Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 February	27 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben o'bell[edit]

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

Not sure if chiefs of staff for state reps are notable enough. smileguy91^talk 23:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There was one good article about him on this blog, but it's a blog. The rest of the hits on Google and all of the references in the article are about the Representative, and notability is not inherited. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to show notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:25, 1 March 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) Ethically^Yours! 04:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh What a Paradise It Seems[edit]

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

Unsourced novel article, notability not established. smileguy91^talk 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – The novella is notable. I have expanded the article and added four references. More could be found. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and points 1. and 5. of WP:BK. It is also held at noted ozzie libraries^[1] oops:)

References

^ "1982, English, Book edition: Oh, what a paradise it seems / John Cheever". www.trove.nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 28 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. Copyright violation of http://www.manchesterhistoric.org/09HPAcs.htm §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Historic Association[edit]

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

Copyvio of [1]. smileguy91^talk 23:21, 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.The subject of the article clearly meet WP:GNG. Promotional tone has no effect on the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quay Valley, California[edit]

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

According to the article, Planned as the largest new town in California, as of April 2010, the Quay Valley project was tied up in litigation over water rights and it is unknown if the project will move forward. The described project was put on hold in 2008 and has not come closer towards construction since then. Sentences like "The project would comprise 25,000 dwelling units that would house 75,000 people, plus themed resort hotels and restaurants, a business park and university research park, restored wetland habitat, trails for nature walks and agriculture in a combination described as the "new ruralism."" sound as if they were taken out of an advertisment that is trying to attract investors. I contest the notability of the subject as there is nothing that distinguishes it from thousands of other real estate projects that have not been realized. Rolledleaves78cd (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)— Rolledleaves78cd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Rolledleaves78cd, as the person who posted that sentence I can tell you that the language came from news media articles, 3 of which are cited, and not from an advertisement trying to attract investors. Armona (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples include [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article to be very useful and informative after seeing a reference to Quay Valley in an article today (Feb. 27th, 2015).

Here is the link to the article:

http://machineslikeus.com/news/first-full-scale-urban-hyperloop-system-planned-california

I vote to keep this article and continue to update it. photojack53 Photojack53 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I agree with photojack53. The towl was referenced in a Wired article today [9] --EvanCortens (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not temporary. As Northamerica1000 showed, this article has reached a level of significant, non-trivial coverage so that it does meet WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a timely and significant article due to the new application that was submitted in February 2015. Armona (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I also found this article informative when searching for info about Quay Valley mentioned in Polish newspaper. Majkelx (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - If the language in this article is questionable, that's not reason to delete the whole thing. Simply change the language (while preserving the information) so that it may sound less like an ad and more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmund (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'm puzzled by the presence of accounts on both sides of this discussion that have few or no edits outside this article or this nomination. The proposer, for example, created the account and then immediately made this proposal. What's going on? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:58, 5 March 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 both. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Ciesiulka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by creator without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Neither for them has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning both articles fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - Fail WP:NFOOTBALL as they haven't played in a Fully Professional League and they don't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to article creator - Sandbox the articles until they become notable. IJA (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - there's little point wasting time deleting these players 3 weeks before the start of the season, when both are signed to a fully professional team, and both seem likely to be playing. USL squads don't sign midfielders to sit on the bench. Let's have WP:COMMONSENSE and not simply delete articles for a few days to satisfy a non-existent rule. If the closing admin really can't wait (why not, I don't know, because there is WP:NORUSH, move to draftspace. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in that essay which says you can't simply wait a couple of weeks rather than toss WP:COMMONSENSE out the window. I'm not arguing that the article not be deleted. I'm simply arguing that we should put a pin in the discussion for a couple of weeks. The example in that essay use an event 17 years in the future. We are talking about players that have recently been signed for a fully professional team that doesn't maintain either a reserve team or an academy, and short of sudden death or losing a limb will almost certainly be playing soon (ironically passing WP:CRYSTAL itself). There's also nothing in the essay you cited that precludes moving the article to draftspace if the closing admin really wants to waste everyone's time by deleting articles that will recreated. It's certainly not a rule, but merely guidance which is then to be applied by intelligent humans, rather than blindly applied in a black and white bureaucratic manner. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the essay says "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future". So in other words, we have no idea what's going to happen. It's about right now. And right now, they don't meet the notability guidelines so they should be deleted. – Michael (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been one of the longest standing consensuses of the Football project and yet you're still trying to give us the same argument that has been rejected almost every single deletion discussion. – Michael (talk) 21:16, 1 March 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. Nfitz's arguments are not illogical, but as noted above there is more that enough consensus in countless historic discussions that, although it is more work, the preference is to delete non-notable individuals and recreate upon meeting a guideline - essentially underlining the notion that we do not create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 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 // 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Seiler-Tucker[edit]

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

Self-promotional, largely sourced from primary sources and press releases. Does not appear notable. Trivialist (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article like Eileen P. Gunn exist but not Michelle Seiler-Tucker? Team 77 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are other articles you can find which don't meet the guidelines, take those to AfD too! Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There sure are a lot of references, but they're blogs, press releases, casual mentions, quotes from the subject (which by the guideline can't be used to support the notability of the subject) and the subject's own website. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet the inclusion requirements - there isn't enough independent coverage. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons as Nha Trang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentogoa (talk • contribs)
Delete Insufficient WP:RS that this passes WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westland Middle School[edit]

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

A middle school with no clear claim to notability. Jacona (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The school has some notable former alumni, including a foreign head of state. We also have an article for the school Barack Obama attended in Indonesia (State Elementary School Menteng 01). Pristino (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per OUTCOMES. Notability is not inherited. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am pretty hardline for redirection of elementary schools, but in my opinion having an alumnus that is a head of state (Chile) is the sort of "extraordinary notability" we should be looking for to justify a keep. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Pristino and Carrite.The fact Michelle Bachelet was student here cannot be overlooked Chilean Leader Walks the Halls of Her Youth :Washington Post and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:48, 3 March 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 // 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dental LED lamp[edit]

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

This article, with its excessive inclusion of material about the physics of light and the biology of light perception, seems to be more an over-inflated effort to sell LED dental lamps than anything else. We don't have an article on plain vanilla dental lamps; it seems unlikely that we need this spammy feeling version on one particular kind of dental lamp. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a translated copy of the Italian Wiki page. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be that as it may, I don't think it has any business here. I looked at the it.wiki version, and I don't think that belongs either. I'm also pretty sure all of the diagrams are copied from GCOMM's product literature about their version of the LED dental lamp, but that's all the problem of the people at it.wiki to sort out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, excessive detail with a hint of WP:OR. The first few sections are just about Light/Optics, Visual perception and Colorimetry in general. And then the promotionalism kicks in like an infomercial. The actual concept of dental LED lamps might deserve a slight mention at Dental engine ("Dental engines are sometimes equipped with lamps."), but even that's a stretch. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Powditch[edit]

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

Attempts to find reliable sources failed. Christian Powdith has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Austin131 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neave Barker[edit]

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

Trivial references that do not meet GNG : his own station's page about him, a PR on his marriage, & what looks like a trivial announcement, tho a dead link. This sort of material is why we have the policy NOT DIRECTORY, DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:JOURNALIST. There are only a few trivial mentions about the subject, nothing that shows notability. Not even borderline. - Becksguy (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources for a bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 5 March 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) 16:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigfred Gande[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:RLN. Was picked for PNG for 2010 Four Nations but withdrew with injury. Has played for PNG against PMXIII sides but never in a test match.~~Mattlore (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-so its the famous was looking to be notable at the time the page went up then it seems. Not sure what to say, but leading towards delete then. Wgolf (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played twice for PNG in the 2009 Pacific Cup. Have added a source to confirm. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In that case he does meet WP:RLN and the article can be expanded. Mattlore (talk) 21:08, 2 March 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 // 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Besson[edit]

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

Badly sourced article about a non-notable musician. All I could find about this person is very run-of-the-mill stuff, like ads to buy his CDs and things like that. There are no substantial sources to be found anywhere. Reyk _YO! 20:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Several source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Sierra Ski Resort[edit]

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

This article is about a ski resort that does not have signifcant coverage in independent reliable source to establish notability. The only reference provided is to a site providing snow forecasts for ski resorts and really represents a directory listing. My own searches find it mentioned in similar directories of ski resorts but no significant coverage about it. Whpq (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Kid Radio[edit]

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

An "award-nominated podcast". Can't see any reliable secondary sources, just other horror podcasts and blogs. Fails WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it passes WP:GNG. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I count less than 100 hits on Google, which is not a good sign for notability. The award nominations don't seem to be significant. It exists, and it seems to enjoy a certain degree of popularity with bloggers, but there's no real coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Crawling (Book)[edit]

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author. No references given, and no references found —teb728 t c 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also believe that the creator of this article may in fact be the author, which makes this page essentially self-promotion, particularly given that--according to the talk page--the book is not actually even published yet. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Actually, the words of the nominator are my exact words from a prod I tried. It also violates WP:COI. ubiquity (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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 speedy delete. —Cryptic 19:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Kumar SLN[edit]

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

This page is clear advertising, however every time I add a speedy deletion tag, an IP address removes it. Therefore, I'm trying an AfD, in order to get rid of this promotional page. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: non-notable, promotional. no references. Does not meet WP:GNG. Violates WP:COI. ubiquity (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - A7 - I've tagged it as such as it's obviously a non notable unsourced BLP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with a speedy deletion, but there was an IP address who kept removing the tag when I added it. Hopefully, an admin will delete the page before this IP turns up again. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I see you'd kept tagging it under G11, Well I've gave the IP a warning so might stop him :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Al Haymon. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Boxing Champions[edit]

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

Was tagged by CSB on Copyvio grounds, then tagged for speedy deletion on promotional content grounds. Article's creator appears to have cleaned up the copyright material, but I am not convinced that this passes the nobility threshold for Wikipedia, so here we are. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm fairly new as a content creator and editor to the Wikipedia community so I apologize for any errors in procedure or inaccuracies in policies.

Can you help me better understand the nobility threshold? My intention was to not make a promotional page, but rather informational as this body of boxing fights is now in existence. I want to make sure that it's referenced properly and cited appropriately. I cleaned up a lot of the copyrighted material since it came strictly from a web site that I help manage. I purposely reworded everything to take the objective approach and not the marketing approach.

Ultimately, I'm not so concerned about the page being deleted, but I just want people to have a reference point when they do search PBC as it starts to go live on network television over the next several weeks.

Please advise on the best way to proceed.

Many thanks in advance.

Davenadkarni (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and recommend AfC - It's got sources and it seems to have potential. This new user is still just learning the ropes. No need for a full delete. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was clearly promotional (also COI) but even that is toned down a bit. The boxing events have not occurred yet but they are not too far in the future and the signing deals are sourced. I am on the fence for this one. Would like to see more independent sources and that may occur after one of these promised bouts actually happens.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same thought, and had initially entertained the idea of redirecting but with the date comparatively close it seemed a better idea to come here first. The pieces are all there, and I'm sure it can build into a well covered article, but at the moment its a little...schizophrenic. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy None of the events have yet happened and this article will have nto be watched carefully to be sure it doesn't become promotional since all the fighters are managed by the same person.Mdtemp (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I see your point and if true the article is somewhat disingenuous - I am sure the original editor (Davenadkarni) will speak up but if true I would vote Userfy if not a Redirect to Al Haymon.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure how to vote on this article. It may become notable but I don't think it's there yet--especially considering there haven't been any events yet. I share the concern about the promotional aspects of a one manager show. I think cleaning up/trimming and then merging this article into Al Haymon seems like a good idea. Papaursa (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was not sure why this was relisted until I saw that all the Userfy votes were a little waffley. This article should be Merged to Al Haymon with no prejudice for re-creation once notability has been established after at least some events have occured.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is formalizing my above comment into an actual vote. I don't believe it currently merits an individual article, but it does seem like it might be significant for Al Haymon (and some of his fighters). Papaursa (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge to boxing 24.103.234.74 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Ip[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 all WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment in fact, Greg Ip is quite a unique name and it is extremely easy to google him and turn up sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources where already reasonable. Finding more 'reliable' source was easy, I've added some. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming Colossal Keep: The guy won a freaking Pulitzer Prize. Nuf 'ced. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not win a Pulitzer Prize. It was awarded to the Wall Street Journal staff, not Grep Ip personally. [10] There is an overwhelming colossal difference. His was merely one of a set of ten articles by the WSJ staff published the day after the 9/11 attack that collectively earned a prize for the paper, not for Mr. Ip. Eight of the articles were written by a total of 18 different reporters. The other two were staff roundups not attributed to any individual authors. Msnicki (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3. Ip is the author of The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World, which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical reviews, [11][12] http://moneyweek.com/book-review-the-little-book-of-economics-greg-ip-63015 (blacklisted link), including one from the Central Bank of Barbados. Altamel (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. It takes more than a couple book reviews to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. The criteria is that it's a well-known or significant work. It's not either of those. It's just a book that got a few reviews, one of which concluded, "if you’ve read a lot of economics in the past, this book won’t be very revelatory for you. It speaks very well to the person who is new to economics, but not so much to someone who studied it in college, for example, and has kept up on the ideas." Another described it as "an excellent read for non-economists". That sure doesn't sound to me like these reviewers think this is a significant work, they think it's a book for people who don't know anything about the subject. Msnicki (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a significant work for people new to the subject. Getting reviews is a sign of notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be that he's a reporter at the WSJ and he has a big Rolodex of people he could reach out to for a review. Msnicki (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yeah, well, I hope you don't mind if we don't pay much attention to your unspoken speculation as to this guy's motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NukeThePukes (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be off-track. I respect your right to your opinion. All I'm saying is that the reviews don't appear to support a claim that the work is significant or well-known as is required by WP:NAUTHOR. You might have a case that the book itself is notable based on the reviews but notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if we agreed the book was notable, that wouldn't automatically make the author notable unless the book also met the additional criteria in WP:NAUTHOR of being significant or well-known. Does that help explain my position? Msnicki (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In fact, Googling instantly turned up a profile of him and his career in the Wall Street Journal, where he now works.[13] He is now a WSJ columnist. the Journal describes his book as "go-to economic guide for college undergraduates, self-directed investors and budding financial journalists". The book was reviewed in multiple reliable news sources. He held a major editorial position at The Economist. He has won a blue-linked journalism award. Why is this at AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McAleenan[edit]

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

Author contested prod. Proded because he is nn skier with one professional race where he came in 120th out of 130. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

almost sounds like a sitcom line or something there! Not sure if it makes him notable or not, I mean he was in a professional race it seems but not the Olympics though. I'm iffy on this guy for now. Wgolf (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject seems technically to meet WP:NSPORTS through competing at the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships, a world championship in an Olympic sport. However, the subject is clearly rather below normal Olympic standard, qualifying only as the best available competitor from a country without much activity in the sport. PWilkinson (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be stretching a technicality to say he meets WP:NSPORTS. In individual sports finishing 120th is hardly worthy of note (who remembers the 120th best swimmer?). No other references besides the ski results makes this practically an unsourced BLP. Fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual does not meet, WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. PWilkinson only some of the sports listed allow for world championship inclusion, Skiing and Winter sports are not listed. WP:SPORTCRIT should be used, and the only reference used on the article falls under WP:ROUTINE. Murry1975 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did manage to find this article about him, so technically not entirely unsourced, but it's not enough to meet the mutiple source significant coverage requirement. He's a late newcomer to the sport, so unlikely to develop a lengthy career. Fuebaey (talk) 02:40, 4 March 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 // 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oval Books[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources are verging on farcical themselves (brief mentions or book recommendations, only one real review of one of their books). Primefac (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not-notable minor publishing house. Related company Bluffer's Media Limited has just been created: am suggesting speedy deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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. List's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of bicycle polo companies[edit]

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

List of non-notable entries. Was going to trim down to notable entries only and remove the (spammy) 'Official site' links, but this would leave the list one entry long. Seems Bicycle polo companies aren't notable enough to comprise their own list. Nik thestunned 13:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had this been a mixture of red and blue-linked it would've probably been a Keep ... But there's only 1 linked so It seems out of 32 companies there's only 1 that's notable here .... Anyway Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Joachimsthaler[edit]

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

Bio of CEO of a consulting firm. While there are several reliable sources that mention the subject ("Erich Joachimsthaler says x" or Erich Joachimsthaler said y"), none of them seem to cover the subject in any depth. Most of the coverage occurs right after a flood of press releases and the subject's TED speech in April 2014. This article does not seem to meet basic WP:BASIC because the coverage in each source is trivial and seems to be related to one event. - Mr X 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - relies mostly on primary/user generated sources, and secondary source coverage is not significant or in-depth. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Goddess of Clodgy Moor[edit]

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

Article about a stone object "returned without acquisition by [a] museum and without comment" which the finder later interpreted as being a stone idol. The only secondary source for this seems to be an article in a local history magazine written by the finder, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability, or to support the claims made by the finder. -- 120.17.62.134 (talk) 07:39, 28 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 a7 -- Y not? 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zipp Cast[edit]

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

This article is about a purported alternative to YouTube.
As ZippCast, this article has be created three times, by my count. It was briefly restored then deleted in 2010.
There has not been an WP:AfD discussion about this website. If the outcome is delete this may enable subsequent re-creations to be deleted under WP:G4
A Google search for this term yields ~~over 9,000~~ "About 689,000 results", almost all about its demise.
The website exists.
I can find no reliable independent third-party sources that indicate the notability of this website. Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can name one which I could easily find doing a Google search "Louis Gualtieri, Jr. Talks About the Third Coming of ZippCast". According to this article the place opened "March 1, 2014" and has been open 2 days from one year as of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.255.200.102 (talk) 04:44, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Syndrome[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO, this should be deleted because it is nothing more than a neologism. The first two references, Tumblr and Urban Dictionary, are not reliable sources. The third and fourth references, Business Insider and The Daily Telegraph, do not mention anything about this supposed syndrome. APK whisper in my ear 09:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. History section is novel synthesis from sources that do not actually support the premise. Actual term is a neologism without any presence in reliable sources that I can find (despite no shortage of false positives). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No standalone notability for the term itself, the rest of the article is synthesis puffing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "nice syndrome" "nice, france" turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors and Urban Dictionary. This "syndrome" seems to be a made up one day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 28 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. Per CSD G12. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Public School[edit]

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

The article says the school is important, but there are no sources given. Nobody has bothered to provide sources since they were first requested in February 2007 nor to cure the original research within the article, first pointed out in March 2008. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a K–10 school. Secondary schools are almost always kept. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Whether a K-10 school is a secondary school depends on the educational system. (In the US, it would be a junior high school.) From the article, Education in Pakistan, grades 1 - 10 are called a secondary school, grades 11-12, a higher secondary school. From what is written there it seems only grade 12 is preparatory for entrance into a university. And the article says that: "Secondary education in Pakistan begins from grade 9 and lasts for four years." DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read their entire web site. While I would be surprised if this school does not teach up to university entrance level, there is no mention of it. On the other hand, the article is a COPYVIO of the school's website anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. It's actually quite clear from the website that it's a secondary school and prepares students for university entrance, but even if it only educated to 16 that's school-leaving age in many countries (including such "backward" countries as the UK!) and therefore qualifies it as a secondary school. If it's a copyvio, no problem, just reduce it to a stub, but it's still a worthy subject for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, WP does not base its decisions of Notability on what the organisation says, but on what WP:Reliable sources say. There are none. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no experience in AfDs on secondary schools and the consensus that has formed about their notability over many years. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio - Better off rewritten imho, –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 4 March 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 Morganza, Louisiana. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morganza Police Department (Louisiana)[edit]

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

This is a, at most, 7 man village police force. Purely vanity article John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Morganza, Louisiana. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Morganza, Louisiana, which includes none of the information in this article. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it is a small department, the article is informational and should be kept. I disagree that this is a "vanity" article. If we delete articles about every municipal police department in the United States that is considered a small department, we will be doing a whole lot of deleting. The goal of Wikipedia, as I understand it is to share information and make it available, not conceal and hide it. Sf46 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, Sf46, but you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia publishes articles on notable subjects. There is nothing in this article, and nothing I can find to show anyone making note of this department. You can usually find at least some mention of most police departments, although I agree with you that very few reach the level of notability required to have an article. For this department there is nothing. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Morganza. Far too small to be kept. Just a run of the mill small town police department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 4 March 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 // 00:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Wave[edit]

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

A term used only sparingly by one band, only one non-band mention that is now deleted. The mentions on Kim Deal are enough. Blah2 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a term that has no significant (if any) coverage, and no mentions in secondary sources. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:20, 26 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, Missvain (talk) 06:59, 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 speedy delete. Per CSD G12, as the article has been found to be a potential copyright violation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eon Reality[edit]

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

page only serves as advertisement, minimal encyclopedic content, all/nearly all content provided by single use/COI users
suggest delete or move to "Draft:" space, allowing recreation if/when article has been improved Deunanknute (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate per nom. May or may not be notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:30, 19 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, Missvain (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT. WP:ADMASQ. Article is a PR cut-n-paste, so copy-vio problems. Pax 09:22, 28 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. Other article's presented shall be deleted under CSD A9, as proposed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromes Dream[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Article has no third party sources or media coverage. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable band with no significant coverage or third party sources to indicate notability. I am also nominating this article as the deletion of this article would mean an WP:CSD A9 for the other article. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:32, 26 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, Missvain (talk) 06:58, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ancient city[edit]

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

Book with no indication of notability, couldn't pull up anything on a Google search, this maybe completely false or a WP:HOAX as far as I can tell. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it's a hoax, but rather something published in another language. This looks like it was written by someone who is struggling with English (ie, not their first language, which is probably Ukranian considering that many of their articles are Ukraine related) and at times it somewhat comes across like it was run through Google Translate. I'd tag this as a speedy for promotion, but this isn't as bad as it could otherwise be. Barring someone from WP:UKRAINE finding sources in another language, I don't think that this work is particularly noteworthy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a poor translation of article Марево давнього Львова at the Ukrainian Wikipedia, about a book about the history of Lviv. Note article Lviv through the ages by the same editor, which corresponds to the Ukrainian article Львів крізь віки, another book on the same subject. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Марево давнього Львова contains two sources that might provide substantial coverage about the book:
1. ВИЗНАЧЕНО ПЕРЕМОЖЦЯ ЧЕРГОВОГО ЕТАПУ КОНКУРСУ РЕЦЕНЗІЙ^WebCite
2. Львів на книжкових полицях^WebCite
I cannot read the sources. But would someone who can read the sources look into whether they are reliable and provide significant coverage about the book? Cunard (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone presents reliable sources that indicate that the book is notable. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:13, 26 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, Missvain (talk) 06:57, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckoo (Monks song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSONG. Tigraan (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:57, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Spiritual Practices[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Does not meet WP:NORG, particularly WP:ORGDEPTH. Tgeairn (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 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, Nakon 04:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. The only source given in the article, and the few I found in a search, are passing mentions, typically "Such-and-such was funded by the Council on Spiritual Practices". I could find no significant coverage at all. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 23 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, Missvain (talk) 06:56, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Rahman[edit]

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

Another page made by the user sandman of a non notable person in films. Wgolf (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:45, 19 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, Missvain (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a mess: no citations, no useful information, hand-waving. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 2 March 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 Samuel Gebru. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Global Initiative[edit]

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

Article with a history of COI and notability/significance issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Samuel Gebru (which is almost up for AfD, but I have !voted keep on). Gebru appears to be notable, but his organization doesn't have any coverage outside stories about him. Thus it is not independently notable and the two articles should be merged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 24 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, Missvain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Samuel Gebru. Agree with ThaddeusB. If Gebru's article is deleted, however, consider my !vote here as Delete as it definitely doesn't have enough to stand on its own. (Gebru's AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Gebru). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Samuel Gebru. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 5 March 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. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett REC7[edit]

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

The rifle has not been adopted by any service and so it lacks notability to satisfy the WP:GNG. The entry in List of assault rifle is sufficient. Sources are mostly press releases. AadaamS (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I could not find notability guidelines relative to firearms, and this does not seem to pass WP:GNG. I would support an argument parallel to the essay WP:Notability (aircraft) that although M4 carbines are notable, this subfamily is not. Tigraan (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Keep, see under RCLC's comment.Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding this rifle as a section in M4 carbines only requires that the information is verifiable, not that the rifle is notable. AadaamS (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @Tigraan:, I have nominated Barrett M468 as well. AadaamS (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but then the article should be merged, not kept. Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources such as the following:

Rifle Shooter Magazine, Herald Chronicle, Shelbyville Time-Gazette, "Shooters Bible", Shooting Illustrated, Tactical Life.

Therefore passing WP:GNG, I oppose this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Herald Chronicle" link is a duplicate of the rifle-shooter-magazine one, and it seems like a press release to me. Shooter's Bible is a catalog and does not establish notability IMO. However, the other two specialized sources (Shooting illustrated and Tactical life) look legit, and the Time-Gazette is enough by itself for me. Hence, I changed my !vote. Tigraan (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tigraan:, thanks for your input. Two industry sources aren't enough to establish significant coverage. If they were both major newspapers or news outlets yes, but they are trade/specialized magazines even if they appear reliable. They are perfect for adding verifiable content to a section of the M4 article though. AadaamS (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the specialized sources, but the Time-Gazette looks like a reliable generalist source (although the truth is that I have no idea whether it really is - it just looks ok to me). Tigraan (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 21 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, Missvain (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We might not need two articles for both the REC7 and the Barrett M468 (given that the former is an upgrade of the discontinued latter within Barrett's 6.8mm carbine family), but merging is a chore I'm not willing to undertake. Pax 09:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Раціональне анархіст I volunteer to do the merging but an admin had better do the deletion. AadaamS (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, we should keep both articles, as it appears there's considerable precedent for giving military OEMs an article for each of their products (even if versions are sold to the general public). For instance, both the Barrett M98 and Barrett M98B have articles despite being apparently more similar variants than the REC7 and M486. (Keeping weapon articles is usually an "Easy button" on Wikipedia because most of them are extensively reviewed by multiple RS, such as those RightCow lists above.) Pax 07:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with you. Any such precedent would be road to a worse encyclopedia. The subject of every article on Wikipedia has to be notable. If there's a "precedent" about firearms just like there is a precedent that every light railway/tram stop in the world is notable by default then I think a policy change of WP is in order. Non-notable firearms should be put into "list of ..." articles or in this case, be made sections in the M4 article. A firearm is just a piece of equipment and it would be very strange to see a standalone article about every home PC ever manufactured just because they were reviewed by a couple of PC magazines. AadaamS (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support that comment. The quantity of reliable sources available is only weakly correlated to notability as WP understands it. I can probably find a subspecies of beaver that has extensive documentation in Complete guide of everything that crawls, and the Complete guide might be acclaimed by biologists, but it certainly is only there for a small audience of specialists. Conversely, the use of chemical weapons against civilians in an area of conflict would most certainly be notable, but the "fog of war" makes difficult to have reliable sources. Tigraan (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Rec7 is notable and sourcing can be improved.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:31, 3 March 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) 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhosle filmography[edit]

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

This isn't list of films Bhosle has directed, produced or acted in. She sings songs which are part of these films. Her songs are already listed at List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle where the film's name is also written. This list is hence redundant. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 21 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, Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Nom has it right here, but this is still a page that people are likely to look for. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:54, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asura (musician)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 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, Missvain (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Has been tagged for notability for five years with no real changes to address the issue. BenLinus 1214^talk 20:43, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Boxley[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources - trivial at very best. Dweller (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 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, Missvain (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. To-date has had lead roles in non-notable productions, and minor roles in notable productions, but no significant roles in notable productions, so does not meet WP:ENT criteria 1. No evidence that at this point in his career he meets criteria 2 or 3 either. Worldbruce (talk) 18:25, 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 redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. No arguments to show that this article's subject is notable have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Badruddin[edit]

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

references dont mention him, or possibly just a passing mention. Summichum (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There are passing mentions in multiple reliable source.[14] I would support redirecting it to Dawoodi Bohra. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 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! 10:26, 19 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, Missvain (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CLERGY and WP:POSITION. Article part of a long-ongoing attempt (one example) to snow Wikipedia with an article on every Islamic cleric whose name was ever put to parchment, regardless of notability. Pax 10:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear whether his position was equivalent to a bishop or grand mufti. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 2 March 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 // 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Terrence Lavaron[edit]

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

PROD as WP:NOTNEWS removed by page creator. Far too soon to tell whether this incident will have any lasting impact. If there is a suitable target for a redirect, such as an article on anti-muslim hate crimes in the US, that would be an appropriate outcome imo. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 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, Missvain (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Dunardi[edit]

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

Subject (the Villa) doesn't have the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GEOFEAT notability requirements. Supposed mentions on Italian tabloid TV are trivial, and fringe pages and obscure forums are not independent or reliable sources. (The serial killer (whose home it was) Giuseppe Raeli, may have notability [15] however at present we don't have an article on him.) LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're in error cause in Google there'are a lot of article about this villa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domicutrona (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Domicutrona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a fair number of google links but what there aren't a lot of is WP:RS this doesn't meet notability requirements after looking through google. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 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! 15:25, 19 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, Missvain (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources are unreliable and there is no evidence at all of encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice on the creation of a Giuseppe Raeli article, but homes require much more than trivial coverage to be notable.
Delete as non-notable, fails WP:GNG. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:39, 2 March 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban underwater city[edit]

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

No credible evidence. A minor story. Bebopshabop (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oposed - it is a famous place and claim, but this article can be sanitized so that the readers actually become educated on this legend. The article is biased toward it being a city. I would shorten the article considerably and render the "city" claims to a single sentence with supporting references all together. Geology hypotheses must supersede imagination and faith. Think of this encyclopedia as an education tool. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. It's the concept that it might be man made that it notable, that is attracted media attention. Article should be factual of course.Borock (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 21 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, Missvain (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples include [16], [17], [18], [19]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skylink, Mumbai[edit]

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

Procedural nom. This was submitted for speedy deletion by Dbottleman (talk · contribs) with the following rationale: "This article displays incorrect information about HBS Realtors Pvt Ltd and its projects, the corporate site www.hbsrealtors.com has no such mention of any Skylink project in its Portifolio. On visiting the location as well, there is no mention of Skylink. The links attached to Callison as well by this author are stubs and do not work. On behalf of HBS Realtors, we request you to delete this page immediately due to publication of incorrect information." I am bringing this to a full discussion, in which I have no opinion of my own. -- Y not? 15:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's the Callison page archived in May 2013 at the Wayback Machine; that resembles the rendering used in the article. The page was still there the following month but by November 2013 had been pulled. The article makes heavy use of a forum, and I am unsure of the relevance of the Times of India reference, which is all about a site ... and I'm not sure it's the right site. Meanwhile, the article says that the project went through name changes, but I still find HBS Towers, Worli on real-estate sites here and here. However, the lack of exterior renderings makes me wonder what the current status of the project is. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Procedural Keep~~. There is no nominator standing behind this. The term "procedural nom" seems to be a euphemism for an editor, in this case < s>Gene93k User:Y, making a nomination but not having any commitment -- they even say they "have no opinion". Without a nominator putting any reputation into making a properly prepared nom, the appropriate response is to Keep, as promptly as possible to avoid wasting more attention. Call for closure, already. --doncram 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is a nominator - it's Dbottleman (talk · contribs), a user with no other edits. Obviously, Dbottleman is not familiar with this encyclopedia's policies, so I helped him or her channel it to the right venue, in this case AfD. I'll make that clear up top. -- Y not? 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying and changing the appearance of this from being one more "procedural nom" for anonymous I.P. editors. Well, this named editor doesn't have much stake either, but I strike my "procedural keep" vote. Thanks. --do ncr am 01:22, 19 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! 16:30, 19 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, Missvain (talk) 06:41, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamikorda[edit]

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

This book appears to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, as I noted when I proposed it for deletion. It is fairly new and was published by CreateSpace, which appears to be a self-publishing company. [20] I could not find any reviews in reliable sources (Goodreads and Scifi365.net do not appear to be reliable), and the awards do not appear to be notable to confer notability as per NBOOK. Most Google results appear to be listings on book-purchasing websites. Everymorning talk 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SciFi365.net is an independent review site; they do not accept advertising or advance copies, and review independent sci-fi novels on a weekly basis. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

confirming Scifi365 is a legit reviewing website. also self-publish is outgrowing "traditional" publishing; historically many works of fiction got their start this way, and there is talk on Facebook and conlang sites about this book Sboitano (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found for this book; maybe it's too soon. A Goodreads review does not provide notability. Neither does a fansite "book of the year" selection. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hergé~~ to Kiitra language, on the grounds that the latter article is more properly referenced and at least there's a linked quotation there. Though I have my own conlang. Parcly Taxel 19:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is that article a keeper, or should it be a candidate for deletion as well? All of its references are self-referential. It goes into great detail about the structure of the language, but the language is merely a feature of this (so far appearing to be) non-notable book. The book article is also written pretty much in-universe, but at least it has one outside reference (the SciFi365 website). The Kiitra article has none. There is no evidence that the Kiitra language has been taken note of by any outside source. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, stance change, delete along with the conlang. I'll save the WordPress blog itself, which is outside Wikipedia. Parcly Taxel 13:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more reasons I can think of regarding why Kiitra should be deleted: Kiitra doesn't have any history like Esperanto and (as I see it now) the guides are transcribed from the primary material. There isn't a community around it yet like Na'vi and Quenya and I don't see any external input by fans even on the official blog. So it is a protostar and in the future may be suitable for an article, but not yet. Since Lamikorda relies on this conlang as reference, once the language's article falls down the book burns away into oblivion. Now we press IJ. Parcly Taxel 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiitra language. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 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 keep. Article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided by Carrite. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Korotkevich[edit]

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

This article was deleted at AfD a year ago, then restored without discussion a month later based on two new but only marginally helpful sources. The subject is basically just as WP:Barely notable today as he was a year ago. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in the depth we normally ask to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful. This article should not have been restored without reopening the AfD for a fuller discussion. Msnicki (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much about CFI, but I can say that whoever is into competitive programming they know about him.--Dixtosa (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is very well-known in the competitive programming community. And he won all major international competitions last year. He is very noteworthy in that respect. Anyone who is new to competitive programming would find this article useful. Millzyman92 (talk) 1:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 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} 23:00, 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! 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You don't pass the GNG through claims that "everyone in the field knows this guy." You do it through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'm seeing blogs and obscure competition webpages for cites. Where are the reliable sources? Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [21], [22] and more. ~KvnG 05:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wired is a good source, and that content's just barely enough. But the second source is a fleeting mention of a couple sentences of the sort WP:ROUTINE debars. Got anything substantive? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This kid (no longer a kid) is clearly at the top of his field, and it's a field that doesn't get much coverage in the mainstream press. The Wired article confirms his status as the guy to beat at this kind of competition. All the other coverage about him is from blogs and such - not things that Wikipedia recognizes as Reliable Sources. I can well believe there is more material available in Belarusian or Russian. I'm inclined to AGF. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't find the previous deletion debate (2014) at all compelling, lacking participation. There is a piece on Генадзь Караткевіч in the Belorussian WP, for what it is worth. I am finding, however, THIS very extensive article from Zviazda "Gennady Karatkevich played "in the dark" ... and won the 'Yandex' 300 thousand rubles," which details Karatkevich's success in one competitive programming competition. Here is ANOTHER article from Belapan entitled "Byelorussian Gennady Karatkevich Wins the Yandex.Algorithm International Programming Championship." This seems to be a recognized leader and expert in a sport I have never even heard of before today. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lest you think this is BLP-1E, it is not. HERE is another piece on Генадзь Караткевіч from Novy chas (New Times) on his $15,000 win at the Google Code Jam. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be shown that the subject himself spells his name the way the article is listed, I would suggest an article move to Genadz Karatkevich, which I believe is correct transliteration of his name, rather than the Russified version we now are showing. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a straight GNG pass as being a subject which is substantially covered in multiple independently published pieces of coverage in presumably reliable sources — not a special Sports notability pass for a new sport. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ONE MORE article from Belorussia for good measure, on Karatkevich going to school in St. Petersburg. He seems to be a National Geek Hero. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 2 March 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 Michael J. Sullivan (author). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The First Empire[edit]

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

Unotable yet to be printed book series. A redirect to the author be the best Wgolf (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 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} 23:07, 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! 19:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it doesn't exist yet and there hasn't been substantial coverage to verify notability before publication per WP:CRYSTAL ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, Michael J. Sullivan, as a holding place until this book series gains notability on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:39, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Florists Association[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this meets the notability guidelines. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH, although to a weakish degree. Source examples include [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Due to the historical nature of the topic (the organization was founded in 1914), additional pre-internet journal and book sources likely exist. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 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! 19:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a state-level trade association. No significant independent coverage has been offered - just routine things like convention announcements in trade journals. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 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, Missvain (talk) 06:39, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is an improper use of a disambiguation page. The articles linked to on the page aren't ambiguous. It is simply a list of all the pages on Wikipedia that include the word "Backyard"--Backyard Blitz, Backyard astronomy, etc. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator on 26 February 2015. PamD has significantly reformatted the article to meet disambiguation guidelines. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in new form: I have stripped out the partial title matches, redirected The Backyard to here (two of its three entries were already duplicated on this page), added useful catchall links to "See also"; I think Back Yard Recordings is justified here - see its article/logo. I suggest that the joint dab page for with and without "The" is better here at the basename because then we can include the useful See also links. PamD 09:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Hi! Thanks so much for making these changes to Backyard (disambiguation). I think this is a much better form for this page and I really appreciate your taking the time to modify the page to meet disambiguation guidelines. I'm going to withdraw my deletion nomination because I think the page is now a fine example of what a disambiguation page should look like and the function it should serve. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 15:22, 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 redirect to Mezmerize (album). Article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cigaro[edit]

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

I don't believe that this single meets the criteria for notability outlined in WP:NALBUMS, specifically "[t]hat a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". Is there evidence that Cigaro has received enough independent coverage from secondary sources to warrant an article of its own? I know it is tagged as "incomplete" but I would argue that unless there are multiple secondary sources that specifically support the independent importance of "Cigaro" as a single, this page should be deleted. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mezmerize (album) - No indication of notability per WP:NSONGS. A Google search reveals only lyric and chord databases—no independent secondary source or critical review coverage that would speak to notability. Per NSONGS, as a non-notable song article, this should be redirected to the album article. Mz7 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mz7. ansh 666 04:34, 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 redirect to Mylo Xyloto. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.F.O. (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song with no ounce of third party notability, failing WP:NSONGS and no significant chart placement. Should be deleted. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mylo Xyloto. Delibzr (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mylo Xyloto per WP:NSONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:57, 28 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. I am taking the unusual step of re-closing a discussion which was closed long ago. Following the tagging of the article for speedy deletion, the article has been repeatedly re-created. Since it is clear that this discussion was in any case heading for "delete", I am re-closing it, to record the outcome as "delete", to prevent "but it was speedily deleted, not closed as an outcome of a discussion" being used to invalidate future nominations for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G4. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was speedy delete - author tagged the article for WP:G7 -- Y not? 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ángel Carrascosa Muñoz[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. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Angel is 100% a professional footballer who has played in the Segunda Division B of Spain. It should not be deleted. Alhosniomani20 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several articles in the category Category:Segunda División B players who also have just played in this league and nothing bigger than this league. How come those articles are still existing? Eg. Tariq Spezie and José Luis Gómez Pérez who have just played in Segunda Division B and the leagues below this. Still there articles exist. Don't delete. Alhosniomani20 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. You should (both) rather try to justify whether the subject passes or fails Wikipedia:Notability (football). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He made his debut against CP Cacereño in the 2011–12 Segunda División B. He also made appearances against other professional clubs like CP Cacereño, Cádiz CF, CF Villanovense, CF La Unión, Real Jaén, Real Betis B, Real Balompédica Linense, CD Badajoz, UD Melilla, CD Roquetas, Écija Balompié and Lucena CF. Many of these have played in top divisions of Spain. Now satisfies the criteria. http://int.soccerway.com/players/angel--carrascosa-munoz/224570/ This link gives all the data about these appearances. Don't delete. Alhosniomani20 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the above mentioned clubs are eligible to play in the National Cup competition of Spain. Alhosniomani20 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following links give complete information about the Professional Player. 1 http://www.rayleague.com/player/158581/details 2 http://www.mybestplay.com/players/soccer-forward-angelcarrascosamu%C3%B1oz-142454ii3.html 3 http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j401465.html 4 http://www.maldivesoccer.com/p/2310 5 http://www.zamante.com/us/profile/soccer-player/angel-carrascosa-munoz 6 http://www.goalscore.com/players/7077/224570 7 http://www.fichajes.com/jugador/j224570_angel-carrascosa 8 http://www.fussballtransfers.com/spieler/j224570_angel-carrascosa 9 http://live.sportlive.co.za/?sport=soccer&page=player&id=224570 10 http://live.sportlive.co.za/?sport=soccer&page=player&id=224570 (Spanish) 11 http://www.match-endirect.com/joueur/angel-carrascosa-munoz-224570.html (Spanish) 12 http://goalaz.com/?sport=soccer&page=player&id=224570&localization_id=www 13 http://www.betstudy.com/soccer-stats/player/224570/angel-carrascosa-muoz/ Don't delete. Alhosniomani20 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL then can someone tell me how the following articles pass these two criterion. Tariq Spezie and José Luis Gómez Pérez Alhosniomani20 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can a player who has played in Segunda División B be not professional? GiantSnowman is that league not professional? Alhosniomani20 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear statistics on the link http://int.soccerway.com/players/angel--carrascosa-munoz/224570/ which shows that he has made 20 appearances in Spain's third biggest league and has scored one goal in the same league. Then how can that player be not professional? Alhosniomani20 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alhosniomani20: you may only !vote once, though you are free to comment as much as you wish (within reason). Please stop multiple !voting - if you continue to do so it might be considered disruptive and might lead to you being blocked from editing. Giant Snowman 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GiantSnowman Ok Sorry. I was unaware about that. But I need reply for my queries mentioned above. I can't afford lose this article. As the player is Professional and there is no doubt about that. Alhosniomani20 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to does it fail WP:GNG. There are clear information about the player on various top websites like soccerway etc.

WP:GNG requires significant coverage. The match reports and player profiles listed in the article are routine sports journalism, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:20, 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 Speedy Delete under A7 and G11 by Frank. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gridlock Party[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, could fall under CSD A7, only notability established is via primary sources smileguy91^talk 03:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Now moot, as the subject page has been speedily deleted and the creating account blocked for persistent promotional editing. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:43, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Gabriel del Rosario Brochero[edit]

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

May not be intrinsically notable as per WP:NOTABILITY. smileguy91^talk 02:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: There is no intrinsic notability on wikipedia, but beatified people are certainly generally notable. This is clearly not an ordinary priest. St Anselm (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wouldn't call it a speedy keep, yes, he does have independent and significant coverage in newspapers and in catholic websites. (latter is translated) Judging from those two sources alone, we can see that there are reliable sources independent of the subject. So with a ref improvement, we can keep this article. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:35, 5 March 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim White[edit]

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

Not sure if this person is notable if her companies don't have articles. smileguy91^talk 02:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment River City Company is a very powerful non-profit organization in Chattanooga that has helped make Chattanooga an award-winning mid-sized city. The Corker company that she was formerly CEO of was owned by US Senator Bob Corker before he sold it to Luken Holdings upon becoming a senator. BillVol (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Got into an edit conflict with you trying to nominate it for deletion... Delete - Notability not asserted in the context of WP:BIO.~~ --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - new references prove notability. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep notability now shown with new ref's Deunanknute (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New and improved references, Checks out for WP:BIO & WP:NOTABLE. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:26, 28 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 with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Rawski[edit]

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

Article does not currently meet guidelines for academic notability as outlined in WP:NACADEMICS. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Notability established by outside sources. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She is a VERY notable historian especially in Qing dynasty studies, and the virtual founder of the American school known as the New Qing History rose in the 1990s. --Evecurid (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above editor is biased because they have only edited in areas regarding Asian history. Yet, surprisingly, they are correct. Passes criteria 1 "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" and 3 "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". She meets crit 1 because she is considered to be a "seminal figure of New Qing History" [28]. Meets crit 3 because she may be or may have been the President of the Association of Asian Studies [29]. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: After consulting the sources you've linked, I agree with you that this article is worth keeping, however it's important that these sources (or other appropriate sources) be cited in the article. As it exists right now, there's no evidence that Rawski is notable--the presence of supporting information elsewhere on the internet is meaningless if it's not cited in the article, correct? Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you should simply request more sources to be cited rather than asking for deletion. At least you should remove the deletion template now. --Evecurid (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Evecurid:, I've removed the deletion and notability templates but I have left the BLP request for citation template. I really do appreciate the work you've put into this article and I look forward to seeing this article more fully cited so the notability of the subject will no longer be in question. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 02:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brass Action[edit]

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

I'm not confident this group passes the bar of notability for bands. I'm not seeing a notable label, significiant coverage that's indepth, national tours or making any charts. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They meet item 10 in the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles": "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable". They appear live in, and have two songs included in the soundtrack of, the film Horns. RichieeihciR (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct but if you read the tail end of that it states "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" The problem here is that the music itself is not notable yet and a redirect to that article for the band would probably leave readers a little confused.. I like indie bands so I do like seeing them get in here but for this band that time isn't now. It probably will be soon though ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, and I appreciate what you are saying - but in this case, the band has 2 songs in the film, they perform their original music in a live performance and have a speaking role in the film, and one of the tunes making it on the Official Soundtrack released by Lakeshore Records. Personally I feel that, all together, that is going above and beyond the very basic definition of Item 10 and justifies qualification (ie its not just a background song).

Further, I am curious about how you look at Item 7, and how you define "prominent". These guys have the biggest online presence/engagement and the most youtube viewership for bands of that genre and area, and have arrange a compilation album that put a spotlight on the scene in the region and united similar artists within. I understand these facts need to be "verifiable", so if the wiki community is not sold on Item 10, would getting a paper to write an article about all this other stuff help make the case?

Appreciate the feedback! RichieeihciR (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look for small things like awards, I wrote a article on The Haunted Windchimes who has delightful music and everyone I think should take a listen to but the only way they are here is they won a significant indie award and they've been featured on NPR. If you can find things similar or that other coverage we can use that for notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good to know. What about my points on Item 10? Ie, not just a background song, but a major scene using the bands original music and their live performance of it. It is one movie, but many items of notability within it. Seems like reasonable justification.RichieeihciR (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't consider that as meeting the threshold. The nice thing about AFD is that you don't have to convince me, it's a discussion between others who will agree or disagree as they see things in relation to policy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

haha, you just answered my next follow up question. Cheers. Thanks. RichieeihciR (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - appearing on the soundtrack of a major motion picture is a decent claim to notability. However, the sourcing is rather weak and I didn't find much more in my searches. More could probably be found is specialty sources for the band's genre, by an expert in the area (i.e. not me). Still the existing sourcing suggests to me the band is notable, but only just barely. Pinging @Onel5969: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the Horns soundtrack itself is definitely notable, so potentially an article on it could be created and this content merged there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, thanks for the "ping", ThaddeusB! I usually don't get involved in AfD discussions of articles I've moved to the mainspace through the AfC process. I always feel that my "keep" should be recognized by the fact that I approved it. However, having read this thread I thought I'd throw my .02 in. Everybody is dead on. I was initially going to decline it based on notability, but the #10 criteria was met. And I get exactly what Hell is saying, that if that is the only criteria, perhaps it isn't notable. I try to err on the side of the author of the article, as I don't want to discourage folks from becoming involved in Wikipedia. The fact that they had a couple of songs in that category (albeit for the same film), as well as the significance of the other artists on the soundtrack also helped sway me. I agree with Thaddeus, that this is marginal notability, but I think it ekes over the threshold. Onel5969 (talk) 19:36, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess it is implied, but I thought I would reiterate my position. I feel that the Item 10 is not only met but exceeded by this band. They perform their original work in the film, with a main character acting as a member of the band; They have a second song as background music; The singer has a speaking role; and, they are included on the official soundtrack, which only includes 11 of the 21 songs in the film. Though all in the same film, each of these successes should be considered separately, and, if you tally it all up, should surpass the intent of the exclusion caveat in Item 10 (ie, more than a background song)24.84.41.137 (talk) 02:57, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nahid Almanea[edit]

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

Non-notable murder. Page was written as a POV fork taking sources completely out of context to suit an agenda '''tAD''' (talk) 02:03, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – WP:RS has been met, although much of the notability revolves around speculation of the motivation. If deleted do not object to recreation should the hate crime aspect is found to be valid.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS - violent crimes happen all the time. even if this is what it has been presented as, a hate crime, they also happen all the time. no indication there has been or will be any lasting significance or impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. But I want to hear more about the nominator's claim that "page was written as a POV fork taking sources completely out of context to suit an agenda". A fork from what other article? Out of context how? What's the agenda? These things may all be true, but you can't just throw them out there without explaining. Everyking (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is notable about it? So far there is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of a murder. There isnt any coverage of public protests, there is no diplomatic cross boarder uproar. there is no indication there is any lasting impact. no "hijab protection law"s passing through parliament or or indication the city council is discussing a "no public hijab" law to "protect" women from bias attacks . there is no international coverage. no series of other attacks that the media is framing as a "Essex is a no go zone for muslims". While this has the potential for notability, its not moved in any of the ways that would actualize that potential. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That coverage doesn't look "routine" to me. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the individual who nominated this article for deletion should not even be allowed to edit on topics related to Islam, since his recent article creations clearly show that he has considerable animosity towards Islam. Secondly, there are many sources which substantiate this thus making it notable. 80.42.78.15 (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Notability of this article stems primarily from media speculation. Yes, speculation. Wishful thinking does not make an article notable. Investigation is ongoing and is so far inconclusive. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopediac value in this entry.--Flexdream (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per user Everyking. No reason to delete per extensive sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 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! 07:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Restore when there are secondary sources, but right now we just have news media reporting the news, and that's a good example of a primary source. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. My Lord, there are incredibly reliable sources documenting this online. Take your pick: HuffPost UK, The Guardian, BBC, Mirror, International Business Times. Al Bawaba, Best Daily, London Evening Standard, and the list goes on and on. British media in particular is all over this, especially with Islamophobia being in the news. Clearly and unambiguously notable. Why did this have to be relisted twice!? --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:N/CA. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Woody Allen TV series[edit]

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

A month ago, there was a widely reported news story that Amazon has signed Woody Allen to create a new TV show. That's it. There is no name for the TV show. There is no date it will be released. There is no cast list. There is no notion of what it will be about.

As much as I love the original TV programs that Amazon has come up with and I'm on the edge of my seat for this Friday's release of the first season of Bosch, this is a news item, not an encyclopedia topic.

WP:NFF says that articles about future films should not be created until principal photography has begun. While this is a TV series, not a movie, that's still a pretty good guideline. This should be mentioned in Woody Allen's biography and maybe in an article about Amazon's original programming, but it does not warrant an encyclopedia article unless/until there is something more to say about it. B (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the television corollary to Hammer's Law. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Hammer's Law is only an essay, not a policy or guideline, I will note that very same essay singles out untitled aritcles based on "rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or Facebook". That is far from the case here, where the information is coming from news outlets which are reliable sources. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we treat TV shows like films, which is not an entirely unreasonable approach, then WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." This show has not commenced principal photography, even for a pilot episode (to say the least, there's neither cast nor script yet!). If that's not satisfactory, but a TV show is considered a "product" (which is, broadly speaking, true), then WP:CRYSTAL says: "Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." Both are aspects of WP:NOT, and so are specific exceptions to the WP:GNG. And, indeed, the article about its creator already includes everything that needs to be said here, at Woody Allen#Future projects. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "If we treat TV shows like films..." I can stop you right there: we don't. I've already addressed this argument, but television-related articles are NOT subject to WP:NFF. I understand there are similarities between films and television shows, but they are ultimately two different mediums, and there is no guidelines for TV articles that says principal photography must have commenced. If you think there should be such a policy, you are free to proposed one at the WP:N talk page, or propose a modification to WP:NFF specifying that it be applied to TV shows as well. But that's not an appropriate discussion for an AFD discussion, and we can't depend on a film-related guidelines when it comes to deleting a TV-related article. (And I've already addressed WP:CRYSTAL so I won't repeat myself, but suffice it to say, the section of that guidelines you are citing (and indeed, all of WP:CRYSTAL, really) mostly seeks to prevent articles based on speculation and rumor, which is not the case here.) — Hun ter Ka hn 14:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Someone doesn't agree with you and you that's evidence to you that they're disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Good grief. There isn't always a guideline that speaks exactly to what you're looking for ... but in this case, there's one that's pretty darned close - the films guideline - it makes sense to see what it has to say. --B (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you talking about? I don't recall accusing anybody of "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". I was just explaining that a guideline was being misapplied. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps this is examining semantics, but the definition of a file is: a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on television. WP:NFF is completely relevant. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the definition of a file", but assuming you meant to say "film", if you're trying to say that television shows and films are the same thing, I think you are flying in the face of common sense. The fact is WP:NFF clearly states it is the "notability guideline for film-related articles". It makes no mention of television, and television articles are not subject to it. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hold in great contempt articles titled "Untitled [Insert famous person] project". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and announced dates are not definite, even if they appear to be. How can the notability of a project be ascertained if we don't even have a name for it. As we know that notability is not inherited, nor is it inherent. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "How can the notability of a project be ascertained if we don't even have a name for it?" The answer, per WP:N and WP:GNG, is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL for about the 498th time; wait until we at least have a plot, cast and airdate before posting details. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here in the least. That guideline refers to "unverifiable speculation", which is not the case here as this subject is clearly verifiable via reliable sources. The nominator also cites WP:NFF, which, as he points out himself, is about films, so it doesn't apply here either. If we're going to apply standards specifically for films to an article about an upcoming television series, what's to stop us from applying those standards to other forms of entertainment, such as an upcoming-but-unreleased novel like Go Set a Watchman? The real standard that this article has to meet is the general notability guideline, which specifies significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article meets all of those standards, and should not be deleted. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And if the project turns out to be a vaporware project months down the line? We need verifiable details about what this untitled show will be about and who will be cast in it. Just because it's Woody Allen doesn't equal an automatic keep; we give the same scrutiny to every television pilot, whether it be Shonda Rhimes or a first-time writer and director. Just look at the hundreds of kidvid projects we end up deleting after their pilots aren't picked up; editors jump the gun and make it seem like a sure thing when it's hardly the case. And the near-universal result for articles titled 'Untitled (person) television series/film/book/album' is they end up deleted as black holes of speculation, and rightly so. Nate • (chatter) 06:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make lots of arguments here, so let me break down my response a bit: 1) "We need verifiable details about what this untitled show will be about and who will be cast in it." Can you point me to a specific guideline that says we need details about a television show's plot description or cast before an article can exist about it? I don't believe there is any such guideline. The guideline that has to be satisfied is WP:GNG. I've argued it has met that standard, and so far nobody has disputed that. 2) "And if the project turns out to be a vaporware project months down the line?" If that happens, we'll cross that bridge, but whether or not that happens is pure speculation on your part at this point. As you've pointed out yourself, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The question we have to ask now is whether this topic meets WP:GNG. It does. 3) "Just because it's Woody Allen doesn't equal an automatic keep." I never suggested that. 4) "Just look at the hundreds of kidvid projects we end up deleting after their pilots aren't picked up." That's a completely different case than this. Amazon has already ordered a full season of the series, as the article (which I assume you've read) indicates. It's not a question of whether it will be picked up. It already has been. 5) "The near-universal result for articles titled 'Untitled (person) television series/film/book/album' is they end up deleted." As I indicated in #4, this series has advanced further than most of the types of articles you suggest. But putting that aside, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid deletion argument. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment We have an announcement. That's all we have. We don't have a cast or plot summary. WP:TV doesn't tolerate this for the 60 or so pilots currently out waiting to be filmed and presented for the 2015-16 season and would delete an article for your average 'Untitled (some writer) project' immediately as a speedy. For instance How to Get Away With Murder was pretty much a lock from the moment Viola Davis was cast in it last year in February, but we still didn't establish the article until a day before ABC announced it, as is proper. We have no WP:DEADLINE for having an article here, and when a proper title and plot has been announced, then it can have an article; for now this should probably at most be redirected to the subject's article or Amazon Studios. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're just repeating the same arguments. Once again, there is no guideline that says a telvision series article is only notable if it has a cast or plot summary. You keep harping on that one, but the simple fact is, you can't point to a guideline to back up your argument, because there isn't one. Also, it's not a pilot, because a pilot is a trial episode made to attempt to sell a television series; this series has already been ordered by Amazon and is a done deal. That is what distinguishes it from "your average 'Untitled (some writer) project'". Your comparisons to How to Get Away With Murder are meaningless per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you wanted to play the comparison game, I could dig up just as many articles that started as "Unknown (name) project" that weren't deleted and ultimately evolved as more details became available; hell, even Irrational Man started as (you guessed it) Untitled Woody Allen Project (2015), and it wasn't deleted then, and everything turned out just fine. And finally, citing WP:DEADLINE only undermines your points, since that same essay makes the case that there is no need to rush to delete articles. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Go Set a Watchman, unlike the work we are discussing, has a title, a plot, and has been written. If the untitled Woody Allen series had those things, we likely wouldn't be here. --B (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I indicated above, there is no guideline that says specific elements of a TV series (plot, title, characters, etc.) are necessary before it can be made. The guideline for whether a topic is notable enough to warrant an article is WP:GNG. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The GNG is not a magic wand. Further down the same page, the notability guideline cautions against stand-alone articles "when information about a future event is scarce", which is certainly true here. It suggests, further, that "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage". The announcement—despite that being made in several different entertainment outlets—that a famous person has been hired to make a TV show is not the same as that TV show being made. Even the GNG notes that topics can meet the checklist criteria and still be unsuitable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The specific section of GNG you are citing cautions against writing "permanent stubs" for "when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it". That is not the case here. Woody Allen is making this project. Amazon isn't simply considering a proposal, or holding brainstorming sessions about it, or holding contract negotiations with Allen. They've hired him, and it's happening. That means the likelihood that "there ever will be a lot to write about it" is extremely high, and the likelihood that it will stay a "permanent stub" are very low. This is a notable subject in its early stages, and the article will develop in time. There is no deadline, and we can afford to take our time in improving the article before rushing to delete it. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no, there are plenty of shows about which you can say the show is going to be made ... until things change and it isn't. There could be creative differences and they mutually agree to cancel the project. He could make a pilot that doesn't get picked up. He could die. Amazon Studios could get spun off into a separate entity that decides they don't like the idea. At one point, there was going to be a Law & Order Cape Town. Everyone everywhere reported this as dead certain to happen. If you google it, there are still articles right now saying that it will be coming in 2012 with 12 episodes. This show was every bit as "guaranteed" to happen as Woody Allen's project. Until it wasn't. It just went away. I have no idea why id didn't get made. Right now, at this moment, there to say about this possible new TV show that cannot be said in a one-liner in Woody Allen or Amazon Studios. When that changes and we have something to say about it, it makes sense to have an article. --B (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Woody Allen could die, Amazon could dissolve, the Earth could explode, etc. etc. Any number of factors could occur, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's not appropriate for us to make those kind of guesses when establishing notability for an article. You simply follow WP:N and WP:GNG, and this article meets those standards. If later it turns out the show doesn't happen (which is unlikely), we can have a discussion about deleting or merging the article then, but it doesn't mean we should delete it now because of mere hypotheticals. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It is possible that the 2016 Summer Olympics might not happen. There might be a war, massive flood, or some other cataclysm preventing the Olympics from occurring. We still have the article, though, because we have lots of stuff to say about them. We can talk about the process of bidding for the venues, the financing, etc. Lots of stuff has happened already about which we can write an article. On the other hand, we do not yet have an article about the 2032 Summer Olympics because nothing has happened. It's a certainty that, barring some eschatological event, the 2032 Summer Olympic games will happen, but we have absolutely nothing to say about them beyond the fact of their existence. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing to say about the Woody Allen TV series beyond the fact of its existence. There are lots of news items that meet the general notability guideline, but about which an article is not appropriate. This is a news story - a deal has been struck to create a show. That's worthy of an article on WikiNews. It's worthy of mentioning in other relevant articles. But until we have something more than one piece of news, that's a news story - not an encyclopedia article. --B (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid deletion argument, so your "We don't have a 2032 Summer Olympics story" argument doesn't apply here. And likewise, your personal opinion that there isn't enough to write about this subject to warrant a story isn't a valid argument either, because we base those decisions on guidelines, not personal opinions. The article will eventually be expanded, but there is no deadline for when those changes have to occur, so the fact it's not being expanded right now isn't a reason to delete the article. And again, we can always revisit this later and bring up another AFD if the show falls through. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you find any example anywhere on Wikipedia of an article about Untitled future whatever where there is no information at all about the topic beyond plans for its existence? Maybe it isn't my opinion that is out of whack with the guidelines. --B (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure I could if I looked, but I don't have to. It would be really helpful if you read and tried to understand WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Comparisons to other articles are completely irrelevant in deletion debates. Adherence to guidelines are all that matters. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) It's insulting to assume that I either haven't read or don't understand the essay or the concept behind it. (2) You keep saying that, as though it's a license for an article to exist that is completely outside the bounds of our normal practices. (I find it slightly humorous, by the way, that you were the first one here to cite a comparison with another article - Go Set a Watchman - and now your main argument is that comparison with other topics for potential articles should be prohibited.) --B (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I insulted you, and fair enough point regarding my comparison to Go Set a Watchman (I didn't mean to compare the articles, I just used it as an example to show that a guideline for films can't be applied to other mediums), although that's hardly my "main argument". My main argument is that this article meets notability standards. — Hun ter Ka hn 12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You should look more closely at the general notability guideline. "Presumed" notable does not mean "it is notable". Specifically, the guideline says that "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not". This is a news item - nothing more - and Wikipedia is not news. Once there is something more than a piece of news, it makes sense to have a separate article. --B (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems we've reached a point where everybody is repeating the same arguments, which I'm not sure is productive anymore. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with you, and I still don't see the harm in erring on the side of caution and simply waiting a little while, then reopening a delete or merge discussion if it turns out this television series falls through (which some people in this discussion keep hypothesizing about and talk about as if its a near-certainty, even though in reality, the chances are quite remote). — Hun ter Ka hn 17:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break[edit]

Keep. One simply has to modify the search parameters to find additional sources, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Was easily able to find thousands of sources in this manner. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody disputes that there are lots of places that reported the news item when the plans for the series were announced. Your "thousands of sources" are just reporting the same news item and not every news item warrants a separate article. --B (talk) 20:56, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I think there is room for, and value to, additional discussion as to the applicability of NFF to television shows, and that the determination of whether this meets whatever bar we end up with for future television shows is or isn't satisfied via the use of specific sources, rather than a Google link and a handwave. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRISTAL. It's absurd for this to exist, at least until it's got a name. Liam987 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. There seems to have been one bubble of news reporting around Jan 13, then every other news outlet rehashed the same bits and/or offered opinions about the television industry or Allen himself. Until there is an actual thing, not just a planned thing, we should not have an article on it. The deal can possibly be briefly mentioned at Woody Allen and/or Amazon Studios in line with WP:WEIGHT. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these new comments are repeating the same arguments already stated above, which I've already responded to. It seems to me this was relisted specifically do discuss the applicability of NFF to television shows, so should new comments focus on that? Maybe Joe Decker (talk · contribs) can clarify. (I personally think such a discussion belongs at WikiProject Television or the WP:NFF talk page, but that's just my opinion.) — Hun ter Ka hn 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone has brought up WP:NOTNEWS yet in this discussion. It's fine to discuss WP:NFF and its appropriateness, but that is not the only criterion. WP:NOTNEWS, a policy not a guideline, is certainly another valid point to consider: an excerpt While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. When there is substantial significant information about the show as an entity, not just speculation about what it may or may not be about, or the state of modern media, only then should we have an article. I can find lots of things that are in lots of newspapers that don't (yet or ever) merit an article: odd news, dumb criminals, and other water cooler news items, etc. I'm not saying this untitled, unwritten, yet-to-be program is on the same par as news of the weird, but until there is real substance to describe, what's the rush? --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "What's the rush" is the exact question I keep wondering about why people are so anxious to delete the article. In the extremely unlikely instance that the show doesn't go anywhere, we can resume a deletion discussion then. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't create articles about topics that we expect will become notable in the future. There is no "rush" to delete this article any more than there is a "rush" to delete any other article at AFD. --B (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the relist note: Until very recently, by the time the TV show was publicly announced, the pilot had already been produced and accepted. I'm not sure if NFF is necessary the perfect criteria for TV shows because a whole lot of pilots get filmed, but never actually get picked up. I'll use as an example, The IT Crowd. A US pilot was filmed. It never got picked up. We don't have and will never have an article on the US show that never was. This happens all the time - a pilot gets made, shopped around, nobody buys it, and we never even hear about it.

You might see a news item here or there that someone is pitching an idea or something, but generally, we don't hear about it until it's a done deal. That has changed a bit with the Amazon model of crowdsourcing their pilots. List of original programs distributed by Amazon#Pilots now has a long list of pilots that are or were available for anyone to watch and most of them have now been rejected and will never get turned into a show. All of them got media coverage when they came out. Very few of them have articles.

We have an article about The After, which was picked up by Amazon, and then, without explanation, cancelled prior to actually being filmed. We also have an article about The Man in the High Castle (TV series), which is one of the 2015 pilots and only just today got announced that it is going to be picked up for a full series. Both are leaps and bounds beyond the untitled Woody Allen series. Both of these have titles, have a plot, and have a pilot episode filmed (the Woody Allen series has none of these things). I'm definitely fine with having an article on The Man in the High Castle (TV series). I was fine even before today (until today, the show had not been picked up). There is tremendous media coverage about it that goes far beyond merely reporting the news that the show was planned. Even if Amazon were to say tomorrow, "we changed our mind", I'm still fine with this article existing because there's still a huge amount of media coverage on it. I'm probably okay with The After continuing to exist, even though that show is now not going to be made.

NFF, if strictly applied to TV shows, would probably permit an article about any TV show where a pilot has been made. That's probably too lenient because, as I said, lots of pilots get made, shopped around, and then never picked up. Probably a better standard is that there is a pilot and it has been accepted or there is media coverage that exceeds merely reporting the news about the existence of the pilot, in other words, it goes beyond routine coverage. But whatever the standard is - NFF, accepted pilot, or coverage beyond the routine, the article in question doesn't come close to any of them. --B (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've actually made an excellent argument for why WP:NFF should not apply to television show articles. As you've said, it would probably be too lenient and allow for an article about any show where a pilot has been made, which would open the floodgates for tons of articles that don't warrant articles. However, this point is completely false: "Whatever the standard is - NFF, accepted pilot, or coverage beyond the routine, the article in question doesn't come close to any of them." NFF, we've established, is a bad standard to apply. As for accepted pilot, the subject of this article is actually beyond that phase. It's not as if Woody Allen is shopping a pilot around to companies trying to get picked up; Amazon already has picked it up. As for WP:ROUTINE, I would argue it doesn't apply in this case. If you take that to mean any announcement in news coverage, I think that's an overly liberal interpretation that could apply to any number of notable subjects. The actual examples listed in the policy are things as "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events", "run-of-the-mill events", "wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs", "routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences" and light stories like "bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award". To me, it's clear the announcement of this show isn't the kind of frivolous announcement that policy strives to prevent. As to your comparisons to The After and The Man in the High Castle (TV series) (despite WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST), I'd just say that you're once again repeating your personal opinion that there are certain elements the Woody Allen series lacks that an article should have (titles, plot, etc.). But articles are built not on personal opinions like these, but on guidelines. We've established that WP:NFF isn't a good guideline to apply to TV articles, and in the absence of a TV-specific guideline, we have to return to WP:GNG, which I've argued this article meets. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon hasn't "picked up" the pilot because the pilot doesn't even exist. They have placed an order for a series. These get changed all the time. They had also placed an order for The After. My claim is that NFF is too lenient and you're arguing that we need an even more lenient standard - one that permits writing an article when nothing even exists about which to write an article beyond a single press release. (Side note: WP:GNG says that coverage must be "independent of the subject". Here is the official Amazon press release. How many of the numerous news articles about this upcoming series say anything beyond the press release?) --B (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quite obviously meant that the series had been picked up, not a pilot. "These get changed all the time." Once again, you're trying to predict the future. Why not bring this article to AFD when and if that change happens? (Which, in all likelihood, won't happen.) And it's not our job to critique the news coverage. The question is are there third-party sources giving coverage to this topic, and the answer is yes. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, for one thing, even if I were trying to predict the future, that has nothing to do with what you linked. Wikipedia ARTICLES should not seek to predict the future. We don't have articles with speculation about future products, etc. Wikipedia editors are freely permitted to predict the future on project pages or talk pages (provided that it's germane to building an encyclopedia, etc). But that's completely irrelevant - the question is whether or not the topic meets our standard for inclusion now, not whether it might meet it tomorrow. Notability is eternal, meaning that if a topic is notable today, it will be notable forever. That, of course, means the reverse must be true - if there is any possibility that the topic will not be notable in the future, then it is not notable today. Since you concede that there is at least some remote possibility that the show might not happen and that in that eventuality, however unlikely, the topic might not be notable in the future, it must not be notable now. --B (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - "We don't have articles with speculation about future products." Who's speculating? It's a signed deal. I cited sources that said it's a signed deal. If this article were based on news stories that said "Rumors are that Woody Allen is considering a show for Amazon," you'd be 100% right. As it is, you're 100% wrong. And I agree with WP:NTEMP, but I've also argued this subject is notable because it meets WP:GNG. And your argument that my statement that we could always bring back the AFD discussion later means I'm conceding that "it must not be notable now" makes no sense. If we follow that logic, are you saying that this article could never be recreated later when more details emerge or the show airs? After all, notability is eternal, so if you're arguing it's not notable now, it'll never be notable, right? — Hun ter Ka hn 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You misunderstand - I was not claiming that the article was engaging in speculation - I was responding to your claim that I was engaging in speculation. As for the eternality of notability, it is only eternal in one direction - the future. If you are notable today, you are notable tomorrow, but if you are notable today, that does not mean you were necessarily notable yesterday. My claim is that it is not an appropriate topic for an article now, though it quite likely will be one in the future. --B (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think agreeing to disagree is the best you and I can hope for on this topic in general. :) — Hun ter Ka hn 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note The Jack and Triumph Show, for me to poop on. — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And please see Triumph,_the_Insult_Comic_Dog#Catchphrases if you're unfamiliar with that one. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please forgive me for being dense, but I'm not sure how that show is a meaningful comparison to this article. It premiers tomorrow and when that article was created last November, there was a title, actors, story line, and all of the other things you would normally expect to see in an article about a TV show - far more than just the news item "hey, we hired this guy to make a TBD show about TBD". --B (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd hope that if the AFD is closed with a result other than keep, that Hunter Kahn be permitted to Userfy the page, for the time when principal photography of the filming stage will have been started on this television program. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, nobody would object to that. --B (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete. This can be spoken of for now at Woody Allen#Future projects where, per policy, this future event CAN be discussed if properly sourced. WP:NFF and Too Soon tell us that until the project actually begins filming, we do not have a separate article on it. Sorry Hunter, but Allen himself is quoted as saying "I don’t know how I got into this. I have no ideas and I’m not sure where to begin. My guess is that Roy Price will regret this". Certainly Allen writing and directing a series for Amazon Studios could doubtless become an excellent article... if or when he actually does it... an yes, occasional rare exceptions are allowed, but those rare exceptions have far more information available and over a longer period of time with which to build a decent article.

If Hunter Kahn wishes it back in a draft space while the production situation progresses, I'd say give it back with our thanks for what it might possibly become. If deleted rather than being userfied or placed in draft space, I would be fine with it being WP:REFUNDed when appropriate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Struck my delete, as WP:NRVE shows the topic of his Allens' upcoming project meets inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]

You know I respect you as a Wikipedian, Schmidt, but I'll just politely point out that, like many of the other comments here, you are citing two sources that apply to films, not TV shows. (WP:CRYSTAL would apply if this were "unverifiable speculation" or rumors, but it's not in this case, it's verifiable through reliable sources.) And, like many of the other comments here, in lieu of a guideline that fits this article, I feel you're citing your personal opinion that there isn't enough info on this yet. But personal opinions aren't what we base these decisions on. Just my two cents. :) — Hun ter Ka hn 13:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All deletes are "soft deletes" inasumuch as they are not permanently purged from the database. And yes, obviously nobody would object to userfication or restoring it without pointless process hoops if/when the series comes to fruition. --B (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only added the "soft" to lessen the impact for a well-meant good faith contributor. I do think if made the topic will easily merit an article, but even if never made it can still be spoken of at the Woody Allen article as something he considered doing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate your concern, Schmidt, but not to worry. The show is going to happen, so if the article gets deleted, another will just pop up in a few months once more details get released. I just don't understand the big rush to delete now and force somebody else to start from scratch later, rather than just give it a few weeks or months. The AFD process isn't going anywhere, it could always be brought back there on the extremely remote chance it falls through. — Hun ter Ka hn 13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the show actually gets made, the deleted article can be restored. Or, rather than deleting it, it can simply right now, today, this moment, be moved to a subpage of your user space, like User:Hunter Kahn/Untitled Woody Allen TV series, so that when the show comes to fruition, you can move it back. Nobody will have to re-type everything. --B (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've preserved it, that's all well and good, but that's not serving the readers of the encyclopedia. I still think having the separate article improves Wikipedia by creating a centralized location (as opposed to a sentence on Woody Allen's article) where all the info is available, and where more can be gradually added with time. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL, period. I'm thinking that the Keep voters haven't read CRYSTAL recently. Let me quote some: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you might not know what "speculation and rumor" means. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I know damn well what they mean: for one thing, I'm pretty sanguine with calling a "series" projected two years out, where the showrunner is quoted as saying he has no idea how he got into it, he has no ideas or notion where to begin, and that the bosses will likely regret it "speculative." Now I get you're invested in rebutting every Delete voter's argument, but last I checked, closing admins didn't grade AfD arguments on volume. You got a genuine rebuttal you haven't already said before, proffer it. If you're just delivering snark, add WP:CIVIL to the list of guidelines worth reviewing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already essentially responded to your main point elsewhere in this AFD so I won't repeat myself. I'll just say any snark you picked up from me was simply my response to yours in the first place ("I'm thinking that the Keep voters haven't read CRYSTAL recently"), but apologies anyway, I will be more civil. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And actually Nha Trang the very first point of Crystal policy does allow it to be written of when it instructs "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

So the question for a separate article is not based so much upon based coverage meeting WP:GNG (it does) as it is dependent upon whether or not the discussed series will actually be made. If it is made, then notability is assured. If not, it can still be (and already is) written of for now in the Woody Allen article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitrary Section Break 2[edit]

Changed to Keep. In looking to its extensive coverage [30] we have a notable topic in his next project... and it is one which POLICY states can be spoken of within these pages. The essay WP:HAMMER is fine, but does not apply to all such cases. It being as yet untitled is less an issue as "Every year, Woody Allen releases a new film. And every year it’s titled “The Untitled Woody Allen Project”, well… until it has a title." That being his sourcable process, it is acceptable and allows this as one of those reasonable exceptions. We can move the article to its name when sourcable.

And a note to User B to answer a question you posed up above... Yes, I can recall exceptions, allowed per their extensive coverage. For instance we've had several early articles on various Hobbit film projects before they began filming, and when all we had was well-sourced speculation and confirmation of plans... kept per coverage and then moved to their final titles when known. In this case, Amazon HAS ordered a first season. It serves the project and its readers to have this spoken of and sourced in one location. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:04, 21 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 // 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that's very true that exceptions to NFF can be made when there is extensive coverage, is that really the case here? This is a news item based on a single press release. That press release has been quoted by 40,900 news sources. But that's it. There is NOTHING else to say about it. You click on any of these articles and they don't have anything new to say beyond what was in the press release. It's a news item and we don't make separate encyclopedia articles about every single news item. Comcast had their quarterly earnings report and announced a dividend. This is covered widely in the media and I get about 16,000 Google news hits on it. Are we going to create an article called Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend? No, because it's just a news item. And before someone screams (again) OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, this is an illustration of what is a news item vs what is an encyclopedia article. When something else happens (a name is announced, actors are hired, filming starts, etc) then it makes sense to have an article. Until then, it's just a news item that should be at WikiNews, not in an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already made this point, and I've already said my piece on this multiple times, so I'm not going to respond except to say that a signed television series that is under development and a quarterly earnings report is not remotely comparable, even putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. You and I have debated this over and over, and no clear consensus has been reached, so IMHO, I honestly don't think it's worthwhile to continue that back and forth and we should let other voices chime in and respond to them if need be. Again, just my opinion. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  (ADDENDUM: Apologies, B, because your comment was underneath the "relisted" tag, I thought you were simply starting a new comment thread, I didn't realize you were responding to a direct statement. My mistake. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  - I responded to something specifically directed at me. I apologize if responding to a comment directed specifically at me is offensive in some way. I think there is a pretty clear consensus to delete, but, two reviewing admins disagree so I will defer to their opinions. You think that our normal practices of not having articles about topics that are merely news items should not apply in this case because of an essay on what constitutes good and bad arguments. The original idea behind OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and, by extension OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) is that merely because we tolerate (or don't know about) one article that violates our inclusion guidelines or is a borderline violation of the same does not mean that we should go create more of the same. ("But Susy did it" is not an excuse when Bobby does it.) It is NOT a rejection of the principle of letting our standard practices be a guide to proper decision making. Let me ask this silly question - what argument have you made for keeping this article that would not apply equally well to having an article on Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend? I 100% agree with you that common sense forbids having an article on Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend and if your interpretation of a rule would permit having an article on such an absurd topic, then I suggest that your interpretation of the rule may be flawed. --B (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've said, I've already made my arguments as to why this article meets WP:GNG and why it is more notable than some random news story, and I will not engage in this back-and-forth with you anymore. We've been debating this for nearly a month now and are simply repeating the same arguments at this point, and there's simply no more value in two people dominating an AFD, which will lead to nothing but deadline and an inevitable lack of consensus. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fruganism[edit]

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

Only other reference to this topic is on a blog. Not many sources describe this philosophy. smileguy91^talk 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic, fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources found in news, books or otherwise. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly made-up one day. No reliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete No book hits, precious few web hits and lots of those seem to be in Arabic and aren't obviously related to this. Seyasirt (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:21, 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.

[1] "1982, English, Book edition: Oh, what a paradise it seems / John Cheever". www.trove.nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

[1]