly many other child molesters, and an acquaintance Appleyard knew from PTA meetings, was charged and convicted of aggravated child sexual assault. Appleyard said he didn't molest the child next door and said he was asleep when the neighbor said the child visited. No one was able to corroborate the sleeping alibi. Appleyard works for the local school district. He has not been charged with a crime. See what I did there? I created an entirely negative article which would be trivial to source given very simple facts about employments and a criminal act Anthony Appleseed has not been charged with, let alone convicted. How long would you like an article like that around simply because every statement is true and sourced? It's not acceptable and it's why we prohibit attack pages and have a BLP policy. This person is not notable enough to retain only false light association to a crime without any other information about him. Attack page, BLP1E and NN says this biography article needs to go. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BLP1E, while the death of Manadel al-Jamadi has received persistent coverage in both news and books, the individual who is alleged to cause the death have only received coverage in reliable sources only in connect to the death of the aforementioned individual. Therefore, the individual is not as notable as the event, and the article should redirect to the death. Furthermore Manadel al-Jamadi has not received significant coverage beyond their death; therefore the article Manadel al-Jamadi should be moved to Death of Manadel al-Jamadi. The event passes notability requirements per WP:EVENT, but neither individual has received in-depth coverage outside of the event.

That being said, here are major BLP issues as the subject of this AfD is accused, and not convicted, and the article should not disparage the individual or presume guilt.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion rationale applied, Community still want it kept, By the looks of it this will be staying for a very long time so renominating again and again really is just a waste of time. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Weeks with the Queen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. [My redirect of this article was reverted, which was reasonable per BRD, but it was then nominated for deletion by the same editor who reverted me with no deletion rationale.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to my research on Trove and AustLit, Two Weeks with the Queen was multiply reviewed by academic publications at the time of its publication, and won an award. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous afd was overwhelmingly keep, and nothing has changed. Closing admin even wrote "I suggest you don't renominate this judging by the comments below". Not sure why this user has such a vendetta against a perfectly reasonable page. Personman (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was "overwhelmingly keep" because there was no deletion rationale. The AfD was a non-admin close. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article has been improved markedly since its previous nomination. The novel, by one of the leading Australian authors of children's books, has been widely reviewed in notable publications. It has been adapted as a stage play which has been performed internationally and for the BBC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep as a disruptive nomination, this was closed less than a day ago as "Keep". You don't get to just keep relisting pages you don't like until those who disagree aren't paying attention and the discussion is ended. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Perhaps you might read the previous nomniation, where there was no deletion rationale. Or is that now a "get out of jail free card" for articles people want kept? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's not a "get out of jail free card", but equally the consensus was overwhelmingly keep (with a note from the closing user to that effect), rather than it having been a speedy NAC on procedural grounds before any replies were received. To claim that evident consensus was solely based on a technicality that made the nomination ineligible is not correct. The condescending tone and italics don't really show a great deal of good faith. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Lankiveil - Have you seen the academic and media sources I've been adding to the article? I really do think the article shows its notability now. :) --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would understand the argument that the previous nomination did not have a deletion rationale, but gosh how it missed the four whole words of this one. Given the improvements to the article, I am curious as to whether the nominator still thinks this fails WP:NBOOK, which by my reading it passes fairly easily. Frickeg (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Clearly notable and sourced. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard P Hastings[edit]

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

At first glance it looked like there was enough in the publications to be meet the inclusion requirements, but on digging the books turned out to be self published or vanity press. All coverage appears to be from primary sources - I couldn't find anything significant in secondary sources. Bilby (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an advertisement; agree with Bilby regarding validity of sources. Personman (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initially looks good but the sources are either poor or inappropriately cited, and the books are clearly non-notable; fails WP:N ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Joyce Carol Oates[edit]

My apologies - this bibliography article was created with an incorrect title (Bibliography of XXX, instead of XXX bibliography), which I had to correct before deleting the duplicate bibliography material from the main author article. This has now been done, with a link to the bibliography page. A separate bibliography is justified as per guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Merge: Article has duplicate information with Joyce Carol Oates. All the information in this article is already available in Oates article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Maybe it was added after your comment, AKS.9955 LadyofShalott 19:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to this NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/books/the-nobel-prize-waiting-game-a-year-for-long-shots-.html), Oates was running in 2nd place (according to odds-makers) as the mostly likely American to win the most recent Nobel Prize in Literature (2014). And here's a review in Britain's The Guardian for Oates's latest novel (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/12/the-sacrifice-joyce-carol-oates-review) that states. "...of all novelists writing in English now, she is the most adroit at capturing the fusion of real events with invented ones." It also says that she has published 40 novels. And each of these articles corroborate that Oates is both a prominent and a very prolific writer. So a separate bibliography page for Oates is, therefore, justified. Christian Roess (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the redirect it is. There was really no need for this discussion, as the redirect is correct. I'd just close it if there weren't already a delete vote, although I am guessing that is for the list article to which this page points. LadyofShalott 19:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—per LoS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stuff You Should Know. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Clark (host)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Clark hosts a notable podcast, I don't see any evidence that Clark is notable in and of himself. As Cwobeel noted, he fails GNG: there is not substantial coverage of Clark. (There are articles about the podcast, but they only discuss Clark in passing.) Further, SYSK is the only bright spot on his career; the rest isn't significant enough for an article. Clark doesn't warrant an article. I don't think we need to keep the title around at all, but I wouldn't protest if this page were redirected to Stuff You Should Know. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. For the same reasons as the deletion of Bryant's article. Information on the hosts should be included in a separate paragraph in the article on the podcast. Not enough notability and content for individual articles. --Tuluqaruk (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuluqaruk (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. He is the co-host of a podcast that is downloaded more than 1 million times per week and is consistently on iTunes’ Top 10 podcast rankings. He may not have a profile in GQ, but that doesn't mean the coverage of him and his podcast is not notable.--Briancua (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage of him? I haven't seen anything at an independent source that talks about him (not the podcast, but him) for more than a paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Bryant (2nd nomination) - The podcast is notable and has its own article: Stuff You Should Know. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with possibilities per C.Fred above. There is no evidence presented that the hosts of SYSK are independently notable yet, but given the possibility, I think we want to keep the history. BLAR seems the most sensible option. De Guerre (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stuff You Should Know, no sources proving independent notability at present. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, not only to articles about the program, but to profiles of its creators (profiled as a pair, but, still, profiled) in reliable newspapers including the Toronto Star.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTB House[edit]

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

An advert of an advert company. No evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are industry portals not good enough secondary sources to provide reliable information on the subject? What can I do to improve? Chodznadswider (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Chodznadswider[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides multiple independent sources (listed below the article) to back up its content. These sources (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alisoncoleman/2014/10/24/how-polands-globally-outsourced-tech-talent-became-native-entrepreneurs/, http://adexchanger.com/international/rtb-house-leverages-european-ecommerce-growth-to-expand-programmatic/) are neither trivial nor incidental. Some of those sources actually seem based on press releases, but there are at least three which are of a deeper character and provide independent author's opinion of the matter. The company website listed as a source should probably be deleted according to guidelines provided.

In which part of the above I am wrong? Or maybe there is something I missed. Chodznadswider (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes link is to their blog section ([23]), which doesn't seem much more reliable than what most blog offer. Your second link is to adexchanger - the name already sounds like a PR site. Sorry, but I am not seeing any significant coverage by mainstream sources, which is required here. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online advertising is not mainstream and will probably never be. However globally adexchanger is one of the leading sources of information on this topic, though niche or even PR it may sound to people who don't deal with it (By the way "Adexchange" is actually a stock exchange of online ads, where particular ad impressions are bought and sold in real time. There is a number of competing institutions of this kind). So is the case with blogs of people who write about it, which are often the only sources on the topic. Should those more niche branches of knowledge be excluded from Wikipedia, because they never find their way to the mainstream? Why then are there any articles on online advertising in the Wikipedia? By the way - the notability guideline does not say sources should be "mainstream".Chodznadswider (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re:"Online advertising is not mainstream " - you must be kidding or ignorant or Rip van Winkle. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm trying to prove a point. It's not mainstream so most of what it's about will not be mentioned in the mass media - that's my definition of "not mainstream", depends on what you think. Of course, companies which earn on advertising do appear in the mass media, but usually for other reasons than online advertising. My point is that it's barely possible for a niche topic to get reliable "mainstream" coverage, and that what I understand was needed (as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus mentioned). By the way if forbes.com is not mainstream then what is?Chodznadswider (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr explained what's wrong with forbes ref: the key wikipedia requirement violated in this case is the cited reference must have an independent, neutral authorship. Yes, niche topic don't have mainstream media coverage, and that's exactly why they usually don't have wikipedia coverage. Notice I wrote "usually": "mainstream" is not the only allowable kind of sources per wikipedia rules, but absence thereof is a good indicator that the subject is nonnotable. Therefore Piotrus merely stated that he tried to find something usable and failed, so he concluded nonnotability. It is your job, not his, to prove notability. If you will be convincing, he even can change his mind. Please read our policy about admissible sources; I am not going to repeat all of it here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand it better. I'll try to provide some more sources to prove notability.Chodznadswider (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources added.Chodznadswider (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the sources now added establish notability but the article is written in a very promotional tone and needs a rewrite to avert potential NPOV and COI issues. Nonetheless the subject appears to be sufficiently notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by referenced sources. ~KvnG 05:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kick in the Eye. When Merging please redirect after - Don't mean to sound harsh but AFDs like these are a waste of the !voters time and the closers time. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kick in the Eye EP[edit]

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

This subject does not deserve two separate articles, and I have merged the content here into the main Kick in the Eye article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and just redirect the article following the merger. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kick in the Eye per Star. Plausible search term as a charting EP. Gongshow talk 19:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hosseini (computer scientist)[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:SCHOLAR or other WP:GNG : still apparently in grad school, and I don't think scholarships and junior ACM awards (apparently a "student travel award") make the cut. The subject's Google Scholar profile doesn't support a significant impact in his field. This person may one day become a noted scholar, but until then we should not have an article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably a promising student, but the article is a BLP that references no independent reliable sources, and none seem to be available. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given his age, he seems to be a prominent young researcher. Googling "mobile texture streaming" suggests that almost all results in the first page are his contributions. I'm in favor of keeping this page User:arianaa30 (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.255.6 (talk) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. A First-year Ph.D. student, far too soon to have accumulated any academic notability per WP:PROF. Student awards such as he lists are explicitly discounted by WP:PROF, and there is no other evidence of notability. Note: there are other people with almost the same name, making it very difficult to search for publications by the subject, but it's not a good sign that his web page's "publications" sub-page is empty. Searching Google scholar for mobile "texture streaming" as suggested above does turn up three pubs, but they all have single-digit citations, far far below the threshold for notability in a high-citation subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jackson (filmmaker)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carl Jackson (filmmaker) (2nd nomination)

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

This page appears to have been created and maintained by its subject for purposes of self-promotion. Little of its content is sourced, and seven of its nine reference sites are database-generated, even when housed at notable publications' websites. No articles on Wikipedia link to this one.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marjobani (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. I can't find significant coverage, only trivial/ routine snippets, wikipedia mirrors, or modules on NY Times or Washington Post that merely (barely) indicate existence.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{Comment to admin): Is that 2nd Afd nomination tag correct? it links back to this discussion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator of this article, Sarahent, has only edited this and Carl Jackson Entertainment (deleted as spam), has an obvious COI and greets deletion with accusations of bad faith, including racism. the article should be considered on its merits, but the intention of its editor is clear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (There is no unambiguous advertising or promotion on this page: there is evidence of independent sources and notability which was why the first page was deleted. I followed the guidlines to a tee by using this page as my example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_Pictures Finally someone under the name anonymous keeps flagging these pages. I feel this person is bias. They went as far as adding this in the catogory of the United States Of America- related deleted discussions. Wiki clearly states: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.

) --Sarahent (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After disregarding all the puppetry, recruited votes, and other nonsense (this is the first AfD I can remember where oversight had to step in), this came down to leaning towards delete. In the end, the detailed analysis by Fyddlestix is what swayed me. Jbhunley (JBH) made a cogent argument that if you were to go back in time, you could find a historical version of this article which was worth keeping. I give a lot of weight to people who change their minds in the middle of a discussion, because that shows they are actually thinking about the issues with an open mind, not just defending a position. But, the argument by Fyddlestix that even this historical version does not meet our requirements was persuasive, leading me to a delete consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Love[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I have severe doubts about the notability of the subject. The claims to notability are either:

Not in the source at all.
Backed by dead links.
Backed by non-reliable sources.
A select few appear in a few publications.

To boot, we have numerous fantastical claims, like being "His claim to the thrones of the Kingdoms of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh comes from being the last of the House of Dogra not under obligation to serve or recive benifit from the Republic of India." [sic] The subject himself has clearly edited the article to a large extent, given such claims and self-created photographs.

In short, this article is nothing but a poorly written advertisement. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his music video is real. But still: after trying to follow those sources, I have to concur. Delete. DS (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

My Dear Magog the Ogre, Thank for bringing up your concerns regarding the article. Though I believe that in this case you need not have concern.

There are I believe many articles and citation on the subject from different and independent sources. Some of these are even catalogued a website of the subject: http://www.ankitlove.org/nick-cannon/

–Here is a list of a just a few citations in the article itself of independent nature that pertain directly to the subject

Dastur-Arsiwala, Nicole (7 April 2013). "Beethoven with a Touch of Disco". Daily News and Analysis (Diligent Media Corporation). retrieved 30 June 2013.

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epaperimages//ahmedabad//07042013//07042013-md-jaipur-7.pdf

Newstead, Sophie-Jane (23 November 2013). "Interview: ANKIT LOVE Editor-In-Chief of new Science / Fashion publication Mist Magazine". :Joyzine. Retrieved 21 January 2014.

Anderson, Emily (1 April 2013). "How I got here (page 98)". Spirit & Destiny (Yellow News).

–Apart from his own achievements the subject is also the son of a public and influential political and legal figure in India Kunwar Bhim Singh, and thus an ancestor of General Zorwar Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorawar_Singh_Kahluria of the Dogra Rajput dynasty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty there are in links to these pages in the subject’s article too and their very own citations that support the notability of that history.

–Further, fantastical would be perhaps more a statement of opinion to some extent, and the claims maybe numerous but there are none the less made as claims. No where in the article does it suggest that they are anything other then just that claims, based of course on history, heritage and law, while these may not be so well known in the west as yet, there are none the less notable.

Further such claims are in fact common place and appropriate on wikipedia, are you aware of these pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_pretenders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender

I thank for your time, and hope you may be able to see the points I have put forward. All the best. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks योजनबुद्ध for shortening your !vote - Much appreciated :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Davey thank you for your guidance, it's greatly appreciated! :) –I would also like to add another point for keeping the article. The subject could also be considered notable based on being the founder of two publications in the United Kingdom. –He was co-founder and creative advisor of BRIC Magazine an internationally distributed in print quarterly http://bricmagazine.co.uk –And he was founding editor-in-chief of the digital MIST magazine https://facebook.com/MistOnlineMag –Another independent source: http://www.wildculture.com/article/making-science-sexy/1291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

–In addition some of the reasons calling for deletion are based on accusations of vanity and “non-neutral” point of view, I believe the accusations themselves are not justified, I find the article of reasonable and encyclopaedic quality (though do bear in mind for parts of it I was the editor). Yet you will still find that the guidelines Articles for deletion#How_to_contribute clearly states this in CAPS and more, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion..." Even wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has commented on this problem. –Further I would like to add I have now painstakingly researched & updated the citations, and removed a few expired links. Yes, upon learning of the nature of these claims, I wanted to investigate deeper into veracity of the matter myself, and found the subject in London and personally took these photos. They are indeed taken by me, but they are not retouched and are of official legal passport documents with oral permission from the subject to release in public domain. If required, I can also obtain permission via email for confirmation of their release. Indeed, I too find these claims remarkable in nature, but lets us remember that quote from the Heritage Dictionary the 1st citation on notability of the subject "worthy of note or notice; remarkable." Once again I thank you for your time and deliberation. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a lot of sources on this article now, but much of it seems like sourcing-for-the-sake-of-having sources. Many of the links don't mention Love at all, or if they do, mention him only in passing. Those that do focus specifically on him seem to be promotional pieces, screenshots of someone mentioning him on their blog which have been re-hosted on love's own site, fluff pieces in very low-circulation/promotional magazines, database profiles of his company, etc. I see no major third-party, reliable sources here and this whole page just reeks of self-promotion. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Puffery of the worst kind. Fails GNG. Fails WP:ENT. As to the claim of a famous father and even more so some great ancestor makes no difference. Notability is not inherited.~~ That User:योजनबुद्ध thinks posting pictures of this persons passport on a public site is a problem in and of itself, particularly after the first upload was suppressed. JBH (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Why changed to keep: I reverted the article to a version prior to all the changes by User:योजनबुद्ध. That version seems OK. JBH (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP -

1. The events he has listed are verifiable. Low circulation of some sources doesn't make them untrue. That implies that only popular sources count. This is not how information works.

2. It is a fact that he claims to be Buddha or these titles. CLAIMS is the key word here. Whether or not you believe he is Buddha, you cannot prove that he is NOT and it is a FACT that he claims it. We don't have discussions on whether God is THE God in a factual framework.

3. To be frank, I am a former teacher of his at ACS. I have known him for 14 years and stayed in contact. These events are true, not that testimonials are reasons to keep an article. But based on logic, there is no logical reason to take this down. He has cited his sources on the events that are verifiable by nature and the word choices (such as claims) make the unverifiable ones true in their representation. This is a factual representation of who he is. Maybe you don't like the writing style of this, but it has nothing to do with the verifiability of it all. That is the goal of Wikipedia. Isn't it?

Again, this fits the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbowiewulf (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Mcbowiewulf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

CommentUser:Mcbowiewulf Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your very first edit! JBH (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear esteemed Editors, once again thank you for bringing up concerns, I really do appreciate and value them and your time and efforts, but please allow me to reassure you that there is actually no need for concern. —I don’t feel it’s an advertisement as the subject has given away all his intellectual property and copyright, any one can reuse it with out paying a fee, you can see that declaration here: http://www.ankitlove.org/foundation/about/ —Some would even say it may this may bring ridicule to the subject. —Perhaps its the claim to buddhahood that may bother the most, but once again on wikipedia this is also common, only after this was added was the article put up for deletion it had been here for years before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants —By my check of the 109 sources at the moment in this article 85 directly focus on Love, 11 focus on works made by Love, 5 focus on his family or associates, 19 give sourcing for background and happenings concerning Love’s life and places and events. Further many of the sources are independent thrid-party including DNA India perhaps not known in the West but a respected broadsheet in India with readership of approx. 500,000. Spirit & Destiny magazine is published by Bauer in the UK and has circulation of approx. 50,000. And of course MTV and VH1 are indeed well known. I have added a few links to older articles that have been archived on the the subject’s Foundation website, only as they were dead links now, things expire faster on the internet, so I think it’s unfair to use that as fuel for deletion. —I leave you with 3 points and I commend your efforts in keeping wiki a noble and safe place for knowledge, and pray you will see the light, and always wish you the best in your search for knowledge without prejudice. 1.)Articles for Deletion "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.” 2.) notability of the subject " "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.” 3.) Jimmy Wales, co-founder of wikipedia, once said, "it is extremely discourteous without absolute positive proof to speculate that the author of some non-notable biography is the subject himself or herself. Yes, it is often true, but there is zero gain to us from assuming this rather than assuming the opposite." योजनबुद्ध (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things to watchout योजनबुद्ध is malicious person who is after Ankit love for some reasons, He has compromised love's account and uploaded private material on Wikipedia . He is totally involved in illegal criminal activities thus he should prosecuted and banned from this site. --Kindguru (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Kindguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I have restored the article to the last version before योजनबुद्ध began editing it. The personal material has been suppressed bu WP:OVERSIGHT. JBH (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My dear Kindguru, these is a very strong accusations indeed. I wonder about where your fears originate from. The subject is well aware of these edits, and even sent his blessing by email and has sent the photos to be uploaded releasing them in the public domain. I suppose he believes in his claims and wants them to be examined, after all the subject made the claims. I believe he would be happy were his page kept as such too. I pray there would be less fear and prejudice in the discussion of knowledge here and that it may be lighter in tone and feel, though I do understand where you were coming from and appreciate your concerns. There is indeed a great deal of fear of the truth in this day and age of reason. Here are a couple screenshots of what was sent by the subject which I would judge would signify approval of the edits thus far, even though by wiki standards the subjects approval is not required so long as there is a source. 1.) http://snag.gy/iKfVR.jpg 2.) http://snag.gy/FNL69.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that those screen grabs are from a .org address. The original page, before your changes, show a .com address. JBH (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear JBH, I feel it's very unfair to revert these edits, so I have reverted them back, a lot of work and sourcing has been put it to this now. Please the judgment of this page is on Friday. So lets wait till the judgement date and not rush to conclusions trying to erase the history please, I implore and request for us all to wait till Friday when the 7 days shall expire, and proper judgement can be given. I am not sure about what you mean about .org and .com you will find now the official Ankit Love Foundation website i now hosted at www.ankitlove.org योजनबुद्ध (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but keep the shameless self-promotion out (well done JBH). Subject meets WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still a Delete - I voted to delete earlier, and believe it is still a delete despite the fact that the article has now been returned to the state it was in before all of योजनबुद्ध's revisions, and before he and his socks were blocked. Reasons as follows:

I have just spent some time going through the sources on the article, and there is a lot less there than there initially appeared to be. The article claimed that Love had directed a film that premiered at Cannes, for example, but the only evidence of that (other than love's own statements/promotional material) was this IMDB Listing. You'd think if the film had actually played at Cannes I'd be able to confirm that with a more reliable source, but I can't find anything else that isn't promotional material or a puff-piece interview with Love. The article also claimed that he had a "hit" single with Beethoven Burst - but the only valid "charting" of the single that I can find is its appearance (at number 28) on this this FMBQ chart, which I'm not sure meets the criteria laid out in WP:CHART, let alone makes him notable. The claim to a VH1 or an MTV charting seems to have been based on it being the most-viewed video on the MTV Hive website for a single day or week (it's unclear which). The article suggested that he was a race-car driver, but the sources show he was competing at an amateur/entry level. It claims that he has won awards at a number of film festivals, but those festivals are small ones which, on closer inspection, seem to give out the same awards to numerous competitors in the same category/year (ie, it looks like most everyone gets an award at these festivals). This one even advertises itself as an "IMDB qualifying festival," suggesting that it exists for marketing purposes more than anything else.

As far as the GNG goes, these are the closest things to reliable, third party sources that I could find in the article: article one, two,three, four (see page 29), and five. I know they look flashy and well produced, but with the possible exception of the dna india article (number two), these all look like paid/promotional pieces if you look closely. There's no legit newspaper or magazine coverage of this guy, and most of the other sources in the article can either be traced back to his own statements, or seem to be obvious advertising.

I've already removed some of the most misleading and unsourced information from the article (you can check the history if you're curious) but the more I look at this guy the more I think we're looking at someone whose put in an a lot of effort and spent a lot of money to make themselves look notable, when in reality there's very little here to justify having a wiki article about him.Fyddlestix (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work Fyddlestix. I've removed two other claims (see the talk page). This looks as solid as a house of cards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: योजनबुद्ध The things you edited on the Wikipedia page are based on a compromised Linkedin page, Emails screenshots produced are obviously fake. Its an strong accusation but you probably accessed his personal account illegally . Your quite an educated guy why you want to waste your time in defaming a renowned person. Its totally unclear what has interested you to edit his page as i can see you haven't edited any other pages. peace :).

Strong Keep: He is renowned artist. He has written beautiful songs such as Beethoven burst, people are my favorite thing, spill the milky way. There are thousands of references about the artists on google such as itunes, amazon, rhapsody etc. He has Produced movies, Doing non-profit charity work. Worth Keeping. The article should be reverted back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ankit_Love&oldid=631020660. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindguru (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Kindguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment None of the sources you mention are reliable sources. To be a valid source for notability purposes on Wikipedia a source must be an independent third party source - completely unconnected to the subject - PR releases or advertorials, passing mentions, blogs or other user generated content, non-notable awards, all are not acceptable. Based on that there are no sources to support even that version. If the article is kept it will likely be stubbed. All of the sources have turned out to be part of a PR campaign. The only reason I have not changed my !vote to 'Delete' again is he has one song that on a chart that might let him pass WP:MUSICBIO. It looks like this guy spent a lot of time and money to raise his profile but the only was I see him qualifying for an article is on a technicality. Please read the blue links above as well as our policies on verifiability and general notability guidelines to see what qualifies for a Wikipedia article. JBH (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - STRONG KEEP:*** There are 11 (eleven) songs of Ankit Love on the Amazon.com site. ^[1] This guy has just got to be genuine and NOT what some of you are suggesting. Each of the songs has an audio button, as is customary on Amazon music pages. I've been listening to some of the songs and I think they are good, very good. I just don't understand why so many folks are gunning for him so viciously. People with weird name-tags like Magog the Ogre & Fyddlestix. Are you Administrators? Is there some top-secret reasons why has to be deleted? But to me he appears to be a really creative young talent. Certainly a "notable". And astonishingly versatile too - the quality of his writing is really top class. It took awhile but I was able to retrieve a link to the October 2013 issue of the online magazine Mistmag which carries a Letter From The Editor by Ankit Love. Please all, please just read it and then let's see if you still continue to accuse him of self-aggrandizement. Looks to me that we could be looking at a brilliant creative mind here. ^[2] ReefeSong (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)User:ReefeSong[reply]

Comment: 5 news in Google.--333 -blue 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not famous.--333 -blue 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not setting anything in stone on what to do with this article, but I should point out that on the page of Rain Elwood mentions that Ankit Love brought her into mainstream attention. Elwood has since gone on to appear in productions like Rush (2013 film) and Strike Back (TV series). His five appearances in Google News should be of note. I'm leaning to keep right now but I'm going to look at this a bit more. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you've already noticed this Aerospeed, but I want to make sure. I don't fully understand how the article on Rain Elwood was created here (it looks like a move from Egija Zviedre, only that page has no history) but anyway, I think it's worth noting that the creator of both pages is currently blocked as a sock of योजनबुद्ध, who was heavily involved in this discussion and the person most responsible for the mess that this article was in before the deletion discussion started. The same user (Look4Light) also created the article under discussion.

I'm fine if this comes down on the "keep" side but I hope some of y'all will help me keep an eye on the page as someone seems very determined to puff this guy up. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mewawalla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP with WP:V issues (fails verification, misleading sentences, promo), and several of the sources are interviews or his page so not fully independent. Yes there's some secondary sources. There's some WP:LOCAL to San Fran, with local sources.
Digging deeper it seems he's a business advisor/mentor.
May not pass WP:GNG, but what's he notable for? Doing promotion as an advisor is his claim of notability? (see WP:42).
(separately: a promo article, undisclosed (recently blocked) paid editor against TOU. BLP previously deleted.) Widefox; talk 02:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous AfD had blocked socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbollins/Archive, and creator of this was recently blocked for promo, and the other account is an WP:SPA created the day the article was speedied. Widefox; talk 09:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as noted in the article, several of the sources do not mention the subject at all, and the others are either primary sources or interviews with Mewawalla about projects he has been involved in. There is no coverage of the person, no articles about him, and so he does not meet WP:GNG. The fact that the article was created by a known paid shill doesn't exactly strengthen its case. --bonadea contributions talk 10:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete case is well-made in nom. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums censored by Wal-Mart[edit]

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

Per WP:IINFO. Unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it is also a list violating WP:IINFO:[reply]

Delete Both OR lists put together for who knows what reason. And it's not censorship. A store has the right to sell or not sell anything it wants. From Wiktionary: "Censorship The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated." Borock (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - OR, unencyclopedic, unverifiable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. There is merit in having something on Wikipedia about Wal-Mart's product selection and in fact we already have it at Criticism_of_Walmart#Product_selection, where this is covered in some depth. However I don't see where we actually need a listing of every CD that Wal-Mart has refused to carry because not only is that a little too indiscriminate, but it's also a little OR since we can't guarantee that the reasons given on the articles are actually the reasons the store decided not to carry them. Not only that, but using the term censorship is inaccurate for the reasons given by Borock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made the Walmart page, but I don't understand how either one of those 2 lists are directly against Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.242.9 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015‎

Moving this over from the talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both WP:IINFO suggests that lists should be discriminate collections. Since both of these have targeted, specific collections of information, they should pass that standard, with admission that both - especially Walmart - need cleanup. 5minutes (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles would definitely fall under WP:LC. Lists such as these have little to no encyclopedic value at all since they are too trivial and specific. They are not of interest to many people at all and do not correspond closely with any other article on Wikipedia. Although the lists are targeted and specific, their very existence violates WP:IINFO and WP:LC. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These fail WP:NOTCATALOG. Consider - we don't maintain lists of what items a store does carry, so why would we maintain lists of what they don't carry? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Town F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable - never played in an FA competition Kivo (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the successors to the collapsed Scarborough F.C. There are obviously better alternatives to deletion such as merger with that club or the main article on the town. Note that the AFD was not set up correctly, as noted above. I have fixed the template on the article but am not sure what else might still be wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition. No other achievements noted that have garnered sufficient, significant, reliable and non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Not sure I agree with merging, which would give significantly undue emphasis to this club in the original Scarborough article. Maybe a short paragraph at best as this was a short lived phoenix club. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down, never played at a sufficiently high enough level or received sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomjs[edit]

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

~~non-notable software, some mentions found, but no in-depth, reliable sources~~ Deunanknute (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per new ref's Deunanknute (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Phantomjs" should redirect to "PhantomJS" which I was about to do but noticed the nomination for deletion. PhantomJS is widely used with millions of downloads, many dependent utilities, tools adhering to its APIs, and with many different use cases. I don't see how it is any less notable than software like Ember.js or Selenium (Software). Jsoverson (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any independent, reliable sources? Deunanknute (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confident I can find any source that is required, but I wasn't sure what types of information should be included. There are videos recorded and books written about PhantomJS but I wasn't sure if those come off as promotional (none are by me). Large companies use phantom but it's often messages and comments by their employees that indicate it. Downloads, usage and activity are all high but i'm not sure how much should be added since that data is out of date as soon as it is included. Jsoverson (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NSOFT:

Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,^[3] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.

^ http://www.amazon.com/Ankit-Love/e/B00GFZYUJQ
^ http://www.mistmag.com/letter-from-the-editor
^ Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without using WP:Synthesis.

Deunanknute (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with (3) I added a section with an article& books written about and referencing PhantomJS. I can mention my own book "Developing Web Components" which has a portion on unit testing web components with phantomjs but I expect that to be considered a conflict of interest. Jsoverson (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of verifiability/reliability, I don't completely trust O'Reilly published works, and I don't trust Packt. The Threatpost and Stanford references don't contain any depth on the software, just a mention. The current sources are ok for citing facts, but they don't establish notability. Is there any in depth coverage from more reliable sources (book from a major publisher, article/review in a reputable magazine/website, etc)? Are there multiple schools with classes on it, not just that use it? Deunanknute (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- PhantomJS is the first of its kind that gained substantial usage and was the most viable, capable option for the past ~4 years. It has nearly 1m downloads last month from Npm_(software) alone (which isn't the primary download source, just the only number i could easily find). Other headless browsers targeting other rendering engines have come about (SlimerJS for Firefox/Gecko, TrifleJS for IE) and both have adhered to PhantomJS' api due to its fullness, popularity, and effectiveness. It is hard to find reviews of a piece of software that was the sole option for so long, and even when other headless browsers came about they were expected to be used in tandem alongside Phantom as a complement instead of an alternative. That those options also adhered to the exact same API in order to reuse existing scripts shows how notable PhantomJS was in its field. It's not the most exciting thing in the world, but it's very notable for web development testing alone. Add to that the malicious usage, server rendering, and web scraping and it's been a cornerstone in the rise of the web between 2011 & 2015. I'll be gathering more links and references and reaching out to others to do the same. Thanks for the responses so far! Jsoverson (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are the standards for notability applied? The List_of_web_browsers entry has an incredible number of browsers that are obscure^[1], have no^[2]^[3], few^[4], single-source^[5], or non-notable^[6] references. PhantomJS has substantial more usage & more references to usage than many of those browsers, despite all being considered 'notable' as judged by the comment in the page source ("This is a list of NOTABLE browsers, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia") even though many entries have substantially fewer resources (certainly no courses on the topic, no books, no print articles, etc). Jsoverson (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability is applied on a per case basis per WP:OTHERSTUFFXISTS. Basically, just because "Topic A" has an article, doesn't mean a similar "Topic B" should automatically have an article; and just because "Topic C" hasn't been deleted, doesn't mean it won't/can't be. Deunanknute (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources & edits made since nomination seem sufficient. Personman (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PhantomJS is around 50th most popular software repository in GitHub with 13,000 developers having highlighted as favourite^[7], this puts it in the same space as other projects such as Redis, Django, CoffeeScript and Leaflet. In addition, PhantomJS has given rise to a large ecosystem of related projects and several testing frameworks that depend on it^[8]. There are probably hundreds of thousands of users out there. --Sdesalas (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to alternative headless browsers and note that PhantomJS is by far more popular than equivalent projects such as HtmlUnit who already have their own page. In other words, it is notable because it is significant in its specific field (headless browsers, and more specifically - automated testing of web applications). I'm a web developer and there are only two realistic options for automated testing of web applications, you either use Selenium Web Driver or PhantomJS, and only the latter is a true headless browser. Here are some other references from developers with similar experiences^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]. --Sdesalas (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick google check and there are indeed multiple printed third-party manuals on PhantomJS. There is Getting Started with PhantomJS (Packt Publishing, 2013)^[14] and PhantomJS Cookbook (Packt Publishing, 2014)^[15]. The latter one has 8 reviews. --Sdesalas (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to White Marsh, Maryland. Clear consensus against keeping the article. There was support for merging some of the information based on the relevance of the Volunteer Fire Company, so I'll close as merge (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Marsh Volunteer Fire Company[edit]

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

Absolutely no assertion of notability. Nothing historic mentioned in article. I am sure there are media accounts of fires they have fought but so what? A fire department fights fires. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - My apologies. Upon clicking thru the research links above, all that came up were their website website and a couple directory listings. Very few fire departments are notable, this one even less than most. John from Idegon (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to White Marsh, Maryland, which presently does not even mention the agency. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, selectively, per Northamerica1000, probably to White Marsh, Maryland. It can be mentioned in the same way a White Marsh Library is mentioned in that article. The "history" section of the current article is on the margin of perhaps too closely paraphrasing from its source (the history page of the fire station itself); the source is interesting enough and useful for supporting a mention in the White Marsh article. --do ncr am 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–South Korea relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. there is very limited relations between the countries. one very minor visa waiver agreement, a one off grant from South Korea. no embassies and no state visits. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous article Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important relation for Grenada. Grenadian-Korean relations are complex and historically notable due to the Grenadian revolution and US invasion (N Korea sent troops there, although just a handful). Here are some reading on Grenada-S Korea relations; http://thenewtoday.gd/local-news/2012/09/24/equipment-south-korea/ , http://www.openaiddata.org/purpose/381/151/742/ , http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/south-korea-offers-marine-technology-to-developing-nations/ , http://enewsletter.kf.or.kr/?menuno=2689 , http://kor-carib.mofa.go.kr/eng/last/1st_forum_tab01.jsp , http://www.gov.gd/egov/news/2012/nov12/20_11_12/item_6/grenada_receives_vechicles_south_korea.html . Prime Minister Eric Gairy visited South Korea and concluded an economic agreement in 1976, see https://books.google.com/books?id=Y4FyAAAAMAAJ p. 259. --Soman (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea gives aids to a lot of countries, but the assistance to Grenada is not really significant. USD20000 and 3 vehicles is hardly ground breaking. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more important to Grenada than to the ROK clearly. --Soman (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in reliable secondary sources is limited. For instance, I see a mention in a small Grenada newspaper, a very brief IPS mention, and then some mentions in primary sources. This nowhere near enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not the most important bilateral relationship, an almanac is only useful if it is complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how is this an argument for notability? There is no requirementpolicy for bilateral articles to be part of an almanac on WP. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bilateral pattern of coverage in appropriate sources demonstrates notability here. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a compromise would be to merge the S. Korea and N. Korea articles into Grenada-Korea relations, a topic that is definately (considered the turns around the Revolution in Grenada) notable. --Soman (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submit Express[edit]

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

Comment from Pierre Zarokian / Submit Express - I would like to offer my own thoughts on this deletion issue. We are one of the first SEO companies since 1998, with plenty of news coverage and notable references. I could share with you plenty of other pages that have less coverage than us that are in WIKI with no objections. I feel a few competitors are trying to take our page down. I ask that whoever have objections to list exact reasons for their objection. Please also note this page has been up since 2013 and once nominated for speedy deletion for lack of references, but it was declined. Please review all the references such as Forbes, Search Engine Journal, Search Engine Watch, LA Times, Wall Street Journal and NY Ttimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.181.29 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD (see Talk page) My concern is still the same Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH, the citations here are routine and not specifally about the company. JMHamo (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was originally created by Morning277 (talk · contribs), who has a history of socks (See Long-term_abuse/Morning277) and it has since been recreated by TonyAbrahamIsMyName (talk · contribs) (SPA account) and contested by BlackFireCoffee99 (talk · contribs).— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHamo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 February 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH is to have enough material to write "more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." This article is more than that, and it's all supported by reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem is. (I don't really care who created it. I'm just looking at the article.) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you only quote half of that sentence, yes. :P. That's an additional requirement. The full line is Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. ("and", not "or" or "thereby"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I hope the fate of this article isn't going to depend on parsing the 20 meanings of "and". But since I think you were interested in the deletionist/inclusionist controversy, my thoughts on that. The problem with the first half of the sentence, like most of the other rules crafted by people who want to keep stuff out of the encyclopedia, is that it's open to arbitrary interpretation. How deep is deep, and how far beyond is well beyond? The danger is that no matter how deep it may be, it's never going to be deep enough. So the second half, coming after what I read as "and thereby", is an attempt to impose a constraint on this demand for unlimited depth. Deep means deep enough to write a non-trivial article. At least that's the only interpretation that makes sense to me. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The best source -- and it is indeed a good one -- is Forbes. That's the only one that looks to provide significant coverage in a reliable secondary source...which isn't a trade publication. Trade publications count, to be sure, but in the sense that a local paper counts vs. a national paper (important to some vs. important to a broad audience). There are some good industry sources to be acknowledged, like Visibility and Search Engine Journal. So it's borderline, but what pushes it over to delete for me is that all of the best sources are interviews, thus more about Zarokian than the company. That means they count for notability (though I think they make a stronger notability case for Zarokian himself), but are WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of building an article. It's not clear, and I'd be willing to change my !vote upon new sources turning up. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Passing mentions in two RS, the rest of the sources are more or less blatant promoational/self-published. Your average variety spam, burn this and move on. There are thousands entries like this we need to delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is to reiterate what I’ve written previously with regard to this article, on the Talk:Submit Express page: the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and the article’s subject has extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources; it’s been used in the New York Times as The LA Times as a subject matter expert, and its CEO writes for Search Engine Watch and Sitepoint, which are important search engine media industry outlets. They have also been named by Inc. as one of its fastest growing companies in addition to Deloitte naming it one of its fast 5,000, in addition to its addition as a one of the LA Business Journal and the San Fernando Business Journal's Fastest Growing Companies. In addition, the CEO has been named, by ClickZ (an SEO industry media outlet, which its Wikipedia article describes as a resource for online advertising practitioners) as one if its "37 SEO Experts Those in the Know Follow" in 2014.^[1]BlackFireCoffee99 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eisenberg, Bryan (October 7, 2014). "37 SEO Experts Those in the Know Follow". ClickZ. Retrieved February 20, 2015.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Touring Shakespeare Company[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, I could find no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:COMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:SPA article on a company whose existence can be confirmed (a couple of listing entries in Vols 57 and 59 of "Shakespeare Survey", plus a production's inclusion in a composite Spectator review that I added as a reference) but I am not finding the coverage that would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank lee darling[edit]

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER, references are routine, no in depth coverage Deunanknute (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.–Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above, clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whereas I see merit of the arguments of both sides, the consensus has not been reached in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete longevity claims[edit]

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

There is no reasoning behind this article. It's either crystal balling these people or absent just parroting the GRG, WP:OR with about what constitutes verified/not verified/complete/incomplete. The top three sections could be merged to Longevity claims but is already there. As for the content of the tables, incomplete, speculative claims should be merged into the working lists at the WikiProject page (complete or the incomplete cases list) rather than as an separate article from the actual "verified" claims. I'm aware that this was created specifically as a split from Longevity claims but the fact that people have made unmanageable tables of every possible person who is alleged to have lived a long time isn't a reason to keep all that content. There needs to be a line somewhere. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always thought that this material was fanfluff of the most trivial kind which is one reason I split it from Longevity claims in the first place. I see no particular encyclopedic merit in moving this material into any other mainspace article. Moving them into any WP:WOP page would hardly detract from such pages as they have little encyclopedic merit anyway, adding another 70kB to them will just make them (more) bloated. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do you support deletion? I think it's fair to say that this information is trivial and not in line with WP:CSC, particularly the requirement that the list be reasonably short. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection to deletion, although it would be easier if there were sufficient grounds under any guideline(s). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:TRIVIA and if it's unencyclopedic would be the grounds. I disapproved of keeping the WikiProject as a hosting page for speculation about people but that failed at MFD so it's here for now. I put that there because I suspect outright deletion will cause another uproar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back to longevity claims per conversation above. I don't see much encyclopedic relevance on its own. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have no problem with a list specifically defined this specifically. Merging to another article would be unwieldy. --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that merging would make the parent article too big. I don't agree it is trivia, everything you don't like is trivia. I hate sports statistics and they are trivia to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria on a subject matter that is notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as personal research. Yes, it has lots of citations; good research does. Nevertheless this is is unmistakeably a research paper into questionable claims of longevity. Seyasirt (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is the equivalent of a research paper. It only violates Wikipedia policy if it represents WP:original thought. Every name on the list is referenced to an external reliable source, so it is not original thought. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separating "complete" and "incomplete" is the original thought. Are these incomplete because no reliable source confirms it? Are these incomplete because one reliable source doesn't confirm it? The article claims to be people who "lack either a complete date of birth or date of death" but instead include people who do have a complete date of birth (e.g. James Olofintuy) but are said to be "unsupported (or insufficiently supported)" which again are either a crystal ball with no support or WP:OR on what is "sufficient" support that nevertheless is included here for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I have an essay that outlines the reasoning at Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research. Simply sorting the data into two different groups--those that are "complete" and those that are "incomplete" is basic editing and sorting.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete" is an awkward name. "Unverified longevity claims" is a more accurate name. I propose that it be moved to the new name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with that. The name of the article is an "editing" issue and not a "deletion" issue. If we can fix this by simply renaming the article, that's not deleting it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"unverified" would appear to invite entries that violate WP:V. Perhaps Partial longevity claims? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit invites entries that violate everything I hold dear on this Earth. We are stuck with that part. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. All longevity claims are unverified. How about merging this article with Longevity claims? -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 16:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How are ALL claims unverified? We have birth, marriage and death certificates and census information for most people born in the past 150 years in developed countries. We have several organizations that debunk age falsification by doing genealogy work. There is a list here somewhere of debunked longevity claims, if it has not been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't explain that very well. What I mean is that everyone listed in longevity claims is unverified. No, not everyone claiming to be over 110 is unverified, but we typically don't refer to verified cases as "claims" (because it's more than just a claim, it's most likely a true assertion). My suggestion was to add a new section in longevity claims called "incomplete claims" which included claims without a full date of birth/death. -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 22:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't debunked claims. These are claims that are called "unverified" because one organization, the Gerontology Research Group has not "verified" them. The title should really be "List of claims of longevity that hasn't been verified by the GRG" since no other sources are allowed to be used. That's my point, the entire splitting of this list is to treat one source as the word on these claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other organisations can be used as sources for longevity-related articles as long as they establish themselves as a reputable authority on the subject of supercentenarian verification. But as things stand, no organisation compares with the GRG, so they are used as the main point of reference when dealing with the verification status of various cases. It isn't because "no other sources are allowed". What's your alternative suggestion? Because relying on only one source that is reliable and reputable is better than relying on multiple sources that are unreliable. -- Ollie231213 (User talk:Ollie231213) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is an "editing" issue, not a "deletion" issue. The question is: Shall the article be deleted?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name matters because what is defined as "incomplete". People say it's a complete list but it's not, it's a list of things that aren't a part of the complete list. It isn't like we're dealing with incomplete buildings or something, it's incomplete biographies with the birth and death dates unknown. It's basically a list of "people who allege to be very old but we don't have enough information to put them in the verified oldest people list." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defence and Garrison Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. declined prod with no reason. I could no indepth coverage for its Danish name ""Forsvars- og Garnisonsmuseum" only directory listings. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:ORG/GNG with online sources alone, and they should have been added before. -- Sam ^Sing! 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of us have found and added references, including a news story I found through the German Wikipedia entry. I believe it now demonstrates notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- passes WP:ORG through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Sailor and CactusWriter. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelk (software)[edit]

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for notability and sources since 2012 Dialectric (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find anything to get this past WP:NSOFT. Arabic wiki article is unsourced. Vrac (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ALICE: A Large Ion Collider Experiment. Nakon 02:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AliEn (ALICE Environment)[edit]

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

One of many computer systems at CERN; no secondary sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ALICE - sourcing and justification provided by others in this discussion is sufficient for a merge.Dialectric (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AliEn: "ALICE environment on the GRID", Journal of Physics: Conference Series
"AliEn—ALICE environment on the GRID", Proceedings of the VIII International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis
The AliEn system, status and perspectives, Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics
There is something to be said in favor of merging the current stub with ALICE: A Large Ion Collider Experiment, but it's really a different subject. Kleuske (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect votes are fairly common at afd as an alternative to keep or delete. I've seen quite a few software articles closed as merge to the parent company, somewhat similar to merging AliEn to the larger experiment.Dialectric (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ALICE. AliEn (ALICE Environment) is short and ALICE is long so this can be done without WP:UNDUE emphasis. It may be difficult to establish independent notability for this topic as per nom's concerns. ~KvnG 05:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to clarify, not into ALICE which is a disambiguation page. Correct target: ALICE: A Large Ion Collider Experiment.--Gaff (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stuff You Should Know Episodes[edit]

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

A large, poorly-sourced, non-notable list of links to individual podcasts. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:LINKFARM and WP:PROMOTION. - Mr X 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and Keep: As this article was being proposed for deletion, I wrote the following on its talk page: "I threw in a reference section and expanded the article to try to address the concerns. I think it is at least as notable as List of The West Wing episodes, for example, so I don't think we have to worry about notability. Each title is still linked to the page where it can be heard, however. This creates linkfarm concerns which could, I suppose, be gotten around with individual references for each, but this seems excessive." There are plenty of lists of episodes on Wikipedia. Why is this one not notable when the others are? --Briancua (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The West Wing is a critically acclaimed, award wining television series and its list article is abundantly sourced with independent reliable sources. It also doesn't consist almost entirely of a list of external links for downloading episodes, in violation of WP:ELNO.- Mr X 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a fair point, but is your objection that The West Wing is a TV show and SYSK is a podcast? There are plenty of List of episodes on WP, so I'm not sure what the objection is to this one. Is it that each is linked? If so, we can delete the links without deleting the entire article. What if the links were moved to the numbers, a la List of Judge John Hodgman episodes? Would that satisfy you? --Briancua (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) PS - I have moved the links to the episode numbers in the 2015 season to give you an idea of what I am talking about. --Briancua (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add external link: We don't need this huge list of nothing but external links. We're being used as WP:PROMO at this rate. We can delete this article, and replace it with a link on the main article's page to the archive on their site. We don't need to archive it for them. They already have one. Tek022 | Comments? 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I will suggest improve and keep. I've done some work to improve it, such as adding the lengths of episodes, and began a year by year table at the top. I would also like to add a summary cell for each episode in the tables, but I am hesitant to invest a lot of time and effort into it if it is just going to be deleted. I agree this list has issues currently, but I think it has potential. --Briancua (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doesn't appear to run afoul of WP:LISTN or WP:IINFO and I don't think anyone is disputing notability of Stuff You Should Know. WP:LINKFARM and WP:PROMOTION and be fixed without deleting. ~KvnG 05:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Raines[edit]

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

Believe that he fails WP:NRU. He has only played U19, albeit for the national side. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON Gbawden (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (discourse) @ 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from what I could find, there are insufficient reliable sources that give the subject in-depth or significant coverage. Therefore the subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps as the proposer says, it is WP:TOOSOON, and if a future editor can find reliable sources to show that the subject is notable than the article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Regional Director[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, with one exception, all WP:PRIMARY, all captive Microsoft sources. The one exception, an SDTimes article, isn't even really about this regional director program. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the article is overflowing with peacock language, e.g., describing the subject as "a vital link between Microsoft and the developer community". Msnicki (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a notable distinction. Reliable sources appear to exist: [24], [25], for instance. ~KvnG 05:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, both of these sources are published by Microsoft, making them WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful in establishing notability.~~ Msnicki (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that these are published by Microsoft? ~KvnG 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're right, they're not published by Microsoft. But the reality isn't any better. Neither is a WP:RELIABLE source as we use the term and thus, neither is helpful in establishing notability. From their About page, "DevPro is a large and established community of developers, delivering comprehensive, independent content covering the entire Microsoft stack as well as Open Source and Docker initiatives." And from his About page, "TheWindowsClub, is conceptualized, created & owned by Anand Khanse, a Microsoft MVP since 2006, and an end-user Windows enthusiast." Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say keep. Blogs and other material self-published by experts may be reliable. See WP:USERG. ~KvnG 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Here's what it says at WP:USERG: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." How does that support you? I think we can use an WP:SPS as reliable for some purposes, e.g., a USENET post to date when Bash was released, but we never use an SPS for establishing notability because the essence of notability is that others not connected to the subject took notice and that they did so in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. That's not what you have here. Msnicki (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. The first source is not clearly a blog and you have selectively quoted WP:USERG leaving out, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." ~KvnG 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that Anand Khanse and the unnamed authors at DevPro are established experts? Can you write the articles first? Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to be surprised there are not WP articles on these subjects? You don't need to be notable to be an expert. ~KvnG 06:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you weren't offering them as just any experts, these are supposed to be established experts whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Since there are no articles on these experts, perhaps you can point me at their published work in reliable third-party publications. Then again, maybe you can't. Msnicki (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Purdy[edit]

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

I see no evidence of independent notability outside of the band Black Veil Brides. Squinge (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have notability independent of band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Back Slash[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP and written like an advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (reason) @ 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BH Entertainment[edit]

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

This Korean business lacks sources in English confirming its notability. Korean websites (via google translate) confirm its existence but not its notability. Fluent Korean readers may be able to comment more fully Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophist Productions[edit]

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

Article is basically a minimized duplicate of Text-to-Pledge since that appears to be the only product offered by this company. Suggested that article simply be redirected to T-t-P article instead. Ironically, this is exactly how their own corporate websites work; Sophist.com (a redir from sophistproductions) is just a redirect to the T-t-P site. -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 02:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logos & Episteme[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals". Article dePRODded by article creator (who is director of the organisation providing online access for the journal). However, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (spill beans) @ 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Croome[edit]

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

CSD contested. Article sounds spammy and lists many promotional refs (including self-published Apple Letter of Recommendation). He had some media appearances on social media but fails WP:CREATIVE. Dewritech (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dewritech, please help us to optimize the article.

As mentioned by Azubi-Deluxe (talk) on 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC):[reply]

This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance or promotional refs because

Mr. Croome is a public person and relevant in his industry, where he was one of the first (digital marketing) entrepreneurs more than 24 years ago.
He wrote and published several books and audio/video publications.
He regularly appears on public TV, in radio-shows and print-media, like magazine and newspapers.
He is consulted by public and private media, the German government and businesses for his expertise and opinion.
He is a lecturer for the acclaimed Mediadesign Hochschule in Munich, Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin (HSB) and the University of the German Speakers Association.
Since more than 20 years he gives public speeches on digital marketing and new technologies trends.

Why does the article sound "spammy"? The self published Apple letter is an official signed Apple document. Mr. Croome has not "some media appearances in Social Media", but regular presence on public TV and radio.

Everything is referenced within the Wikipedia article and below…

We would be more than happy to change and fix any content, if it does not comply with the Wikipedia rules. Please stop deleting the entry. Thank you very much!

His Klout-score (77) is showing his influence in social media.

References[edit]

Amazon Author-page: http://www.amazon.de/Collin-Croome/e/B004CB7PTW
TV-appearances: http://www.croome.de/img/collin-croome-tv-interviews.jpg
Radio Energy: (0:14) https://soundcloud.com/croome/sets/interviews-1
Radio NDR: (2:04) https://soundcloud.com/croome/schuelervz_ndrinfo_10-04-2013
Klout-score: https://klout.com/croome
Lecturer for the GSA University: http://www.germanspeakers.org/dozenten/show/CollinCroome.html
Lecturer for the Mediadesign Hochschule: http://newsroom.mediadesign.de/campus/erfolgsfaktor-social-media-gastvortrag-von-collin-croome/
German Government:
http://www.csu-landtag.de/index.php?ka=1&ska=1&idn=244#.VNSoA0Jt-I0
Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin: https://www.xing.com/companies/steinbeis-hochschuleberlin/employees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansmeyer71 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we solve this now? Could anybody please help? Hansmeyer71 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability per WP:N not proven by sources provided. There do not seem to be any independent sources confirming or even really hinting at his notability, or non-trivial coverage with Mr Croome as the primary subject. If there was an independent source stating clearly that he was a pioneer in his field, that he is recognised as one of the first digital marketing entrepreneur etc., that would be something, but I can't find any such thing. What we have here, based on the sources given, is a non-notable public speaker and social media personality. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very reluctant not to accept WP articles for German subjects covered by articles in the German WP, a WP with generally higher standards than our own. The editing history of the article there is not reassuring, especially since most of their edits are by a user named "Croome"; I do not think this would, if he were in an English speaking country, meet our requirements. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volkan Karatas[edit]

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

Nothing in the few English language sources suggest that this subject is notable. I find nothing about his first short film when he was 18, that supposedly should have won a price in Rotterdam. The two shorts mentioned in the article apparently has not achieved anything. I'm interested to hear if there is something interesting in Turkish language sources. The few I ran through Google translate did not bode well. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guayaquil (song)[edit]

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

Fails the suggestions at WP:NSONG, fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a non-notable song by a notable artist. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cyberdog958^Talk 00:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, clearly fails WP:NSONG and every secion of WP:MUSIC. No evidence of notability. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Citrone[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BASIC. Only sources found were directly related, lists, stats, or other passing mentions. Tgeairn (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks quality of sources to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infogroup[edit]

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

I thought this might be an A7, until I looked at the complicated history. I think it should be deleted for combination of borderline notability and promotionalism, but there might be more usable material in the earlier version. I suggest looking at the talk p. before commenting here. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comms) @ 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P90X[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparent promotion DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While it's not the best article on Wikipedia, it's certainly a notable subject and has been edited over 1,000 times over the past 6 years by dozens of editors. This subject has not lost any notability since the last AFD. A lot of the sources listed in the article do not meet WP:RS, but at least two do. There are thousands of others available, too. For instance: The Guardian [26], US News & World Report [27], Esquire [28], Time Magazine [29], ABC News [30], The New York Times [31], and CNBC [32]...and those are just the tip of the iceberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability--such as being primarily promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it is promotional? As I pointed out - it's been edited by dozens of editors over 1000 times in the past 6 years. So a couple of those ended up swinging a little more in the promotional realm...fix it. Deletion is not cleanup. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a reason to delete? It seems like it would be better to keep the article if it's notable and just rewrite it to be less promotional. Deletion is, after all, not cleanup. Everymorning talk 01:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to statistics, in the last 30 days this page has been viewed 18,144 times. I think that shows it is a page people find useful^[1]. Alvb talk 21:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/P90X

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the IP. This is a notable workout program with enough coverage in independent sources. I cleaned the article up a bit and tried to reduce the promotional tone. It read like it was the P90x website.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four keep arguments and the only delete argument is the nomination and it's not a valid one. Why does this keep getting relisted?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Orokzai[edit]

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

I came across this via an article that was up for speedy deletion (one of the re-creations of Ali Orokzai, the director's son). After looking at the article I noticed that there were no truly reliable sources in the article and despite the claims made in the article, I couldn't really find anything to back up any of the claims. A search for his film Loori (under "Loori" and Orokzai) doesn't bring up anything in a search either, despite the claims of winning multiple awards, nor does any of the claims of one of the director's films being burned by the Taliban. There may be coverage in another language, but a search in English brings up nothing to really show that the guy is all that notable. I know that English coverage is not the end and beginning of reliable sources, but it is usually pretty telling when a search brings up nothing to back up any of the claims. If anyone can find coverage I'm open to negotiations, but offhand the guy looks solidly non-notable. If this is deleted then I do recommend salting, as it appears that there have been multiple accounts and sockpuppets trying to re-create the article for his son Ali (I think that there have been at least 6 attempts at re-creation so far). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there was an article that pre-dates this one at Said Worakzai, but it makes the same arguments for notability. Since the two are so similar in content ([33]) I've re-directed it to the current article and making a note of this here. I did perform a search under the different spelling, but nothing is coming up and I received more hits under the spelling of the current article than under Said Worakzai, so this new spelling does not do anything to improve notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Spina[edit]

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

Sorry - had a search, and this page seems very promotional and only has weak sourcing. Main claim of fame is that she is the only fashion designer featured in an apparently non-notable publication with the only sources to said publication. Even the designer's press page looks a bit feeble. Happy to withdraw nom if sourcing can be found, but not sure she passes notability. Mabalu (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (tell) @ 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no different from any other fashion designer in Spain, Also this does seem promotional which doesn't help her case here, Anyway no evidence of notability so fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Virginia Junior Heavyweight Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hasn't been defended in a promotion that meets WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cyberdog958^Talk 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot think of an instance where a notable championship has come from a non-notable promotion. The NWA is notable as a governing body but that is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Đurović[edit]

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

There may be sourcing in other languages but I really can't see how this person is notable. Basically a long-standing unsourced BLP. I've searhed for Mimi Durovic and Mirjana Durovic with little joy. It looks like other Veliki Brat winners (Saša Ćurčić, Miroslav "Miki" Đuričić, and Milan Marić) with articles all have far stronger evidence for notability (though unsure re: Milan)). Does her winning this show automatically render notability? I note that the regular season winners don't get an article of their own, but redirect to the regular season articles. Mabalu (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (natter) @ 21:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Round the Square[edit]

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

Regional web comedy; sources are all articles on a website from the same region. No sign of notability outside of Portsmouth NH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (consult) @ 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, poor sources, appears to be non-notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Lafargue, Alvan Henry". Louisiana Historical Association, A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography. Retrieved February 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] ttp://www.amazon.com/Ankit-Love/e/B00GFZYUJQ

[3] ttp://www.mistmag.com/letter-from-the-editor

[4] Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without using WP:Synthesis.

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetPositive

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TomeRaider

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetPositive

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenBrowser

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBrowser

[10] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroB

[11] ttps://github.com/search?q=stars:%3E1&s=stars&type=Repositories

[12] ttp://phantomjs.org/related-projects.html

[13] ttp://blog.codeship.com/what-is-phantomjs/

[14] ttp://www.chrisle.me/2013/08/5-reasons-i-chose-selenium-over-phantomjs/

[15] ttp://cdn.ivandemarino.me/slides/speed_up_selenium_with_phantomjs/index.html

[16] ttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/14099770/casperjs-phantomjs-vs-selenium

[17] ttp://dev.imagineeasy.com/post/90475083894/choosing-your-automated-acceptance-testing

[18] ttp://www.amazon.com/PhantomJS-Cookbook-Rob-Friesel/dp/178398192X

[19] ttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19139598-getting-started-with-phantomjs

[20] Eisenberg, Bryan (October 7, 2014). "37 SEO Experts Those in the Know Follow". ClickZ. Retrieved February 20, 2015.

[21] ttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/P90X

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[1]