Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 December	2 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Hesse[edit]

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

non-notable lecturer/writer Bistropha (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bistropha (talk) 22:55, 1 January 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 January 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of RS coverage, Google Books results are not very numerous and appear to be exclusively false positives. Also, Google searching turns up mainly videos of Hesse talking, blogs, and forums. Everymorning talk 23:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sympathetic to inclusion, generally, but this guy was really small potatoes in the Catholic traditionalist movement.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A10 on the grounds that Capital Region Airport Authority (Michigan) already exists. That article will be moved to this title as there is no need for the disambiguation. No prejudice against speedy renomination of the older article. SpinningSpark 01:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Region Airport Authority[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NAIRPORTS. Results on Google would show up on many non-notable airports.~~ WP:MILL also. Article recently created. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I now realize that the subject isn't even an airport, but an overarching organization. Still WP:MILL, and fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG because I can't find significant coverage. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is that the topic lacks the sources needed to satisfy WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Escobar[edit]

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

Probable hoax. If this were true (unsolved disappearance leading to disclosures that helped to prompt a House of Representatives bill) there would surely be some trace on-line, but I can find nothing relevant except obvious mirrors (including this "book"). In any case, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V. Vrac (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with User:Vrac. Can't verify. NickCT (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- before weighing in here I complied with WP:BEFORE, found some references that were not mirrors of this article, and I am convinced this article is not a hoax. The first reference I found and included dates back to 2006, when the article was started. By itself it is not enough to measure up to today's standards of notability. But I don't doubt that there would have been sufficient references available in 2006 to measure up to the notability standards of 2006. So any suggestions that this article is an instance of vandalism should be withdrawn.
I won't weigh in with a keep, delete or redirect opinion without looking more thoroughly for references. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmynews is a "citizens" journalism site, making it an unreliable source. The article in ohmynews links to this wikipedia article when mentioning Victor Escobar which is circular sourcing. What are the other sources you found that you don't think are mirrors? Vrac (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OhmyNews article can't be considered an independent source, because it is dated a month after the WP article was posted, and links to it, so it seems it was sourced from Wikipedia. In fact the whole OhmyNews article seems quite strongly Wikipedia-based, owing a good deal to this then-current version of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation article. We need something dated before October 2006, such as a reference from the "exposure that came through the unsolved case of Victor Escobar" in the 1999 investigation. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it exceedingly unlikely that such a notable event as this would get no Google Books hits. Shii (tock) 05:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 20:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Per WP:NSKATE, figure skaters must have participated internationally at the junior or senior level (Johnson has not competed internationally) or won nationals at senior level (highest level Johnson has competed at nationals is at intermediate which is three levels lower than senior [U.S. levels are senior, junior, novice, intermediate, juvenile]). Nothing else in article suggest notability. Kirin13 (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSPORT, way WP:2SOON--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 1 January 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, Wifione ^Message 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't competed at the highest level of figure skating (or anything close to it).Jakejr (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 massive open online course. The article history is intact for the purpose of merging the material as appropriate (there wasn't much there to begin with). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOOC 2.0[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 01:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect per nom - Blatant advertising!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to MOOC. I think this could have been redirected with little fanfare. There isn't much on Auh's version of this MOOC 2.0, but I didn't dig too hard. It obviously more used as jargon for the MOOCs to come ([1][2][3], etc.) Delete before redirect because the article is unsalvageable—where we're going, we won't need it czar ⨹ 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an advertisement. — Revi 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that being featured in a full-length article in two reliable sources - Chronicle of Higher Education ([4]) and JoongAng Ilbo ([5]) is sufficient. Issues with tone merit tagging, but not outright deletion, if the article passes notability, as I think is the case. Reading through the article, I think it is written less like an add and more like an essay, so in fact the template that should be added is {{Essaylike}}. There are also copyvio issues (from [6], through the author is the same, I believe); for now I think that the best fix would be to remove most of the article's content as essay/add/copyvio, and keep the bare minimum required for a stub. Disclaimer: I am an acquaintance of the author, and he asked me to comment in this AfD. @Davey2010, The Banner, Czar, and -revi: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Auh's is one use of the term, I don't see one interpretation of "MOOC 2.0" being definitive, so I still think the redirect makes sense. Anything that needs to be said about this specific usage can fit within a section on Yoonil Auh's page, as he's most associated with the concept. Furthermore, the second article is more about Auh than "MOOC 2.0" and as an interview, carries less weight than a dedicated report about the topic. After reading the Chronicle article, I couldn't tell you any specifics about what his "MOOC 2.0" is other than a vague idea. Unless this content is to be merged (in which case the article cannot be deleted, so as to preserve attribution), blowing it up and making it into a redirect appears to be the best path czar ⨹ 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 22:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs in article indicate that this is a notable project. Promotional tone is not a valid reason to delete. It is already tagged and can be fixed quickly in this short article. ~KvnG 02:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional tone is not a valid reason to delete." is a 100% incorrect statement - There are tons of articles that pop up at AFDs that are promotional and most are deleted because of just that, Also there's promo tags on loads of articles since 2008 as seen here which obviously haven't been "fixed quickly" at all so again another incorrect statement. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:DEL-REASON are you referring to? I don't think #4 applies here because there is encyclopedic content including evidence of notability. I have cleaned up the article a bit. I spent less time on that than I have participating in this AfD discussion. So, yes, lack of progress since 2008 not withstanding, it can be fixed quickly. ~KvnG 16:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"fixed quickly" to what? None of the four sources in the article actually explain anything in any depth. After four articles, are we any closer to understanding what this idea even is? The promotional part for me is not the tone, but that I can't do anything with these sources. czar ⨹ 17:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone care to point out a valid reason to delete? ~KvnG 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DEL-REASON states "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to" 'not limited to - Therefore deleting per promo is a valid reason to delete, Period. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic WP:DONTLIKE would also be a valid reason. ~KvnG 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng, #14: WP is not a soapbox for promotion. Nothing is known on this topic and isn't enough information (significant coverage) to write an article. Any sources that need to be expanded can be used in Auh's article without merging. (I'd entertain a merge to Auh in lieu of deleting, if anyone suggested it.) The term "MOOC 2.0" is still useful, though not in this usage. Any search will show that it is more commonly used in describing some successor to MOOCs rather than to Auh's individual vision. So "MOOC 2.0" would still make a useful redirect to "MOOC". That's the summary. czar ⨹ 20:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating a usable reason. I believe I've addressed the promotional tone in the article and would prefer to keep it. I'm not sure I believe there are inherently promotional topics. Incidentally the sources indicate that Kyung Hee MOOC 2.0 might be a better title for the article but moving or merging an article while it is being considered for deletion is not a good idea. ~KvnG 01:59, 1 January 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, Wifione ^Message 18:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in mid quality RS's. NickCT (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per The Banner. Wincent77 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your !vote makes no sense at all as you're !voting to "Keep per The Banner" yet he's nominating for deletion ..... So unless I've gone mad care to elaborate? –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Then every single research project conducted at UOIT gets their own article too, like Gaming Technology Developments or Nuclear Science studies. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect — Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB, as the article is describing a service exclusively from Kyung Hee University / Kyung Hee Cyber University, not a general academic or technological concept (unlike, say "Web 2.0"). As for an article describing actual "MOOC 2.0" (e.g., like article @ http://www.wired.com/2014/09/moocs-2-0/), the concept might have merit (and should be allowed to be speedily recreated). As it stands, however, it's a weasely form of usurping the name for advertising the university's service (and if it's retained, should at the very least be moved to Kyung Hee MOOC 2.0, the proper name of the site as per WP:NC. --slakr^\ talk / 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High4 (band)[edit]

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

There is clearly no notability WP:BAND TerryAlex (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not too quick: they did chart see #12 see #2 see #29. granted those were collaborations with established artists, but I think it still counts under WP:MUS #2. also that page was made today and is unlikely to already be complete. i think this page should be allowed more breathing room Asdklf; (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they have obviously charted. passes notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Asdklf;. Their song with IU was extremely successful, and other songs have charted. The article needs work to show their notability. --Random86 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recognized group, 3 singles and 1 mini-album. First single with IU was successful. --Irwin Dime 00:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties that share names with U.S. states[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability.Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list. Shabidoo | Talk 17:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nominator has not specified which information is speculative. Nominator also says that templates for multiple problems have been listed without any change, yet there are no such templates in the most recent version nor in the the recent versions I sampled. YBG (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a mess. The Washington counties aren't named after the state, but rather the president, so there's only an indirect connection. What are parishes and municipalities doing in this list? Columbia wasn't a state, the last time I looked (no District of Columbia County). And most importantly, nobody else seems to have made this connection, so WP:OR applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The municipalities and parishes are all county equivalents. Admittedly, the title should probably say 'county equivalents' instead of 'counties'. YBG (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing sources showing this particular grouping to be notable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike the others, this list is pure accident of naming without regard to whether the county was named for the state or vice versa or one or more Washingtons were honored in different places at different times. Without that connection, it's more trivia than toponymy, like Category:Counties with more vowels than consonants and Category:Counties with names that can be typed with the left hand only and other such would be... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too funny! But it is not a mere accident. There should be documentation for more than just 'Owyhee'. YBG (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after women[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability. Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list.Shabidoo | Talk 17:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see that it was tagged in 2008 as "incomplete" but that doesn't justify deletion. Where are the multiple maintenance templates the nominator claims to exist? The etymologies of county names can typically be referenced to reliable sources, so a county being named for a woman can usually be verified. Dare County is named for Virginia Dare, per the county website. Hardly "speculative." I don't understand what is intended by the statement about merging it or adding it to some unidentified article. Such a list is a navigational aid, highlighting some aspect of the information included in a collection of other articles about notable subjects. Edison (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic for which I was able to find the most sources is something like "places named after women", many of which break that down into types of places including counties. The most expansive apears to be this book on the subject. If we had an article along the lines of U.S. places named after women I'd probably support a merge, but as we don't I think keeping this one is best (with the possibility of renaming/broadening scope later). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently sources are available - per the above comment - as one would expect on US subjects - and the subjects of toponymy and etymology are encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after U.S. Presidents[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability. Shabidoo | Talk 17:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep. It's not speculative if it can be cited, and the source of names of geographic locations is certainly notable. If we have no citations for the source of a county's name, it should be removed, but the ones we do know should be kept. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding this and the other 7 related pages nominated at the same time with the same rationale by Shabidoo: The requirement for a stand-alone article to be notable is, more or less, that the grouping it covers is notable. In other words, it's about whether there exist reliable sources, regardless of what's currently cited, covering counties (plural) named after US Presidents. Of those nominated (one of which I had personally PRODded in the past, and none of which are easy keeps), this seems to be the most likely for notability. Given that several sources for various states popped up when I did a quick search, I have to ask the nominator if he/she followed WP:BEFORE, looking for sources before making a claim about notability. It's also a little concerning that these nominations appear to have immediately followed the unfavorable closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unique U.S. county names. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first time nominating articles for deletion so thanks for the heads up on alerting the creator of the pages. You're right that this one is more likely to be saved but is the fact that a county might be named after a president notable enough to exist in a stand alone article, especially one where few can be verified? I already suggested in the discussion of the closed deletion proposal that the other articles should be deleted or merged into the index of counties. No one contributed to the conversation unfortunately. Shabidoo | Talk 21:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is only defined in terms of what sources exist and it's the responsibility of the nominator to search for those sources before nominating. As I mentioned, I was able to find a few such sources about the list subject, and a whole lot (within a few seconds) verifying specifics. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep County names were generally chosen by state legislatures to honor something or someone. Guesswork and speculation are not required when reliable sources exist. In addition to dusty legislative archives not available online, there are books abouot county names, such as this one, which says that 204 counties are named for 24 presidents. Edison (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Wikipedian that often uses Wikipedia's information on counties, I would keep all of the lists that you have flagged for deletion, as long as sources are added.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep toponymy is encyclopedic; is the nom. suggesting that nothing in this article can be sourced? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after rivers[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability.Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list. Shabidoo | Talk 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The etymologies of county names are generally easy to find in reference books and local history books. Unlike placenames, county names generally resulted from legislative action, so there is usually a record of the debate to be found in some dusty file. The articles about the various counties usually state they are named after some particular river (though in turn the river may have been named for some Indian or tribe or some explorer). Thus "speculative" is inaccurate. If sources exist, then "unsourced" is grounds for a maintenance template, not for deletion. I do not see that maintenance templates have been on the article before its AFD nom, as the nominator claims. A diff would be helpful. Such a list seems a welcome navigation guide. What particular article or list does the nominator want the information placed in? Edison (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep etymology and toponymy is encyclopedic; being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after personal first names[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability. Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list.Shabidoo | Talk 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Speculative" seems unwarranted. The nominator states that "Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change" but I find no such maintenance templates in the article history, A diff showing the most recent such maintenance template would be helpful. Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE and see if references exist as to the source of the county names? Most counties were named through legislative action, and the source of the name would be likely found in those dusty paper records. But more conveniently, a number of books list the origin of county names, or perusal of the linked articles about the counties might provide the needed reference. This list seems less justified than the lists of counties named for presidents or Confederates, since those are easily referenced, but these first name counties are sometimes named after a preexisting city of the name. Edison (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 and WP:OR (who else is compiling lists like this?). The criterion is trivial, opening the floodgates to List of U.S. counties named after last names, List of U.S. counties named after citrus fruits, List of U.S. counties named after Nigerian princes who need to transfer money out of the country (okay, maybe not that last one), etc. etc. ad nauseum. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Etymologies are notable, and even these etymologies are notable, but we already have Lists of county etymologies that include these and this is not a notable/appropriate focus. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial/not notable (in the sense of sources about the phenomenon of counties being named after personal first names). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming can proceeding through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after prominent Confederate historical figures[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability. Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list. Shabidoo | Talk 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) @ 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several counties named after Jefferson Davis, for example, or Robert E Lee, are clearly named for the Confederates of those names. Here is a Georgia state government website stating that Jeff Davis County, Georgia, was named for the former president of the Confederacy. Here is a Louisiana state government site stating that Jefferson Davis County, Louisiana was named for the former Confederate president. A website of an association of Georgia Counties identifies the following Counties as named for identified Confederates: Cook, Evans, Lamar, Stephens, Toombs, Turner and Wheeler. It seems silly to call this "speculation." This may not be sourced at present in the article, but reliable sources exist for most counties stating where the name came from, often in the official website of the county or in history books. Adding references is preferable to deletion. We are not "on deadline" and it is unreasonable to require deletion if an article is not fully referenced, when references can be readily found. Edison (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's controversial that there exist sources which explain that certain counties are named after certain Confederate historical figures. For a stand-alone article like this to exist, however, the subject of the list itself is what needs to show notability (e.g. articles about "counties named after confederate historical figures" rather than about specifics). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean like the book"Georgia's Confederate Counties" by Barrow, from the Georgia Civil War Commission? It is about counties in Georgia named after Confederates. There are numerous reliable sources which discuss the historical origins of county names. Edison (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yup. Just like that :) There are WP:BEFORE concerns here (and in the other 7-8 county name nominations, perhaps). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's claim " Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change" is false. It would be appropriate to withdraw the nomination and add a template requesting references. The history of the name of each county is generally included in the article about the county. The people of a county and state did not randomly name a county something because they thought the name sounded cool, without reference to any particular person or thing, and the name selection was part of the historical record in the state and in the county. Edison (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a harmless list article. If some of the content is incorrect, that can be remedied by removing that content. If it is merely unverified, the answer is to tag those items as needing a source. WP content has to be verifiable, not verified. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to remove "Pominent" which is POV and SUBJ but otherwise: being unsourced is not a reason for deletion. etymology and toponymy are encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after animals[edit]

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

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability. Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list. Shabidoo | Talk 17:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has had a maintenance tag for 12 months without improvement. Original research. The criteria for inclusion are so loose as to be laughable, such as "Elko"being an animal, when Elko, Nevada says it is an Indian word for "a pile of rocks." Others are named after a rock that someone thought looked like a beaver, or after an island that someone thought was shaped like a bird, or after some city that was named after an animal. Edison (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 and WP:OR. The criterion is trivial, just like List of U.S. counties named after plants (which I think should be added to this Afd). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had PRODded this a while back for similar reasons. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red Velvet (band). Redirect to the band she is a member of per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy (singer)[edit]

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

Person is not independently notable. (Mrchurang (talk) 17:15, 1 January 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 January 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing charted so just WP:TOOSOON. she is indeed a rookie with potential, but not yet notable under guidelines Asdklf; (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: perhaps there is some other appropriate way to do this, but here is her previous AfD Asdklf; (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside of her group. One song on a soundtrack for something her labelmate starred in is just typical SM Entertainment business, not notability. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Links listed are SM Entertainment sources and articles in which she is only peripherally mentioned. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Velvet (band): Too soon. As per arguments of Asdklf; and Shinyang-i. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Asdklf; and Shinyang-i. Not notable outside of group. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. nothing charted so just WP:TOOSOON.Glorious.sophisticated (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Velvet (band). Wendy doesn't have individual notability. In the previous AfD discussion, FudgeFury stated that Wendy's single had charted on Gaon Chart, but there is no evidence of that here. --Random86 (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after other U.S. counties[edit]

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

Uncourced material doesn't meet notability guide. At best this information could be a footnote in another article or articles on individual counties. Shabidoo | Talk 17:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Nobody else seems to have compiled such a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with changes Although the article is unsourced, it could be a valuable resource for those tracking etymologies. If sourced, this article should make it. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep etymology and toponymy is encyclopedic; being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, speculative. Without verification this list is worse than worthless. --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have to see sources about the phenomenon of naming counties after other counties, otherwise we could create and random subset of a large list (list of counties that begin and end with the same letter, list of counties named after 16th century lower nobility, list of counties named after birds of prey, list of counties named after sons and daughters of prominent businesspeople...). Some of them may be interesting or even WP:USEFUL, but still not appropriate as they required WP:OR in their curation. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 23:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ryan (mayor)[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable local mayor. I don't think the city of Sheboygan is large enough for its mayor to have notability. There is a major WP:UNDUE issue here with WP:BLP concerns regarding the scandals listed in the article. If it's kept, it needs to be significantly cleaned up. only (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and BLP concerns. - Location (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliably sourced, meets GNG. There are rare cases of mayors who are known for scandal after scandal is this is one of those cases. The scandals section needs to dominate this article. That's why he lost in a recall election. I think Sheboygan is large enough for its mayor to be notable. Here's an non-local newspaper article which had cited earlier in the article's history [7]. There are many different non-local sources if you search the internet for the terms "Bob Ryan" Sheboygan such as [8], his drunk driving arrest after leaving office, [9], [10], on ABC News (national), and there's LOTS more. Royal broil 13:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the event is notable (per WP:EVENT), then perhaps this should be moved to something like 2012 Sheboygan mayoral recall election. ~~Terry Van Akkeren should be merged there, too.~~ - Location (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Van Akkeren also served in the Wisconsin State Legislature before becoming mayor. I opposed merging the Terry Van Akkeren article into the proposed Sheboygan Mayoral Recall Election article because he had served in the Wisconsin Assembly before becoming mayor. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You are correct. I wasn't paying attention. - Location (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's more notable than the recall election. He had a scandal-filled term that went well beyond the local newspaper - it was state and national level press. He'd be notable even if he was mayor in a small community of 100 residents. I'm working on adding much more well-known sources to the article right now. Royal broil 03:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a long time citing from reliable sources. I only used major newspapers, television stations, or national sources (Wall Street Journal, ABC News, Associated Press). The exception was content about what he accomplished as mayor from a nearby small town newspaper. State sources come from 3 television / newspaper markets showing that his controversies were reported well beyond the local rags. The Daily News in the UK and Huffington Report even reported on him but I didn't consider either to be reliable. He actually had two more smaller scandals that weren't added to the article: his first scandal was a video posted to Youtube with him making oral sex jokes about his sister in law shown here from a 4th media market and allegedly more comments about oral sex and young women. Royal broil 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Royalbroil-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN: "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." 1. Press coverage is almost exclusively of Ryan's foibles. This shows neither breadth nor depth of coverage. 2. References include only sources within a 50-mile radius of Sheboygan. Ergo, this guy is a sensationalistic local interest story, not a person with enduring notability. 32.218.36.158 (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a medium-sized town. Not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors of places of this size do not recieve notability for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you even considered GNG? It's NOT the size of the community, it's the volume and the quality of the sources. Not local level sources, but regional and national level. There are many more newspaper articles written about this man. Royal broil 12:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Enough independent coverage in non-local sources. -M.Altenmann >t 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A juicy BLP but that shouldn't affect us pro or con in terms of notability. The question at hand is whether having been Mayor of Sheboygan is sufficient for a pass per WP:POLITICIAN, which makes note of that "major local politicians" may be notable if the subject of significant external published coverage. Sheboygan's population is 49,000-and-change, right at the 50,000 threshold that I personally believe should be the cut off for autokeeping mayors. The (sensationalized) recall was big news, however, perhaps tipping the balance. I'll just leave it at that. Carrite (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per User:Hirolovesswords; seems like alot of coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royalbroil and Hiro. Do note that I'm a Sheboygan resident but even without that conflict that I would have deemed the subject's coverage for their various issues noteworthy, issues that thankfully do not affect our current mayor, to my relief. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable. (And Sheboygan never gets tired of being fun to say.) Pax
Comment - The current article is quite the attack BLP, but it appears that he is notable. Bearian (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - well, going strictly by the general notability guidelines and the notability policy for politicians, it seems obvious that this person is notable. But we have to take into account other policies too. The article gives undue weight to the negative aspects. Far from being written neutrally. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike per speedy deletion criteria A7, "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DinuraCreations Sinhala Gramophone Text Archive[edit]

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

This seems like a very worthy project and I am a little sorry to tag it for AfD, but unfortunately it does not appear to be at all notable. The references don't mention the subject. If there were a speedy deletion rationale for this type of article I believe it would be eligible, because there is no assertion of significance. In addition there seems to be a COI issue - the article is created by a person closely affiliated with the manager of the project, as disclosed here. bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to promote anything or mislead people saying lies to take personal advantage. I understand well that contents on Wikipedia should be in best quality standards. But, for people on earth like us, especially from such a country like Sri Lanka, it is not very easy to bring 100% accurate proofs on-line. Facilities and technology is not still enhanced like in USA or Europe. For an example there is no any method to verify my husband's primary school and his poetries which published on Sinhala Newspapers sometime ago. But if someone do search on google maps, Kamaragoda Roman Catholic Primary College is searchable. Electronic versions of local newspapers were introdud recently in Sri Lanka. Saddharmarathnakaraya is a very well known historical book in Sri Lanka. But it's impossible to verify the author Wimalakiththi Maha Sthavira. We are really helpless. I have nothing to explain more here. If someone still wants to delete this article, let it to be so. Thanks. Textlover (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are about the subject and the citations are being used to mask the lack of notability. The article's proponent pleads guilty as charged. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Nur Yulianto[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 11:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 02:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sengbah Kennedy[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ryan Fernandez G. (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 02:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yao Rudy Abblode[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus amongst editors whether the sources in the article represent adequate coverage to meet the GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Colombia relations[edit]

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

I know some people may be wondering why a nomination 12 months later but I carefully looked at this article again, and noticed the number of sources have been artificially inflated by double counting to give the impression of significant coverage. this source is identical to [11], and again this source is identical to this both refer to rather routine coverage of an ambassador presenting his credentials wanting to cooperate but then followed by years of non action. this source only refers to Colombia in a small part. Source 2 in the article is a dead link. Therefore I don't think this topic meets WP:GNG, looking at the quality and depth of sources, we are really left with 3 sources, 2 covering a routine presentations of new non resident ambassador (one based in USA, the other in India) and one with a one line mention of wanting to sign a visa waiver program . LibStar (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is there any coverage of this relationship in colombia? I searched Colombia's biggest newspaper El Tiempo (Colombia) and almost all coverage of Bangladesh is about its natural disasters, rather than actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources have been added. There are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on the topic. Bangladesh Foreign Secretary paid an official visit to Colombia in 2011. Article should be kept according to general notability guidelines. Nomian (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single visit is no indication of notability. You haven't actually demonstrated how this passes WP:GNG at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is entirely disingenuous with copies of articles presented as different sources, broken links and government-produced primary sources. A visit by the Ambassador of Colombia in Bangladesh to the local (Bangladeshi) Chamber of Commerce is not an indication of a notable diplomatic relationship. It looks like someone has just googled "Bangladesh and Colombia" and ref-spammed the results into the article. Total nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note it was the non resident ambassador of Colombia who never appeared in the Bangladeshi press again after he presented his credentials. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Countries are interested in trade, bureaucrats love their jobs, snow is white, water is wet.... This article has nothing to say. Pax — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fair bit of references (excluding the duplicate ones), enough to pass WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those that remain relate to one or two visits, not diplomatic or historical "relations". We still, per WP:GNG, need significant coverage of the "relations" between the two. You believe not-particularly-in-depth coverage of a couple of low-level visits is sufficient? St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I looked at the sources, I found enough coverage about the existing relations between Bangladesh and Colombia which I believe are significant enough to pass the GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be genuinely interested in which of those you looked at. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I couldn't find any coverage in the Colombian press about bilateral relations with Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not intended as a free-standing page, this is a subpage of Foreign relations of Bangladesh. There are 156.6 million people in Bangladesh — it is an encyclopedic topic. This crusade of deletion challenges by the same nominator again and again and again is disruptive and needs to stop. Passes GNG on its own merits, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the number of people in Bangladesh is not a relevant consideration, how many of them actually even know about Colombia, coverage of actual relations is the consideration. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does Bangladesh get a free pass for notable relations because it has over 150 million? So any bilateral gets automatic notability? LibStar (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have replaced the dead link with a link to a (subscription) news archive which has the full text. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Pax's comments; the sources may be relevant to the subject of relations between the countries, but they do nothing substantial to establish that topic's notability. This is certainly a topic that I could foresee being a viable article at some date, but the present sources and content do not support a stand-alone article. Snow talk 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Relations do not need to be exceptional, just notable. If we were to rank all international relations this pair would not be at the top of the list, someone always has to be at the bottom. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Car Rentals[edit]

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

Article was CSD and refunded, other editors input required for consensus on this article. Do not count this nomination as a delete vote. I have included the discussion from the talk page.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_{Following brought over from talk page}
This article in my opinion was incorrectly CSD prior WP:Corp states one source must be of national coverage which from what I can tell Business & Leadership does, [12]. There seems to be no evidence of COI editing from what I can see here, I do understand the orginal author has a history of this but I see nothing overly promotional with this article.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mcmatter: It is indeed true that most of the article appears to have been written by a fellow who appears to have been paid[13][14][15] to work on this very article.

One concern of mine is promotionalism. The article is a one-sided puff piece about a car rental company. "Is one of the top 100 transport companies in Ireland". "Offers more than 5500 cars in Ireland". "More than 16 places". "11% increase". "More than 5,000 vehicles". "Surpassed 900,000 rental days". It mentions nothing bad about the company.
My other concern is notability. We should use Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to prove that this small (100-employee) company is non-notable. Third World paid freelance spammers, paid piddly Third World wages by rich First World businesses, are powerful creatures. We can't fight them on millions of little articles. Regarding small companies, we should instead simply delete their articles. As I wrote in my bibliography annotations, we can say that the Irish business website "Business and Leadership" (Alexa rank 237,125; Irish rank 2,121) is probably a publication of limited interest or circulation. That could get this article deleted.

Thoughts?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, as for your stats for the website, we have to remember the audience for a company like this would be limited mostly to people in Ireland. So yes the site may not get many visits from the world but is ranked 2121 in Ireland. As I am guessing we probably won't see eye to eye on this matter I will put the article up for WP:AFD to get more editors involved and hopefully get a consensus, since 2 does not make a consensus. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC) - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_{End old conversation}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as promotionalism goes, I did not made any non-original claim in the page. All the facts are stated with their citation. If I had come across any bad press, I would have included them also. If you have, please share with us, we all will be happy to include them too but you can't create some bad press on your own if there isn't any just for the sake of other side of coin! For notability, you can't judge every animal in the jungle for their ability to climb trees. I found the organization notable in terms of their operation in Ireland and that's why I went ahead to create it. And what's all the third world theory of yours about India? Seems like you have some personal agenda against users from Asia. If you had known your other deleted page Rahul Bhatia, is the owner of India's largest airlines, IndiGo and counts among world's 10 biggest low-cost carriers. Mr RD 01:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ on the grounds of notability. Of the references presently found in the article, most that discuss 'Irish Car Rentals' are sources connected with the subject; they therefore lack independence and count for nought where notability is concerned. The remaining references that directly discuss the subject are the kind of corporate bio listings that show little, except that the entity exists. Several references discuss GoCar and there is a weak rationale to show that that entity may be notable. Equally, there is plenty of coverage for Europcar which can rightly be considered a notable organisation on the basis of its size and influence in the field of car rental. These notwithstanding, the relevant policy-based argument for deleting this article is that notability is not inherited, neither is it cascading. Simply because Europcar is notable and simply because there may be a weak case for the notability of GoCar does not make a case for the notability of Irish Car Rentals. Aditionally, any claim that they are notable based on the process of acquiring GoCar is analogous to being a WP:ONEEVENT falicy. I have carried out an Internet search for subject of the article and found almost no significant, independent coverage of them. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now. Per Cunard's sources. The Sunday Times and Irish Times coverage, taken together, swing it for me. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability, per above aycliffe^talk 10:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? — Using this search function on the Irish Times website (Ireland's #1 newspaper) lists several articles discussing this company. Doesn't this pass the WP:N notability test? The Barryjjoyce (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on how much coverage those articles give to the subject, and as its all behind a paywall, I really can't say. There seem to be at least two links in that first page of results that feature the subject in the title, so perhaps there is a reasonable level of coverage in the archives of the Irish Times; however, it's still all from the same source and it appears all the hits come from the online version rather than the print version; which does not necessarily diminish their value, but it's worthy of consideration. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Searching "Irish Car Rentals" brings everything up unrelated to this company .... So I've not been able to find anything thus failing GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Coffey, Aine (2010-05-16). "Thrifty owners agree to bail out rival ICR". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02.
  The article notes:
  COLM MENTON and Eugene O'Reilly of Thrifty Car Rentals will inject at least *1.23m into Irish Car Rentals to take the company out of examinership and meet payments to creditors.
  They have committed to provide up to a further *1m in working capital over 12 months, if necessary, under a scheme that will be voted on by creditors tomorrow.
  The deficit will be *10.7m under the scheme devised by the examiner, Michael McAteer of Grant Thornton, compared with *32.5m in the event of a winding-up.
  Unsecured creditors of Irish Car Rentals will get 7.5c in the euro.
  Irish Car Rentals, which holds the franchises for Europcar, Alamo and National Car Rental, is the biggest of seven companies in the ICR Motor Group, which went into examinership in March.
2. Deegan, Gordon (2013-03-01). "Irish Car Rentals Show Profit Rise". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  Pre-tax profits at car hire firm Irish Car Rentals increased by 42% last year to [euro]1.92 million, new figures show.
  Accounts just filed with the Companies Office show that Irish Car Rentals Ltd recorded the increase in profits after revenues decreased by 22 per cent from [euro]23 million to [euro]18 million in the 12 months to the end of August 31st last.
  However, the prior period for was 15 months.
  The returns show that the numbers employed by the firm last year increased from 91 to 102.
3. Lynch, Suzanne (2012-07-02). "Irish Car Rentals Returns to Profit". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  CAR-HIRE COMPANY Irish Car Rentals swung back into the black last year, following its successful exit from examinership in mid-2010.
  Accounts posted at the Companies Registration Office for the Europcar, Alamo and National car rental franchise holder show the company had an operating profit of [euro]2.5 million for the 15- month period to the end of August 2011. This compares with an operating loss of [euro]3.2 million in the 19- month period to the end of May 2010.
4. McCaffrey, Una (2011-03-12). "Car rental firm expects to move back into profit". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  IRISH CAR Rentals (ICR) is expected to move into profit in 2011 after recording a [euro]3.4 million operating loss for the 19-month period before it exited examinership last year.
  Accounts just posted to the Companies Office for the Europcar, Alamo and National Car Rental franchise-holder show the result came on turnover of [euro]25.2 million.
  For the 12 months to the end of November, 2008, the firm posted a loss of [euro]12.6 million on turnover of [euro]15.5 million.
  The car hire company was placed in examinership in February last year and emerged in May after securing investment from the owners of the Thrifty car rental franchise.
  Irish Car Rentals carried forward a loss of almost [euro]7 million from last May but is on track to record a profit for this year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Irish Car Rentals to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article already deleted by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) – nafSadh did say 13:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Jobaer Alam[edit]

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

This biography of a living person has no significant or independent references and is written in a promotional way. Yaris678 (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable assistant professor and young journalist. The "references" are links to staff listings and are not independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) @ 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen. Non-Notable journalist working for a non-notable newspaper. I fear it is a self-biography. Fails WP:RS. Fai zan 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as original research with insufficient independent sourcing to satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RedBall[edit]

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

Non-notable and unverifiable pool game. This may not be a hoax but it's a game I (being an expert in this topic area) have never heard of or come across and I can find not a single source mentioning it, much less substantive treatment in reliable sources from which the statements in the article could be verified. ← That was my prod rationale. Upon removal, the creator added to the article: "this game is not a well-known or well-documented game".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything on the internet to back it up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game has been spread primarily by word of mouth. This game has NO relation to the real game of pool besides obviously using the pool table and two balls. Because of that, pool experts are not expected to know about this game. I could not find anything else about this game online either, so that's why I created this page. I've received multiple requests from friends to make some kind of consolidated rule list. Most of the time, people ask to play this game out of the blue because it was something they learned at college or with their family. It's more of a "street game". Let's work on helping notify readers that this article is not official or related to pool, but certainly not delete it. How should we best go about that? --Joshwenke (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshwenke: Josh: it's a decent write-up and valuable – for some other place. You might see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. You're obviously posting in good faith but you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Have you read the two pages linked in my nomination? An encyclopedia is by its nature a tertiary source, that details what is already known through previous publication in the wider world. It is not for announcing new things or original publication. Wikipedia is constrained from doing so by the its nature as an encyclopedia, and not some other type of reference work. Since you admit this is an emerging game, not already the subject of mainstream knowledge and previous publication in reliable sources, you are in effect stating, and in the most fundamental way, that this material does not belong here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you're into finger billiards as this appears to be a form of then you should know about Yank Adams, who was a household name at one time but who the world has forgotten about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Article started by WP:SPA. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself argues for deletion when it says "this game is not a well-known or well-documented game". Please see the guideline WP:MADEUP which applies to this case precisely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cue sports: Google has very little on this, but there's a joint in Darlington, England called "Redball Pool and Snooker", so the moniker has enough local interest to support a business name. Normally that might rate a 'Keep', but the article at this point is all original research. Pax — Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that the game, which is brand new, is the source of the name of the joint, rather than that it is named after the red ball--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SOFTDELETE. I find the 'keep' arguments to have a lack of grounding in Wikipedia policy. A single (currently non-functional) source plus coverage of the show with only minimal coverage of the actor aren't sufficient to meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and neither is the number of Twitter followers he has. This is WP:TOOSOON. Closing this as a soft-delete so that it may be restored non-controversially by request to WP:REFUND at a later time, when notability is more firmly established. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Valdes (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1st AfD closed because it didn't attract a single response. Hopefully, we can get it established this time, one way or the other. I think it is WP:TOOSOON; doesn't (yet) meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG . Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply per WP:NACTOR. Meets none of the criteria! I searched the web and found nothing notable except this. Mhhossein (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article and feel that he has sufficient merit to have a wikipedia page. He was included, by source, in the list of top 12 Latino actors for 2014. He would be the only lead actor in the Flash TV series lineup that would not have a page. I know relationships to famous people do not make a person notable, but this is a membership not a relationship. His twitter has over 13,000 followers as well. Michael miceli (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are some minor sources that we could add (this, this and this, for example), but I guess this article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub in the near future, and the fact that we only find Flash-related sources could possibly make him a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a young actor (meaning we'll be seeing a lot more of him) with a repeating role in an ongoing series with the highest ratings on its network. Pax 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Matheny[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." His name is mentioned in some news articles, but is not the subject. This also appears to be an autobiographical article written by User:Bmatheny. (see previous version of his user page) APK whisper in my ear 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Inclusion:

WP:ACADEMIC

WP:BIO

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmatheny (talk • contribs)

Delete Autobiography of a software engineer who is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Please note that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 20:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion is a bit light on policy based arguments, but Status's post swings the consensus. Additional discussion about the article name (or a merger) can continue in the normal course. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheek to Cheek Tour[edit]

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

Violates WP:SYNTH as none of the given sources explicitly mention a tour. Gaga and Bennett will perform at a series of venues, but no tour has ever officially been announced. After being redirected previously and later restored, I am now taking it to AFD. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's definitely not a tour in the conventional sense, so the current title is wrong and the boilerplate "... is the first co-headlining tour by ..." language and count of 'legs' and so on are inappropriate. But it is a series of concert appearances focused on a particular artistic notion. Maybe it could be framed as Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga concert appearances or something like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~Neutral – This is fancruft at its worst possible. Everything about this article, including the name, image etc are fabricated by fanboys trying to create a tour page when nothing has ever been announced by the artist or their label. And to reply to Waster Time R's query, the dates as well as info can easily be merged at the parent Cheek to Cheek album article, it does not warrant any separate mention. They are what they are, just live performances and appearances across select venues throughout the US. Doesn't make them any different from say appearing on a show like The View. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on the fence with this but changed to neutral seeing Status' assertion and the source he mentioned. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer it as Unreferenced future musical tour....William 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to closing admin: If this results in delete, please also delete Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga Live, which I've just deleted under A10, but then redirected to this article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be true that this is not a conventional tour, but I do foresee there being plenty of media coverage for these performances. So, while the article's current title may not be most appropriate, there may be an alternative. I think I am agreeing with what Wasted Time R is saying above. IndianBio, it is different than appearing on The View because television appearances like that are one-offs. This is clearly a series of related performances. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - The article should either be kept, or merged with Cheek to Cheek (album), as the tour is named after this album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Tony Bennett & Lady Gaga Live, which is the name provided on Gaga's website. This is the very definition of a tour (a series of concerts by an artist or group of artists in different cities or locations). — Status (talk · contribs) 07:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a reference about the first 2 shows being the start of a tour. — Status (talk · contribs) 07:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cmon.. we know that this tour is now ongoing and has tour dates so i hope ARTICLE FOR DELETION tag of that page be removed zlouiemark ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the comments above. It's obvious this is a tour. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. I'm not 100% sold on the name, but the topic is sufficiently notable to be kept. Andrew³²⁷ 14:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jat clans of Balochistan[edit]

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Many similar lists have been deleted in recent months, including this one. Sitush (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sitush, who clearly understands the problematic issues regarding Indian (and Pakistani) castes and clans better than any other active editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: kind words indeed although Utcursch, for one, is at least as well-informed as me and perhaps more so. I am (very slowly) creating an article about the Raj census operations - see User:Sitush/sandbox3. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction noted. Substitute "better than almost any other active editor". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not an expert on India-related topics, but even I know that the 1911 census has been rejected. I've also seen more than just the one previous Jat clan article end up deleted. Seems like another case of too many lists and not enough reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SurreyJohn raises a valid point, in that our content is strongly biased in favor of recent events which have received internet coverage. But, that's not enough to overcome the fact that we have standards for what constitutes a reliable source, and this article doesn't seem to meet that. I'm going to delete this for now, but if anybody wants to continue to work on researching sources, ping me and I'll be happy to restore it as a draft; it can be worked on in draft space and should adequate sourcing be found, can be moved back to main article space at a later date. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 Great Piano Classics[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, althought here are some reviews. A merge was proposed by another editor (Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars), see Talk:120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces, nominator and me arguing for merge, one editor (creator) who felt it is a notable album in own right. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still support a merge, or simply redirect, to 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces since this one volume does not have an independent coverage in reliable sources to deserve a standalone article, and the tracklist of this one volume is already included in the merge target. A video of an old commercial found on YouTube does not imply significant coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces has also been nominated for deletion and, upon review, it too appears to fail notability requirements, I am changing my support to delete. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, and I would argue the same for 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces, which I have now nominated for deletion – those interested may discuss here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an example of (if not the very first) classical piano compilation album of many (30) "great piano classics". As it is not a recording of a performance and dates to the 1970s it is unreasonable to expect critical reviews (eg on the web). However, it was an important source to show what classical piano pieces were considered "great" and even today the track list is a useful source of information about what can be considered popular. Where else can you find such information! SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly fails GNG as stands; if a source discussing the implied significant scale of the advertising campaign can be supplied, then there might be an argument to be made for keeping the article for its commercial significance, but there seem to be no reliable and appropriate sources discussing its impact as an album. Snow talk 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Article on John Williams (actor) includes "Williams gained fame as the star of a television commercial for 120 Music Masterpieces, a four-LP set of classical music excerpts from Columbia Records. This became the longest-running nationally seen commercial in U.S. television history, for 13 years from 1971 to 1984....." SurreyJohn (Talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SurreyJohn, WP is not a WP:RS, do you have a reliable source for it? Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Is this ref acceptable [16]? It seems that I've been looking for the wrong album titles. The US releases from the early 1970s by Colombia are called "120 Music Masterpieces" (2x2LP albums) and "30 Piano Masterpieces". SurreyJohn (Talk) 21:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not really a reliable source for our purposes here, but the comments there do seem to confirm that the advertising campaign may be notable as having resulted in one of the first ever infomercials. I'm not going to switch my vote just yet, but I do think this suggests that closure of the AfD should be postponed to give a reasonable amount of time to continue searching for sources. It's a pity IMDB doesn't encourage use of inline sourcing itself; it could so often be a magnificent resource to us regarding sources if it did. Snow talk 03:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we have enough information yet to say that this album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. The exact same sources used in this article are also used at 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces, where they are also inadequate and the article is also up for deletion. The difference is that the cited source that lists the tracks of 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces doesn't list the tracks of 30 Great Piano Classics, making it even less adequate for this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like there is a content dispute about how the Bhat and Bhatt and/or similar topics relate to each other, and this can be resolved by merging and redirecting as may be needed following talk page discussion. Sandstein 20:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhat[edit]

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

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

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

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

I'm completing this request for an IP, which created the AFD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bhat. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is the point of having this article when Bhatt and Bhatra articles are already in place. This article is connecting totally different communities which are geographically, linguistically and socially totally distinct from each other and on top of that there are separate pages available on some of the communities in wikipedia put under this article. What is the purpose of having a page on "Bhat" when the article itself claims that it is connected to "Bhatt" which already has its separate page on wikipedia. The article is also totally unable to provide reasons for putting pakistani community that uses "Butt" surname with indian communities which use "bhatt", bhatra or batra surnames. Such informatively false articles bring the credibility and repute of wikipedia down. I immediatley request the deletion of this non-sense page.--77.8.92.109 (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to/with Bhatt. Note that Bhat only is used in Pakistan and J&K, and this article contains additional Pakistan-related info not found in Bhatt. I'd dare to say, Bhat is better written that Bhatt! So, not sure which one should actually be deleted. A merge and redirect, possibly. kashmiri ^TALK 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide one example of a Pakistani who has "Bhat" as part of his official name, I searched on google for "Bhat pakistan" and I don't find even a single person with Bhat caste or surname on google images, "Bhat" is unheard in Pakistan and the claim made in this article about Butt being same as Bhat is quite offensive as a little google books research shows that Bhat or bhaat stood for menial minstrels and genealogy keepers.--77.8.65.241 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Madras Journal of Literature and Science, Volume 4 states that "Bhatt (vulgarly Butt) is the distinctive name of a class of Bramins in the north". Similarly, the The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society (Bangalore), Volume 96 states that "Even today most common family name in Kashmir is Butt, a distortion of Bhatt, a Hindu surname common amongst the Brahmins in India." Parvéz Dewân's Jammû, Kashmîr, and Ladâkh: Kashmîr in reference to Bhat/Butt, states that "This is a surname shared by Hindus and Muslims." Based on your comments, I sense that you are attempting to create an artificial divide between an ethnic group on the basis of religion and that is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia, especially when the article is loaded with scholarly references that delineate the exact opposite of what you posit. Moreover, Wikipedia does not accept original research either. You write that "no person in pakistan with surname Butt has any idea that what 'Butt' stands for, as for them it stands for 'Kashmiri', blame the simpilcity [sic] and ignorance of the folks of pakistan in these matters". I'm sure many people in Pakistan do know the origin of the surname and that is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia--in fact, our goal is to actually allow people to learn about topics such as this one! Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir you have failed to answer the concern raised by the above commentator that Bhat are actually menials minstrel bards and genealogy keepers Dictionary, Hindustani and English and there is no person in pakistan which has Bhat as his surname and the menial people such as Bhat simply share a common profession of other menials such as mirasi people. The inclusion of pakistani Butt kashmiri confederacy or super tribe in an article which actually stands for indian bards, mirasi or genealogists etc. which are simply called Bhat or Bhaat etc in india does not stand to any merit. What is the basis of discussing a distinct race of people of pakistani origin in this article is totally unjustified. --77.8.95.157 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not failed to answer your question--I have provided multiple sources to buttress the origin of Bhat/Butt. On the other hand, you are confusing two different words with one another, Bhaat بھات (with a long "a" and voiceless dental stop), which your dictionary reference mentions, and the surname Bhat/Butt بھٹ or بٹ, which ends in a voiceless retroflex stop. These are two completely separate and unrelated words. Once again, your agenda here seems to be to divide an ethnic group on the basis of religion, which is simply unacceptable here on Wikipedia. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that you are unable to answer the concerns raised by the above commentator, perhaps you are a south indian person who does not have any clue about urdu pronunciation of the words , even the transliteration that you provided for Bhat and Butt forcibly combining them as Bhat/Butt shows that Bhat is in urdu written as بھٹ whereas Butt is urdu is written totally different as بٹ, these are totally different words when transliterated into urdu. You are also making an unfounded claim here that Bhat is some kind of ethnicity which is totaly baseless , I believe you don't have any clue what the word Ethnic group means before making such claims about a profession designation which Bhat is which is a bard or genealogist Observation of I.C.S. Officers and Others Since 1881, also have a look at Memoir of Central India, Including Malwa and Adjoining Provinces, another source stating the same is Rajputs of Saurashtra and there are other countless sources available on google books. Now provide me one reference which states that Butt tribe of Pakistan has ever been engaged in the profession of Bard or genealogist carried out by "Bhat", such profession in pakistan were taken by people who are called Mirasi in Pakistan and are a distinct menial group. And you are also unable to provide any example of a person from Pakistan who has Bhat as a surname, you are just beating around the bush instead of giving proof that there is a so-called "Bhat" ethnic group in pakistan when "Bhat Pakistan" google research brings nothing because no such group exists in pakistan. You are bringing religion in almost every post of yours, I did not know wikipedia was a place where people should be discussing religions and emotional rhetoric instead of maintaining a non-emotional neutral posture.Pakistani548 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As suggested by User:Kashmiri above, the article titled Bhatt should me merged with this one, Bhat. The nomination, by the anonymous IP address, is ridiculous, as the article is heavily sourced, explaining the history and origin behind the caste. The article about Bhatra, which was referenced by the nominator, is a separate topic, which deals with Sikh descendants. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit google books research shows that "Bhat" were genealogy keepers or minstrel mirasi or bhands, same is the case with bhatra who are musician minstrels affiliated with sikh religion, these were professional designations.--77.8.65.241 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bhat is equivalent to Bhaat , these were geneology keepers and also engaged in menial minstrel position, these are totally unrelated people in different states of india and there is no genetic connection between them. There has been a tendency on wikipedia to connect different communities that don't share language, culture or geography to put under the same banner merely based on a term describing their profession. As for as Brahmin priests/scholars are concerned Bhatt is a more proper term to describe them as it does not sound similar to "Bhat" or "Bhaat" minstrels. As for as Pakistani people using surname Butt are concerned they are simply kashmiri tribe/race and Butt merely is used by the kashmiris in pakistan the same way as Khan is used for all pashtuns. Pakistanis don't have a caste conscious society and no person in pakistan with surname Butt has any idea that what "Butt" stands for, as for them it stands for "Kashmiri", blame the simpilcity and ignorance of the folks of pakistan in these matters. Butt in pakistan is not a caste but rather a collection of tribes (every kind of kashmiri muslims migrant to pakistani punjab) of kashmiri origin who are all called Butt for convenience reasons. This stems from the highly tribal society of pakistan on the same pattern as the pashtun society of afghanistan where tribal confederations such as Durrani or Ghilzai are all encompassing collection of large collection of tribes with similar cultural and geographical origin. Butt in pakistan should also be understood in the same context as it is merely considered a convenient way of describing a large collection of kashmiri peoples settled in pakistani punjab. It is a complex issue and perhaps out of context for an article on "Bhat" or "Bhaat" who are nothing but merely menial minstrels and seem to be equivalent to "Mirasi" or "Bhand" people in pakistan.--77.8.65.241 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Bhat are indeed genealogy keepers akin to minstrel mirasi, a little google search brings a plethora of references and sources that state that Bhat is equivalent to genealogy keepers in india, the article in its current form is thus totally fallacious. --77.8.95.157 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WATCH OUT - the only three "delete" votes are from the same IP address range and, doubtless, the same editor. kashmiri ^TALK 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Agree with the recommendation, any reference to pakistan must be removed from this article or better completely delete this fallacious page. From the responses aboove it seems like the user Anupam does not subscribe to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. --Pakistani548 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — User:Pakistani548 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Welcome, IP editor, now editing through a WP:SPA!

It is highly unfortunate that the user Anupam or kashmiri has resorted to WP:SPA tagging to my account because they have no arguments to counter my questions.--Pakistani548 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you say it was you who asked those questions? Well, thank you for clear admission - but we anyway knew that you and the above IPs are the same person.

As to the content, in my opinion you have failed to provide any justification why this article should deleted - and should not be, say, merged with Bhatt. Repeating that Bhats were minstrels and different from Kashmiri Bhats ("Butts") is not really an argument for deletion, even though, if properly referenced, this information could certainly be incorporated into the article. Instead, you keep making personal attacks based on ethnic background or country/state of origin. Would you mind taking a look at WP:CIVILITY before posting another reply? kashmiri ^TALK 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, procedural. The nomination lacks any tangible policy-based argument for deletion. This is a content dispute and I must say that I find the nominators position to be laden with WP:AGENDA and supported by nothing more than blather and hand waving. In the event that he or she finds some evidence to support their position then edit the article accordingly. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the subject is declared in both articles to be a variant transliteration of the same family name; even if it has multiple origins, these should still be covered within one article. The "delete" opinions above can be ignored, as they are plainly the work of the same editor. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear User:Bellerophon, User:Kashmiri and User:Fayenatic london: User:Pakistani548, the editor who has nominated the article for deletion (the same individual with the only delete vote here), has started to remove information from the article against consensus. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Porcelain_Black#Discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty Naughty (Porcelain Black song)[edit]

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

Major notability concerns. The vast majority of the sources here are blogs and lyric sites - not reliable. The rest are iTunes links verifying the existence/release of the song and Billboard links showing its chart position on the dance club charts. (NSONG states that while ranking on a national chart may make a song notable, songs should still satisfy the criteria of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.") –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Borderline keep~~ Redirect to artist's discography for clearly charting - this satisfies the basic criterion that someone might want to look up this thing - though I agree the references are largely fluffy and the article needs serious work - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at NSONG, charting may make a song notable, but notability should be demonstrated by significant coverage in RSes. Chart position is listed at the singer's article in her discography section, so there's not much need to keep this around if its chart position is the only notable thing about it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's really nothing else, then yeah, redirect to the artist's discography - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This clearly won't be deleted per this discussion. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaqtin' a Fool[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show segment, which fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. It's a "1-3 minute" segment on Inside the NBA, and could be merged there. Bleacher Report is not the highest quality source, and there's little else. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inside the NBA. This feature on TV show fails WP:TVSHOW. No media coverage to make this segment stand out. Trysha ^(talk) 18:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it can't actually fail TVSHOW since it's just a segment of a show. Of course segments will usually be non-notable, but we don't have (or need) a guideline to tell us that. So the GNG is our only guide here. Surprisingly, Shaqtin' a Fool overwhelmingly passes with hundreds of RS articles] in various languages all around the globe. Some are trivial mentions, of course, but quite a few articles are devoted totally to the segment, meaning the GNG is passed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the quality of this sourcing is really low, which is why I don't think it meets GNG. Can you pick out some of the ones "devoted totally" to it? I see brief mentions here and there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I would also like to refine my position a bit: really, this is a cultural phenomenon. The phrase "Shaqtin' a Fool" appears to have become synonymous with "really bad play" to where various sources use it out of context and expect people to know what it means. There is also a year end full-length TV program "Shaqtin' a Fool", highlighting the year's worst plays, so clearly we are talking about more than a mere segment of a TV show. (And really, one could even argue it passed TVSHOW based on the full length version on NBA TV, but that is not really relevant to the discussion.)

As to sources, I'm certainly not going to go through all 15,000(!) news stories found by GNews and find the best ones. Instead I'll just grab a few at semi-random (but ignoring Bleacher Report, which literally has hundreds of articles on it) and comment.

[17] - brief coverage, but clearly indicates the cultural impact when spoofs of it are making the news

[18] - same, but more in depth

[19] - brief, but shows it is noticed even in Italy

[20][21] - official NBA page covers it many times.

[22] - As does Sporting News

[23] - pretty clearly in depth coverage of creator Mike Goldfarb, with a good deal of info about the show

[24] - review of a video game using phrase w/o context (i.e. expect people to know what it means); obviously not a source to write the article with, but a good indication of the cultural impact of the segment

[25] - another sporting website that often covers each episode.

[26] - fairly extensive coverage in Polish

In principle it could be covered under Shaq's page or the Inside the NBA page, or to a lesser degree other places. However, it does meet the GNG and is best handled as its own page rather than repeating the info multiple places across Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Missvain: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inside the NBA. In this video age, most sources for this segment are just a brief summary of past segment, with an embedded link to the video. Per Wikipedia:Notability, GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." "Inside the NBA" itself is a short article, so there is no concern with article size either.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Delete" shouldn't be an option here, rather it is a question of whether this regular, multi-season, viral-video-propagated segment of Inside the NBA merits a freestanding article per GNG or whether it should be merged to the piece on the main program (which is a MAJOR NBA show). Coverage of a parody of "Shaqtin' a Fool" by NBC Sports HERE leads me to believe that this article probably has sufficient momentum and possible sourcing for a freestanding pop culture article. Carrite (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who tie-in websites[edit]

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

Empty reflist, but plenty of inline external links, almost entirely to primary sources. There appear to be some sources about some of these individually, but the "Doctor Who tie-in websites" topic does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional websites in Doctor Who - the result was "Keep". – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for pointing that out -- indeed I didn't see it before nominating. It would be useful to make some tweaks to link the two AfDs upon this one's closure, but it shouldn't have much bearing on the discussion here. As an AfD from 2005, it was operating under very different and/or undeveloped deletion processes, and in fact stands as a pretty good example of that contrast (nearly all of the comments fall under WP:AADD). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, that AfD's main value is as a bit of Wiki-history. But still, for completeness, I try to include them if I see them. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rhododendrites: Huh. That page actually predates both of our accounts. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series pages and/or episode pages. These don't rise to the level of being an episode-equivalent, and the article itself doesn't suggest that the page meets the WP:GNG (though I'll admit that I'm not sure how to search for references to these). That said, these pages are part of the stories told in the various episodes and should be documented in the respective pages if they aren't already - possibly the general website campaign should be documented on the series pages as well. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a reasonable basis for an article, certainly not lacking for material. Will need additional third party refs of course, but that should not be too hard. Artw (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Artw: - Thanks for commenting. By saying it's a reasonable basis for an article are you saying it does pass WP:N (notability)? The absence of reliable secondary sources is the basis of the deletion, so the "not too hard" is precisely what we'd be looking for demonstration of to justify keeping. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's something that I'll take a look at when I get a moment. Artw (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can definitely understand why this article would be nominated for deletion. There are problems with the way that it is presented. However, I'm also a little concerned that some of the importance of what this article is about is being overlooked.

These additional websites really 'took off' during the 2006 series of Doctor Who. At the time, this was ground-breaking stuff. I don't think that many people had really seen this kind of thing before.

Similarly to that series of Doctor Who, the second series of Torchwood also had a large number of these kinds of websites that fitted in with an interactive game.

As I say, I don't think that this article's presentation of all this is quite right, though. Instead of having a section for each individual website detailing its features, I think that the article should contain a narrative of the story that people are taken through.

Perhaps, then, we should merge this into articles such as 'Doctor Who (series 2)'. However, I'd be concerned about that, too. I fear that the information implanted on a page such as that would inevitably be reduced to just one or two sentences. We have to remember that these websites tell stories themselves, which are worth documenting.

If I remember correctly, and I'm really not sure about this, but I think that towards the beginning of the television episode The Age of Steel, Shaun Dingwall's character reveals his codename. This codename could previously only be discovered after playing through the online game a week earlier. This gives you some kind of idea of the importance of these websites. If I'm right, then they did not simply provide a pong-type game to play each week, but could actually give integral information.

I'd also like to take you back to February 2008, and the very first article of the very first official Torchwood magazine. It is all about the online game that will accompany the forthcoming series. The article describes the game as "a series of new interactive episodes" and quotes the senior producer saying that the story should provide "about an extra 15 minutes of Torchwood all to yourself, every week." There is also an interview with Phil Ford, who wrote the story.

Particularly as it is billed to have "episodes", as opposed to just "tie-in websites", and as it would take a substantial amount of time to complete over a number of weeks, I rather feel as if the online experience for the second series of Torchwood should have its own standalone Wikipedia article, instead of having the last trace of it (as far as I am aware) being deleted. It is a proper story; it has the cast, a production team, and a writer.

I don't quite know how to solve this problem. The Doctor Who websites tend to relate to specific episodes, but not always. With Torchwood, there is an online adventure which delivers a separate story from any of the television episodes.

I'm voting 'keep' instead of delete or merge because there is information in this article which I don't think should be deleted, and I'm sceptical as to what a merge would look like. The article needs an overhaul, but we should not risk all the information within it. Redv Blue 13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You clearly know more about the topic than I, but I don't understand the policy rationale of your keep argument. Given the notability-based deletion rationale the question is almost entirely about sourcing (rather then usefulness, etc.: to what extent are there articles/books independent of Doctor Who/affiliated companies which provide in depth coverage of the websites as a unified topic (about the subject of the article as a whole rather than specific websites)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did actually think about putting a massive asterisk next to my 'keep'. I said that the article needs an overhaul. When I said that, a change of title was certainly in my thoughts.

I don't think that the article should be about the "unified topic" of the websites so much. Why should there be a Wikipedia article with a section for the Cybus Fitness website?

No, Wikipedia instead needs to account for the stories that are told, as well as the fact that this was a new type of interactive game at the time.

To use the example of the Torchwood game, then that tells a story, just like Sick Building, a book, tells a story. In fact, it tells a story just like Attack of the Graske tells a story. That was also an interactive game, but there was actually only one instalment, unlike Torchwood's many.

My argument was that there has to be some way of keeping this information on Wikipeida. So I did not vote for 'delete', as that clearly wouldn't do that. I did not vote for 'merge', because I am sceptical about what that would lead to, as I outlined above. So, in the end, I voted for 'keep'. If you like, then, yes, it was the best option of a bad bunch for me. However, I also made it clear that I would not be supporting the status quo by saying that the article needed an overhaul.

The issue of whether the article is useful or not never entered into my argument.

With regards to independent sources, I'm afraid that I have no response to that, whether they be for the "unified topic" or otherwise. Personally, I prefer to read from official sources, such as the magazine that I mentioned earlier, so I couldn't tell you about any other things. Redv Blue 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of issues in K-12 education in the United States[edit]

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

This list has a lot of problems to it. For one, I feel like it is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, because it just seems like a haphazard list of just about anything that could be vaguely related to education. With an exception of a handful of items, I don't even see how this is specifically related to the United States... The important issues that actually have a strong correlation to education in the US can be found at Education in the United States#Issues. This list does nothing to address any of the "issues" listed, and more importantly the why. Tavix | Talk 03:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merging anything relevant to Education in the United States#Issues. It would seem that more than anything, the article is trying to serve as a list of existing and desired articles; the sort we might normally see in WP space under the umbrella of a particular WikiProject. In that regard, it has some usefulness as a navigation aid but the list of included topics seems so indiscriminate that I'm not sure how truly useful it would be (bus, data, building and humour are all included). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re "issues" & merging: the title is a bit confusing. This is the list of "topics". "Issues" means something urgent, pressing. And there is nothing to merge to "Education in the United States#Issues": it is a list, with not a shred of coherent text to merge. -M.Altenmann >t 19:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's right, and I was more talking about coverage of any topics not currently covered there. But if there isn't anything to "merge" (in the traditional sense) then there isn't anything to merge and I can accept that. I'd also be comfortable with you idea of moving this to project space (as I outlined). St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in theory, this might work as an Outline article, or part thereof. Perhaps a move or merge might be in order. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to WP:WikiProject Education namespace, if they want it. It may be useful for the WikiProject in organizing their work, but otherwise the list is quite arbitrary and hardly useful. -M.Altenmann >t 19:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly support that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left that WikiProject a note on their talk page. We shall see... Tavix | Talk 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:EDU member checking in. I don't think this will be useful to the project. Anything we would use is already tagged with the WikiProject. It's too haphazard (as already stated) with many redirects and arbitrary inclusions like "supplies". Anyway, thanks for the thought. czar ⨹ 20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layourbattleaxedown[edit]

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

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The existing article lists one Pitchfork review of a single cut, but does not reference the album review here. There are also reviews by Jon Dale at Dusted Magazine here, one by Eric Bodrero at antiMusic here, and one by Ross McGowan at Stylus Magazine here. But that is not significant coverage. As usual there are references in fansites, blogs, forums, and other media that are not themselves reliable. I have made no determination about whether the reviews I found (listed above) are reliable sources or not, since the coverage does not appear to be out there. Maybe someone else can find some mainstream music coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm seeing some reviews (dusted, stylus, tuning fork), but none of them are particularly great and I'm not quite seeing enough to satisfy NALBUM. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 22:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the AllMusic and Stylus reviews, both proven to be reliable review sources at WP: ALBUMS/SOURCES. Both reviews cover the album in detail. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kokoro20.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable source coverage identified above. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen AllMusic used as an indicator of notability in the past. WP: ALBUMS/SOURCES does not claim that being covered in those sources implies notability, only that they might be useful in article expansion. I've always seen it the same way I see IMDb for movies. Is it indeed consensus that AM coverage confers notability? Deadbeef 03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since AllMusic and Stylus are both reliable third-party sources, I don't see why it couldn't be. These sources aren't affiliated with the subject, which satisfies WP:GNG. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely delete articles which only have local coverage, even those sources are reliable and third-party. I guess my question is, "Is it enough?" I don't think it is here. Two GNG-satisfying sources is really weak and using that to claim notability seemingly abuses the trailing "s" in "sources". I'm leaning delete here. Deadbeef 04:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "local coverage"? I don't see how they are "really weak" either, since GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage to be notable, and two is multiple. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean subjects which aren't notable outside a city or small region and are only covered by local news sources; I was illustrating a point. Regardless, GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage to be notable, and two is multiple is a really Wikilawyer-ish way to go about a deletion discussion; I know "two is multiple", thank you very much. It isn't a lot though. Articles with more than two equally valid sources are deleted regularly. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. The references given don't come close to constituting significant coverage. Deadbeef 06:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two detailed reviews sounds like significant coverage to me (after all, it's they are more than just trivial mentions). But suit yourself. I'm not really trying to get you to change your vote. I just disagree. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okwiri Oduor[edit]

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

Subject of article appears to fail N, as she appears to be notable only for one reason: her winning of the Caine Prize. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She passes WP:ANYBIO #1. The Caine Prize is an important prize and has been reported as such in multiple reliable sources. Every other winner of the prize has an article. And Wikipedia:Systemic bias also enters into play here: we should not be quick to delete articles about prize-winning authors from countries like Kenya which is likely to be underrepresented. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. Lightbreather (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning the Caine Prize is enough, but she has also won a notable award from the MacDowell Colony, which has helped develop 81 Pulitzer Prize winners. This is a notable young writer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she's won the Caine Prize which is fine, I will admit however the article does need a lot of improving but that can be fixed anytime. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per winning the Caine Prize. Wincent77 (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO. Arxiloxos' point about systemic bias is also valid. Cavarrone 07:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Foster[edit]

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

Non-notable artist lacking non-trivial support. References do not appear to support statements they are attached to. Borders on a vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally, I'm opposed to deleting anything with sources. But seriously, I cannot see how this guy is more notable with a longer article than Bob Ross who was on TV for years.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources appear to be a brief article in a trade publication and a statement about an award he received. Neither of these appear to be WP:RS, and the total does not show how WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; with much improved referencing. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stern (director)[edit]

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

Unreferenced forever. Clearly, he made some videoclips, but I failed to find any discussions of this person -M.Altenmann >t 17:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per WP:ANYBIO - multiple award winner. Have begun adding refs. Artw (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure the he is award winner. For example, a ref you added says: Prodigy nabbed the Viewer's Choice Award for "Breathe", not a mum about Stern. Neither about sound mixer or whoever other dozen of technicians. Please provide sources which speak specifically about Stern's relevance to this awards. Specifically, where is description of his contribution to Breathe? How pointing camera at Prodigy made him co-glorious? I seriously doubt he direct them how to sing and where to dance. If you really want this article about him, please add references which speak about him, not which simply mention his name. -M.Altenmann >t 04:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you have WP:ANYBIO mixed up with WP:GNG (which TBH he'd probably make as well with the sources available.) Artw (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has won awards, and gets mentioned in music video awards articles. No articles specifically about him, the person, but I suspect that's a factor of the business he is in, since rock videos are all about the performers, not the video-makers. LaMona (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should add that it would be only honest to remove links to articles that do not mention him, and there are quite a few here. Any articles that talk only about the videos should link to an article for the video (if there is one) or the artist. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been established via the sources in the article. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the skin of the teeth. Very few of the sources actually mention the man or speak to his notability in even a passing manner, but a couple do and these mentions, combined with the profile of the work, make an argument for a very weak keep, with the hope that the references can be fleshed out in the future. That said, LaMona has the right of matters with regard to the present sources; those which do not mention the subject nor otherwise support claims within the article need to be removed. Snow talk 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vevo. Opinion here is split between deleting, redirecting, and merging. On balance, a redirect seems reasonable and is supported by a majority of particpants. Whether there is anything worth merging I will leave to interested editors - currently there is no sourced content to merge. Michig (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vevo Certified[edit]

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

Completely promotional in nature. Documents the status of videos provided through a single vendor, sourced solely through that single vendor. This violates both WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and the guideline derived from it, WP:SINGLEVENDOR. —Kww(talk) 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vevo as a small mention of existence. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 00:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be mentioned in the Vevo article, but does not merit the redirect suggested by merger. As the nominator indicates it runs afoul of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and WP:SINGLEVENDOR. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - Definitely deserves a redirect, ~~unsure on keep.~~ See [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Scratch that. Definitely keep. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you've presented a set of links but no argument. What about the links you have provided would indicate that this article doesn't serve as promotion?—Kww(talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article may need rewriting, but the fact of the matter is that it receives a huge amount of news coverage, not to mention all the partial mentions I didn't link where it is used as a qualifier to prove how successful artists are. Therefore, it certainly qualifies. The single vendor argument fails since VEVO covers a huge number of record labels and artists, and it isn't a chart, it's a viewing certification. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be a reasonable argument if I were arguing to delete Vevo, which I am not.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now your just picking fault because I dropped 'VEVO Certified' from my sentence accidentally. It's pretty clear what I'm talking about since VEVO itself isn't a certification, its a video viewing platform and youtube network. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that your arguments are an excellent justification for keeping Vevo and that I am not arguing for deleting it. They aren't a particularly good argument for keeping a complete and exhaustive list of each and every video that has been delivered a certain number of times through a single distribution channel.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vevo. Not notable enough for its own article. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I can't find any secondary sources either. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vevo. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WorldHotel-Link[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. All present refs are either broken, primary, or of extremely dubious reliability. Not finding sufficient refs elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, definitely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few brief mentions, e.g. this, this, and this, but nothing significant and nothing that suggests that the company merits an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niyathi Chakrapani[edit]

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

This article seems to be in violation of Wikipedia's policies of "Neutral point of view" WP:NPOV, "Autobiography" WP:AUTOBIO, "Notability" WP:N, and "Conflict of interest" WP:COI. The content seems self-promotional due the fact it seems to be written by the individual (Autobiography & notability). Given the individual is in high school and due to the apparent nature of the content/accomplishments, this does not seems to warrant a Wikipedia page, but seems to be largely a self-promotional attempt by the user. The content under "Sammamish Youth Writing Club" seems to be a sales pitch (neutral point of view and conflict of interest). Due to these numerous violations of policy, I believe this page should be deleted. Further sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community." 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niyathi Chakrapani

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best of local interest only, only local coverage, passing mentions, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable teenage blogger and writer, who has achieved the usual sorts of minor, local recognition that an ambitious 17 year old can accumulate. Too soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to establish Notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Edge[edit]

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

Tagged with advert and COI since '13, but more importantly doesn't appear to meet GNG. The cited references don't qualify and I don't see much else out there. Vrac (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Vrac (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of notability. Price comparison links, slideshows, etc do not establish notability. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention at USA Today; otherwise no significant independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM. Michig (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot Hall[edit]

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

Venue tagged as unsourced since 2006. While some notable people have had events there, I can't find sources about the venue itself to pass WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raikko Mateo[edit]

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

There is no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the article or elsewhere. It is sourced only to Facebook, together with failed attempts to link to Twitter, Instagram, and an unidentified "FanPage". (A deletion proposal by WP:PROD was removed without explanation by a single-purpose account with a self-declared conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 15:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly. I really do not enjoy poorly sourced articles. I have removed the offending (unreliable) sources (Facebook, etc.) and added four citations in the awards section. Reliable sources about Raikko Mateo are not that hard to find, but I will let someone else continue to populate the article with appropriate citations. On the basis of my searches he seems to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. I note that Wikipedia has yet to recognize with articles the Yahoo! Celebrity Awards of the Philippines and the Gawad PASADO Awards. --Bejnar (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the sources now cited, one does not mention Raikko Mateo, and the others merely include his name in a list. You say "Reliable sources about Raikko Mateo are not that hard to find", but you have not actually provided any source (reliable or otherwise) that does more than list his name, nor have I managed to find any. We don't keep articles on the grounds that someone says that there are reliable sources but doesn't say where, as that means that the sources are not verifiable. It is also very unclear to me that the awards claimed are significant enough to indicate notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't interested in spending a lot of time with this once I did an initial search and found lots of articles, so i just documented the awards. The previous citations were all junk (as mentioned above). I think if you look, you'll find that all of the four citations that I added do mention Raikko Mateo and the specific award. I was verifying the awards, to make sure that he received them and that they were not pure fluff. (The Yahoo award is pretty fluffy.) Let me know which source you had trouble with. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by asking me which source I "had trouble with". I have already explained why I don't think the sources establish notability. Nor do you state that they do: you merely state that they verify that he received the awards listed, which is far from being the same as establishing notability. We don't keep articles just because somebody says they have "found lots of articles": we need to know what the articles are, so that we can check whether they show notability by Wikipedia standards or not. I had a look, and eight of the first ten Google hits for "Raikko Mateo" were the Wikipedia article, a YouTube video, Facebook, Twitter, Wikia, a credit list on IMDb, a page on Instagram which describes itself as belonging to the "Official Supporters Account Of Raikko Mateo", and a forum. Another one is a news item on the "Phillipine entertainment portal". The Phillipine entertainment portal looks to me pretty indiscriminate in its reporting; it seems to aim to be as inclusive as possible of anything that might appeal to fans of almost any Filipino entertainers. That leaves one Yahoo news report which essentially consists of a write-up of what the "AdProm Head" of Dreamscape said about how Raikko Mateo came to be chosen for a part. The same text appears, word for word, on a page at www.highbeam.com, and it seems to be no more than a write-up of a press release. I had a quicker glance at the next 20 Google hits, and although there was more coverage of him, it seemed at a quick look to be mostly unreliable sources, fan pages, trivial coverage, etc. It may be that there is suitable coverage to show notability according to Wikipedia's standards, but I have yet to see it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: When I asked what source you had trouble with, I was referring to your statement sources now cited, one does not mention Raikko Mateo,. All of the cited sources mention Raikko Mateo. Which one did you have trouble with? --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as searching goes I'd try the "news" button above in the Afd header. For example "Confluence of mixed emotions" in the Philippine Daily Inquirer 24 March 2014 in a news story about the end of the "Honesto" series, four paragraphs are devoted to Mateo. See also "Raikko Mateo’s eyes land him lead role on ‘Honesto’" a Yahoo News article of 28 October 2013, and the article "Raiko, 5" in the printed entertainment magazine TFC Tells All, volume 2, issue 1, page 19. As far as notability goes Mateo has had significant roles in multiple television shows, namely a starring role in the #1 show Honesto and the highly rated My Guardian Angel, which meets WP:NACTOR criteria #1. The awards help indicate that the roles were significant. As I said above, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that he passes the standard notability tests, even though he is now only six years old. One might also look at his fan base the existence of which is supported by the Yahoo award, and by such comments in secondary sources as The fan base of the Filipino teleserye has expanded not just from its predominantly loyal followers (housewives and senior citizens) to young people now cheering the “Honesto” of Raikko Mateo. "The perks and lures of teleserye" in the Philippine Star newspaper. --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: First of all, thank you for the additional work you have evidently put in. I confess I am not sure now what I had in mind when I wrote "Of the sources now cited, one does not mention Raikko Mateo". The only thing I can think of is that I had in mind the one which is merely a note about the title of an award, with a link to the Wikipedia article Tagalog language. Most probably I just clicked on all the links given in the ref list, and searched for Raikko Mateo's name in each page that came up; since his name does not appear in that Wikipedia article, the search would come up negative. In any case, that does not affect the point I was trying to make, which was that none of the references does more than include his name in a list.

OK, now let's consider the links you give in your latest message. The first page you link to, at inquirer.net, is about "Honesto". Amongst other matters, it does mention Raikko Mateo at some length, but mainly as criticism of the writing for his part, and the coverage of Raikko Mate, as opposed to coverage of how the people who created the series handled the part played by Raikko Mate, amounts to no more than a couple of sentences or so. The second page you link to is the Yahoo report I have already discussed, and the comments I made above still stand. (One more point which I didn't think of mentioning before is that the article includes the text [caption id="attachment_34375" align="alignright" width="194"]Raikko Mateo, Honesto, Manila Bulletin Raikko Mateo[/caption], which is a pretty sure sign that it was just copied and pasted from somewhere, without even proof-reading it. That is consistent with my impression that it is copied from a press release.) The third page you link to at first appeared to be merely a page showing front covers of issues of a magazine, and it took me some time before I figured out how to find the article you refer to. When I did manage to see it, I saw that is indeed an article about Raikko Mateo, and far better evidence of notability than anything I had seen until then. However, it is fairly trivial coverage in just one magazine article, and I would want to see much more before I accepted that it was evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Then we come to your reference to WP:NACTOR. What does "multiple" mean? To me it suggests more than two, but it is undefined in the guideline, so there is room for disagreement. The guideline also says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so even if we accept two as being "multiple", that does not close the issue. Finally, we have your comments about his "fan base", supported by a link to a page at www.philstar.com. That page makes one passing mention of Raikko Mateo, and as far as I know "has a lot of fans" does not appear anywhere in any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

You have certainly now provided much better evidence of notability than was available when I wrote my earlier comment, and I thank you for the work you have put in. However, the way I see it, if we ignore sources which are of no use for establishing notability under the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines, we are left with (1) rather trivial fan type coverage in one magazine, and (2) significant role in 2 productions, which could be regarded as "multiple". I regard that as at best marginal evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines, whereas before I would have said no evidence. However, I suggest leaving the discussion open for a while, to see if anyone else expresses an opinion as to whether that is enough evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 05:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Jackson (music producer)[edit]

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

I declined BLP PROD as the article has sources but it's a mess and if it's not cleaned up we should quietly remove it. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 20:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niti Taylor[edit]

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

This article is a poor thing that was tagged BLP PROD but does not meet the criteria. I cannot tell whether it is just that it was written by a user whose first language is probably not English. I would like to encourage review of the content, ideally by someone with detailed knowledge, but if we can't improve it then it really ought to go, at least for now. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 20:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not fall any of the notability criteria. 130.36.62.223 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Nothing to save on there, it apparently was written by someone having COI with subject (or SPA?). I've removed promo and unsourced claims, and added few refs the article may be expanded upon. For now, it does meet WP:GNG and should be kept. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 10:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Adams[edit]

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

No proof of notability. Only one sentence on the subject Makro (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won two BAFTAs. Read WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the multiple independent, indepth sources that we need to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 20:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Television producer who has won a BAFTA (one of the most prominent television awards in the UK) for their work. Added info to article. Cowlibob (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A BAFTA a career keeps the deletion doctor away. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like he has had a significant career winning a few awards. PatGallacher (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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