Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 January 19 January >

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 redirect to Gaza flotilla raid#Casualties. KTC (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Çetin Topçuoğlu[edit]

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

He appears to be notable only for the fact that he was killed in the Gaza flotilla raid. I can find no sources supporting the claim he was a taekwondo champion. He is not listed among the nearly 30,000 athletes at taekwondodata.com and the European Taekwondo Union does not show him ever winning a medal at their championship. Therefore, he appears to be notable simply for the tragic event of his death, which is not enough for WP notability on its own. Having started this, I've decided what I really want to do is Redirect to Gaza flotilla raid#Casualties, but this allows everyone a chance to give input. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:35, 19 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N. D. Williams[edit]

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

Marked as lacking sources and having failed to establish notability for >1 year. The author has allegedly received a Casa de las Americas prize, though no reference is provided, and the importance of this award is not even stated on the page for that award. Was apparently mentioned once in the LA Times. Other than that, no indication of this individual meeting WP:AUTHOR. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw (by nominator). Based on the evidence mentioned below and added to both of these articles, I withdraw the nomination. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have added another book review [1] and a biographical cite [2] that confirms that he got the award. The Casa de las Américas Prize is a major award – the Pulitzer Prize of Latin American literature. Our article didn't really make that clear, so I revised and expanded it. Now I think you can check the references to verify that it's a big award. Being selected as the first recipient in the new (as of 1976) category for writing in English was an honor. He has had a long career since then, so I think he's notable as a Caribbean author. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:47, 19 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. KTC (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bădoi[edit]

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

This article was speedy deleted then brought to deletion review, at which it was decided to list this at AfD for further discussion. This is an administrative action; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly does not establish notability. Delete post-haste. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I added sources to prove the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because, despite Vanjagenije's efforts, his sources in no way "prove the notability". Let's go through them one by one, shall we?
    • 1: Cancan: tabloid trash
    • 2: Click!: tabloid trash
    • 3: Libertatea: tabloid trash
    • 4: Jurnalul Național: borderline scandal rag, cannot be considered an independent source, as it forms part of the Intact Media Group, together with Bădoi's employer, Antena 1. In any event, what this puff piece tells us is utterly irrelevant in terms of encyclopedic notability: that she took road trips to various European cities.
    • 5: Viva!: tabloid trash
    • 6: someone's website (see WP:SPS for that)
    • 7: eva.ro: tabloid trash, a kind of Romanian online-only women's Daily Mail
  • Thus, in terms of sourcing, we don't have something that meets the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard set by WP:BASIC. If someone's coverage does not rise beyond tabloid level, that means the person in question is not fit for this project, because we are an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag.
  • Let's also look at the claims made by the article as it stands.
    • "TV anchor": false. She's a weather presenter, as stated in the very next sentence. She is not, and has not been, an anchor.
    • "previously worked as a model": would be significant if she met WP:NMODEL, but there's absolutely no evidence that's the case, and so it's irrelevant in terms of notability.
    • "In 2007, she participated in the Romanian national semi-finals for the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest" - right, and she finished in 9th place. Per longstanding consensus, only the winners of Eurovision national selections and their songs are generally considered notable. Finishing 9th doesn't add to a claim of notability.
    • "Together with DJs Snatt & Vix she composed and recorded the song 'Cold Shower' in 2011." - and? Did this song achieve notability, as defined by WP:NSONG? If not, irrelevant.
    • "They performed the song at the 2011 The Mission Dance Weekend in Constanța." - again, so what? Merely performing a song is not evidence of notability.
  • In sum, the subject is notable neither through the claims made by the article nor through the sensationalist but blatantly trivial sources presented, and this should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 03:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have verified each source, and second Biruitorul's review. The one (barely) creditable source is Jurnalul Național which, even without that conflict of interests (plus scandal-rag) proviso, is a one-event mention, still way below our notability guidelines. Dahn (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above excellent analysis of the sources. Seems to be non-notable in several different fields. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Biruitorul's analysis. — Joaquin008 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 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. Page Goddard Scholars Program was also speedy-delete-tagged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard Scholars Program[edit]

Goddard Scholars Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of recognition beyond the local area. No indication of any recognition whatsoever in secondary sources beyond the local community. Fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by local community? The program has many sponsors including the Robert Goddard association, and I don't think that the recognition should be just based from online sources, when there is also some great evidence. The program is everywhere in the city and anyone that you ask in the city and state knows about it. Also another point, what about all the other programs and schools on Wikipedia? What about those that are for example "local" or "state" recognition? Why aren't those ones being deleted? And some of them are so irrelevant that not even locally people don't know about them. I think this isn't a good decision. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.76.218 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLease log in with your Wikipedia account when commenting here, and refrain from posting spam links on all sorts of articles for GSP. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is neither importance or relevance. The criteria is notability. If you cannot show that the organization has been covered in detail in reliable secondary sources from disparate geographical areas, it does not qualify. BTW, if the unsigned comment from the IP editor is from the same person as the unsigned !vote by the registered editor, you should merge the discussions and note that you did that. A !vote without an argument will simply be discounted by the closer. John from Idegon (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not be opposed to calling this a merge as opposed to a delete, as there is already a significant section in the article on the only notable school this program is at (South High Community School). John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment I'd like to make is that yes it is nobility. It shows nobility, because the program has been running since 1988, and it has been extremely successful. Students from the program have received excellent AP scores and several have won the national merit scholarship psat. The article should not be deleted or merged, but if merging is the only option then merge, however it is noble enough to remain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.76.218 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Important to recognize that when it says "(Find sources: "Goddard Scholars Program" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)" --- The program is alternatively also known as just Goddard Scholars, or Goddard Scholars Academy (at Sullivan). You need to fix that and make it all three. And when you look that up on Books it's included in Robert Goddard book, and when you search it on news, it says Goddard Scholars, there are plenty of results. Also there are also textual evidence from state newspapers about the program as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.76.218 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have thought about that and included any reliable sources when you created the article - thereare enough reminders about articles needing to be sourced. You can still add those sources and prevent possible deletion, but you should log in to your account when posting here or edting the article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that with recent additions to the article, it is appearing more and more like the subject is more than adequately covered at South High Community School and as such I have nominated it for CSD A10. A single school program that has had no coverage outside the local area and that is already adequately covered in the school's article does not need to be here. It is a duplication of part of an existing article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It is not substantial enough to have nascent notability so even a redirect would be inappropriate for this purely internal school's program that is 'recognised' by the county. The fact that is is named after an alumus of a county school has no impact on notability whatsoever. It is already more than sufficiently mentioned at South High Community School. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 22 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Bissambhar[edit]

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

Terribly referenced article. Notability is asserted (with respect to minor awards won and "hit" songs) but no references are provided establishing these "facts". Bueller 007 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I know that simple GHits don't indicate notability, and that there are probably quite a few duplicate hits, but even taking that into account, the sheer volume of hits the major national newspapers suggest that he's notable (and note that these are only examples where his full name is used, not his stage name Ravi B)
  • Trinidad and Tobago Express: 163 hits[3]
  • Trinidad and Tobago Newsday187 hits[site:newsday.co.tt Ravi Bissambhar]
  • Trinidad Guardian: 2370 hits[4] (Given the other two newspapers, this number is probably too high).
This isn't a proper analysis, I realise, but I think it's illustrative that Ravi B is notable as a performer and as an important contributor to the chutney-soca genre. Guettarda (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will withdraw the nomination if you are willing to put in the work to improve the article. Otherwise, I think it should go through the full process. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - clearly not a legitimate nomination for deletion, which can be closed regardless of the nominator's ultimatums to other editors. St★lwart111 00:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an ultimatum. You might want to look that word up, so you know what it means. Notability should be asserted in the article itself and I invited him to add it. The comment was intended to show that this article could clearly benefit from going through the AfD process; it should be apparent that it already has. Anyway, take your snarky comments and nasty attitude elsewhere. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That suggestion is contrary to WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. "I will withdraw the nomination if you are willing to put in the work to improve the article" suggests you won't if he isn't which is absolutely an ultimatum. He is not required to do that work in order for this discussion to be closed and it can be closed (without you withdrawing it) on the basis that you haven't actually provided a valid rationale for deletion. St★lwart111 02:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an ultimatum, it's more of a challenge. I've been aware of the article for a long time, knowing it needed serious work. I'll accept the challenge to clean it up, as best I can. It's all good. Guettarda (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm glad you see it that way, but its still not an appropriate deletion nomination. St★lwart111 03:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable via coverage described above. --Michig (talk) 14:31, 25 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aakhir Kaun 2[edit]

Aakhir Kaun 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as a non-notable film, non-notable cast, non-notable director and non-notable film company. No significant coverage. Even the cited Facebook page is no longer there. There is a newer Facebook page here. --Bejnar (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- As the author states, it's his private film that was "made for fun". EthicallyYours! 07:35, 25 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. Major keep argument came from the article's creator, who was not really following policy. Shii (tock) 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shine (Shinee song)[edit]

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It was released digitally as part of the album, and charted poorly. It received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Article has no sources that actually discuss the song besides a record review of the entire album. Article is padded with superfluous information about Teddy Riley. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for its own page Asdklf; (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the creator of the article and many more that have been nominated for deletion by User:Shinyang-i. So obviously I would say Keep since I am undoubtedly biased towards articles I have created like anyone else. Surely I was not able to gain enough English references to "prove its notability" and I cannot read Korean so it is difficult for me to find Korean references. But everyone let's take a look on this song "It Takes Two", it's an English song by the "famous" Katy Perry. It's not a single. She only performed it in her concerts. It has no music video. It charted on Korean Gaon chart (Korean, not US chart) but of course far below Shinee's "Shine (Shinee song)" which had spot #100. Whats the difference here then? Shinee's "Shine" is more notable than Katy Perry's song, but NOT 'yet' on wikipedia because we were not able to gather enough references due to language barriers; and instead of asking help from Korean wikipedians for references, we resorted to deleting that article - why? because its easier. This article is not trash - believe me this song is notable. Katy Perry's song is also notable. We just have to improve such articles by asking help and not just deleting them. With a few more good references "Shine" will be just as good as "It Takes Two". So please reconsider. I am busy in my exams so I will not be able to comment again but I had to say all of this. Thanks. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FudgeFury Perhaps you would like to list that article for deletion? it is hardly a standard by which we should measure other articles. I'm sorry about your difficulty finding Korean sources, but it begs the question of how you know it to be so notable in a way not already portrayed within the article? Asdklf; (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 22:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Why So Serious? – The Misconceptions of Me: Not an official hit single. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site has enough infos, it just lacks some reliable sources. There should be users out there who speak Korean to help out. So keep the site and wait or merge the article. It would be a shame to delete it without to give others a chance to help out. --46.115.144.142 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just FYI, the article was created in July 2014. Plenty of time has elapsed for people to "help out." Also, presence of "info" doesn't fulfill requirements to have an article. It has to be the right kind of info. Notability has not been established for the song. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources. If no-one has added any, the presumption must be that there aren't any. Maproom (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails WP:GNG. If we want, we can incorporate some of the info as a part of the album article instead.--TerryAlex (talk) 04:23, 9 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,  Sandstein  17:30, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing really worth merging. Unlikely to be useful as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Merge not useful.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:13, 26 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mulumba Ivan Matthias[edit]

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

The subject of this biography is simply not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Additionally, the entry was created by the subject himself, and has been maintained throughout by him. That is self-promotion. Cartney23 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the page was not approved by the subject and has been edited by other editors. Communities and persons are encouraged to contribute to wikipedia. I've seen this with pages i've made and the persons have added some information. Would we call this self promotion because they are adding material that you might not have access to?--Faintsmoke (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your user page starts "Welcome. My real name is Mulumba Ivan Matthias." and you wrote the article, so how could you possibly claim the subject doesn't approve of the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ThaddeusB, you misunderstood. What I meant is that the article was subimited for approval. At the time it was a user page.--Faintsmoke (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a notable African writer published in multiple sources. Greenman (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--With due respect, Greenman, I am an African - a Ugandan - and I would like to contest your definition of "notable". There is the small fact that this is an article written by the author himself. His only literary output is a book he self-published - the publishers of the book are a company at which he is an executive - and it's been written about or reviewed by non-notable sources. They are the type of sources or publications that would review anything. Even then, without judging the merits of the book (which I have not read), I believe there are more worthy Ugandan writers for Wikipedia entries. Mulumba, despite his obvious hard work, has not yet reached that level of notability. --Cartney23 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At first glance, I do not see any reliable sources for the article. However, I may be missing something. Pinging @The Herald: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually pinging this time: @The Herald: --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Those kalaharireview and africanbookclub cites makes it go in my view (reason(s) why I accepted it). Don't think its not notable one..The Herald : here I am 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--Anyone on this page can review any book or publication by an African writer, submit it to the African Book Club or Kalahari Review, and it will be published. At least I can, since I have been published in several publications on the continent. All you need is someone willing to write a positive review of your book, say a friend or colleague. You can't do that with the Guardian, or the New Yorker, or even the Mail & Guardian. I think there should be a more thorough determinant of notability! --Cartney23 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination is a presumed delete "vote" - there is no need to say delete again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote from nominator. The nomination is considered as your !vote. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about a book being reviewed in "The monitor"? Cartney23, you seem to think that credibility or notability is only got when foreign newspapers review a book or an artist. Most reviews of Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi's book, "Kintu", have been on these platforms which you are trashing. Does that make it less notable because it was ignored by the news paper platforms you've pointed out? --Faintsmoke (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--Ugandan newspapers have no literary standards to speak of, unfortunately. Especially today. A review on some Ugandan blogs, So Many Stories, for example, carries more weight than a review in the Monitor or the New Vision. Also, Kintu was reviewed in the Guardian and a big number of literary blogs, like Granta. --Cartney23 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You are using a personal bias to grade news papers. We are not going to wait for every book to be reviewd by the Guardian and the like, to know that it is notable. Some books have been reviewed in "The East african" for example, and others were written before some of the blogs and media you've cited came into existance. Should we ignore them because they have not appeared in those news papers? It is true that more notable authors and writers have works reviewd in those channels? But is that all we should base on? I have brought this up because i've made several pages of Ugandan authors. Should their presence on wikipedia be questioned based on the same rule? Most of them have been reviewed in those platforms which you claim have no literary merit.--Faintsmoke (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I don't think people like Makumbi, Baingana, or Arac de Nyeko need to be reviewed by Monitor or New Vision for us to know that they are notable. Their notability speaks for itself basing on the quality of their work and the recognition they have received from several reputable sources, not friendly articles written in local newspapers by their colleagues and friends. In the same vein, they don't need to write their own Wikipedia entries because someone will notice that they don't have entries and remedy that. Their notability speaks for itself. Additionally, I don't know any discerning Literati who looks at the Monitor or New Vision for their book reviews: some journalists or guest-writers might pull of a good and unbiased review; most times, however, anything goes into those papers. --Cartney23 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment When you say that someone will notice and make the page for writers like Baingana, what do you mean? Some of these authors have been around for some time and have only got pages recently. If not, the pages were mere stubs. There are not so many people out there making pages for Ugandan writers. Some authors are more notable than others. I agree. Lets not use the same judgement a a basis for who get a wikipedia page and who doesn't. The next thing you might disagree with is the worthiness of literary prizes in Uganda. --Faintsmoke (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I thought the whole point of a Wiki article/entry is notability? That is the main criteria, right? Also, I am aware that there are very notable people who do not have entries on Wikipedia. One of my professors in South Africa, respected in academia and a national figure, does not have a Wikipedia entry (although I have always been hoping to create one for him). That does not mean that a teaching assistant, or a lecturer at a Technikon should come and create a page for themselves. And, it also shows that even in countries with a more active Wikipedia editing process there are still omissions. That said, I strongly believe that Mulumba Innocent Mathias is simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. --Cartney23 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an established newspaper, Daily Monitor is presumed to be a reliable source. Anyone arguing otherwise has the burden of proof... There is no indication any of the other sources meet the definition of reliable sources. Where are these other newspaper reviews you speak of - they aren't listed in the article as sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying that the Monitor is not a reliable source. It is a reliable source, for news about Uganda. That however does not make it a reliable authority on judging literary merit or literary notability. It is not the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the New Yorker, which aim to be excellent throughout. Uganda, too, is a small country, with almost all it's literary activity happening in Kampala. Newspaper reviewers tend to be close friends of writers - especially the newspaper reviewer who reviewed the book that is the determinant of the subject's notability - or, if not, a friend of a friend of the writer. Additionally, I think the obvious fact that the entry was written by the writer himself, and that the book that contains all his output was published by him, by a company he owns, should raise enough flags. My belief is that he does not yet belong to the league of notable Ugandan writers. --Cartney23 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If a reliable newspaper publishes a review of a author/book, that is evidence the subject is notable. Saying the reviewer may be friends with the author is speculation, which has no place in a deletion discussion. If you want to discredit the Monitor review, you are going to have to provide some evidence beyond your opinion of Ugandan literary journalism. A COI is not a valid reason for deletion either... Now, notice I haven't said Matthias is notable. So far, there is insufficient evidence of notability, but a claim was made that more sources (reviews) exist, so I am reserving judgement until those sources are either pointed out or the claim proves unsubstantiated... Making invalid arguments doesn't help the deletion or keep side. It only distracts and by consequence tends to weaken the argument being made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; it has no place in this discussion.--Cartney23 (talk) 23:44, 9 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,  Sandstein  17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if several reliable newspapers publishes a substantial review of a book, and if the particular newspaper is known for in fact having reliable book reviews, rather than just publishing reviews of all local authors or anything anyone send it, then it can show notability. Not all newspapers sufficiently selective for general news are reliable in this; there is essentially no source reliable for everything. The reason for not considering the publushing to automatically imply notability is the likelihood of their representing PR, not independent edited journalism. (At least, that's how I look at it) DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - The Monitor review is a demonstration of notability. The AfricanBookClub interview is another, but very marginal as a source. That's it - the rest of the sources are either material supplied by the author, very brief, unreliable, or some combination thereof. That's not enough to demonstrate notability, IMO, although it is close. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I still lean towards keep. As the comment above states, the topic was covered in The Monitor and the AfricanBookClub, where he won an award. Much of the earlier discussion revolves around the fact that the author submitted most of the article himself. I agree this is not ideal, but I don't think it's relevant in this case. Earlier discussion also revolves around whether there are more notable writers that don't have articles. Undoubtedly there are. Again, this is not relevant. Simply, it comes down to whether the topic is notable or not. It's marginal, but there are a number of independent sources, and that is sufficient for me. Greenman (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote directly above, as user has !voted to keep earlier, and only one !vote is allowed. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:17, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal for the History of Environment and Society[edit]

Journal for the History of Environment and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journal does not exist yet, its first issue is "planned for 2015" according to its website. As a non-existing publication fails miserably WP:NJOURNAL. kashmiri TALK 16:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Only 4 Google results, it is clearly too soon for this journal to meet any notability guideline. I also could not find any evidence that this journal is indexed in any selective databases. Everymorning talk 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:55, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously non-notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:15, 18 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. With apologies to Cunard, the deletes have it. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Michael[edit]

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

I saw that this was previously nominated for deletion back in 2009, and I'm really not convinced that this article was and is currently notable. I would really like to see another discussion on this subject. Penale52 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that simply being the subject of a couple of human interest stories in a newspaper is sufficient to establish notability. The subject knew some notable sports figures, but that doesn't make him notable himself. BRMo (talk) 05:42, 14 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required by GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paraphrasing from my comments in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Michael:

    The multiple reliable sources provided in the Flickr uploads by Ap3253 (talk · contribs) show that Andy Michael passes WP:BIO. These sources are from reliable news organizations, such as the Concord Monitor (see here and here), Boston Globe (see here), etc (see here and here). Notability is fully established by these sources.

    Andy Michael's participation in World War II garnered him reliable sources. His memorabilia collection also garnered him sources. His position as a scout for the New York Yankees garnered him sources. The subject's notability is not confined to local notability. This argument doesn't even apply because the major newspaper the Boston Globe is not in Concord, New Hampshire, or even the state of New Hampshire.

    There are newspaper articles about the subject published in the 1940s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. This is sustained coverage of a notable figure. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The newspaper articles cited from the 1940s are now dead links, but based on how they are referenced in the text, they appear to be WP:ROUTINE—examples of the many newspaper articles during World War II that provided routine updates on the activities of hometown military personnel. There certainly isn't any indication that the subject meets WP:SOLDIER. Similarly, the article from the 2000s, which is also a dead link, appears to be an obituary from a small home town newspaper. Again, that's WP:ROUTINE. Regarding his work as a scout, service as a scout isn't directly addressed by WP:BASEBALL/N. Although scouts can occasionally receive enough coverage to be notable based on GNG (see Scout (sport)#Notable scouts), I don't think the brief mentions of Michaels work as a scout are sufficient. Ultimately, IMO, the case for Michaels' notability comes down to the GNG criteria as applied to his activities as a sports memorabilia collector and the two articles on his activities as a collector, one from the Concord Monitor in 1985 and one from the Boston Globe in 1994. The focus of both articles (especially the one from the Globe), however, is more on his friendship with Joe DiMaggio than on his accomplishments as a collector. These articles seem to be examples of the "brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers," which WP:ROUTINE specifically says are generally not notable. In my opinion, stringing together four of five unrelated ROUTINE articles written over the course of an individual's life is not sufficient to establish notability. BRMo (talk) 17:36, 24 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 List of current WWE programming. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Beyond The Ring[edit]

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

Lacks notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:29, 18 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 List of current WWE programming. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in WWE[edit]

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

Lacks notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:29, 18 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 List of current WWE programming. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Countdown[edit]

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

Lacks notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged this article for failing GNG immediately after the article was created, someone must have taken it down somewhere down the line. The media has extensive coverage of the WWE Network's low subscriber numbers, I assume that is why this show, which broadcasts exclusively on that network, has little coverage outside of the WP:ROUTINE, mainly from unreliable dirtsheets.LM2000 (talk) 13:33, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of current WWE programming as a plausable search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:29, 18 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 List of current WWE programming. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Rivalries[edit]

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

Lacks Notability RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that this may be one that passes notability requirements at some point but we're not there yet. It's a relatively new show that hasn't received much coverage out of the WP:ROUTINE.LM2000 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Recently declined AfC submission: Draft:WWE Rivalries. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:12, 9 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of current WWE programming as a plausable search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:29, 18 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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Shipley (Navy SEAL)[edit]

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

The subject's claim to fame (though it's hard to tell from this article) is that he has access to a database of Navy SEALs--that is not enough to warrant an article. There's a few news stories out there that mention him, but it's not much. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shipley is notable and used as an expert source by a number of media outlets. Duffelblog gets it (DotMIL version of the Onion): http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/fake-navy-seal-outs-real-navy-seal/ --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • An odd story (or maybe I don't get military humor) from Duffel Blog--is that a reliable source at all? At any rate, it doesn't discuss our subject very much. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not an RS at all, Shipley's notability comes from outting poussers and he is very well known in the Naval Specwar community and the military for that. The article just points that out. The joke is that a fake SEAL outted him as a real SEAL, as opposed to Don outting hundreds of fakes. When you have to explain it, it's not as funny. Still he's more notable than the cnuck he shares a name with, tht article hs far less sources than this one and I'll nominate tht one next.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER criteria 9; Shipley is frequently brought on by news networks as a subject matter expert on military special operations, and within the military community (as well as the various military hangers-on communities...) as an authority, not just on special warfare but as one of the few readily available and easily verified source on who is and is not a Navy SEAL. There are at least hundreds, possibly thousands of impostors for every actual SEAL, and Shipley is one of the few sources who can and does confirm who is and is not fraudulently claiming one of his nation's highest honours. Thehumandignity (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9; Senior Chief Shipley (Ret.) is a recognized authority on Navy SOCOM. It is to be noted that this Wiki was initiated and edited by Daniel Alan Bernath, a phony Navy SEAL that Mr. Shipley has had the occasion to have had run-ins with in the past. Mr. Bernath also created a web site that he leads the public to believe is owned and operated by Mr. Shipley, [5]. On this site, which according to whois.com is owned by Bernath, Mr Bernath lampoons Mr. Shipley's business enterprise, www.exteremesealexperience.com. This Wiki has had the one and only purpose of spreading lies, slander, and amounts to creating an attack page in violation of Wikimedia policies. --Fakeouter (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Fakeouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I suppose this is either a keep or another example of military humor. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9; This page was created before the confrontations with Mr. Bernath occurred. Mr. Bernath has since been found to be waging a continuous war of libel against those that have publically called him out, and this page has been included in his spree. It should not be removed simply because one man's angry, immature tantrums lead him to vandalize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.72 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the second or third time that this is brought up--someone else vandalizing something has nothing to do with the subject's notability. I assure you, I am not a Seal nor have I ever claimed to be one. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is or was under the impression that you were claiming to be a SEAL. The anonymous user's confusion as to what caused the article to be nominated is simply due to timing. Regardless, that confusion does nothing to negate or otherwise characterise his argument; page meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9. Thehumandignity (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9;Don Shipley is recognised as an expert by the media and the Special Warfare community. He has been portrayed in the last year on NCIS LA. His youtube videos of Fake SEAL of the Week are widely viewed in the Military and Veteran communities. Danial A Bernath is pursuing a vendetta against everyone who Call attention to those that Steal Valor. WFWilson (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — WFWilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - if he passes WP:SOLDIER#9 then its only just in my view. Let's break it down - "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." I suppose its comes down to "peers". Are the media his peers? Perhaps, perhaps not. Those SEALs who seem confident in his capacity to speak on their behalf (in a round-about kind of way) could be seen as "recognising" his authority as a source, as his peers. Its convoluted, but okay. Authoritative source? His willingness to talk about things other SEALs might otherwise never speak about publicly could be seen that way. Communities like that need spokespeople and SEALs, collectively (the legit ones), seem to be comfortable with him playing that role, even if he "appointed" himself. I'm probably not 100% there, but I'm more there than not. St★lwart111 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that his authority largely comes from the Navy trusting him in 1992 to train Navy cadets, and trusting him now with access to the sensitive database of all UDT and SEAL commandos. Thehumandignity (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't really work that way - otherwise everyone with Top Secret security clearance would be considered notable. St★lwart111 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If everyone with a top secret clearance made use of that clearance by providing authoritative information to the public by request, then yes, they would be. Anyone with Shipley's experience (Almost 20 years as a SEAL and several years as a fleet sailor) would be recognised as an authority on special warfare matters if they chose to put themselves in that situation and got enough exposure. Thehumandignity (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, none of those are measures of notability here. Experience, access and willingness to function as a spokesperson don't do much to confer notability. The "got enough exposure" part is what counts. People are notable if they have been the subject of "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Failing that, we look at things like WP:SOLDIER. Either way, I agree with you and I think the article should stay. But for me its a matter of technicality. St★lwart111 11:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9;As has been stated earlier, he is widely recognized by peers as a subject matter expert on Naval Special Warfare and other military matters. In addition, the time and effort he spends identifying false claims of being a Navy SEAL deserves consideration. Since, as a practical matter, he is the point of contact for civilians to be able to get an answer to that question, there is notability and usefulness to there being a Wikipedia article about him. Ookoshi (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained above. Passes WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9. — Joaquin008 (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject appears to have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 25 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 National Premier Soccer League. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Reds FC[edit]

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

Semi-pro team with poor sourcing, doesn't appear to meet WP:FOOTY. Mosmof (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Young fourth-tier team that has not yet qualified for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, therefore fails WP:FOOTYN. No third-party references cited, and no other evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick tcs 04:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC); Changing my !vote to Redirect to National Premier Soccer League based upon GiantSnowman's reasoning below. Once independent notability is reached, the article can be recreated. — Jkudlick tcs 02:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Amateur team that has not competed in the national stages of a national cup competition. No indication of any other achievements receiving sufficient significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to National Premier Soccer League; not independently notable but possible search term. GiantSnowman 21:00, 14 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:23, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FK Trudbenik Beograd[edit]

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

CSD tag removed, then replaced by the same editor who removed it, then removed by an editor claiming the club participated in the 2010–11 Kup Srbije (Serbian Cup), thus meeting WP:FOOTYN. However, the club did not participate in that tournament, nor can I find any information that it ever competed in that cup or its predecessors. Absent any further information, the club fails FOOTYN. — Jkudlick tcs 05:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your source shows they participated in qualification for the 2011–12 Kup Srbije, not in the tournament proper (also see tournament proper here). By not participating in the tournament proper, they fail FOOTYN. According to your definition, the vast majority of clubs in every league would meet FOOTYN because they participate in qualifying for their national cups. — Jkudlick tcs 00:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "not participating in the tournament proper". That concept is certainly not applied to English clubs, for example, where clubs participating in qualifying rounds before what is known as the 'First round proper' are considered notable. Why should Serbian clubs face a different standard? Countries call their early rounds by different names, eg, qualifying, preliminary, regional and some just number through. The test surely is: 'have the club entered a round from which they can win through and lift the trophy'? If so by any reasonable interpretation they have 'have played in the national cup'. And yes, in some countries this opens notability to many clubs; for example in England notability extends deep into semi-professional regional leagues and 736 teams entered this season's FA Cup and an unknown number more may have been eligible but chose not to enter. Just Chilling (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but would you also say that 203 nations participated in the 2014 FIFA World Cup? That's how many nations participated in qualification. — Jkudlick tcs 03:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the numbers are potentially large but this is a consequence of the standard that, FWIW, I think is too low but that is another story ... Just Chilling (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't see any evidence of the team having competed in the nationals stages of any competition, which is the usual benchmark for club notability. A case of too soon at best. There seems to be a bit of confusion above. The issue here is that the qualifying rounds for the Serbian Cup are done on a regional basis, whereas the qualifying rounds for the FA Cup are done on a wholly national basis from the word go, so any club can draw any club. The current consensus is that clubs are only notable once they have competed in the national stages of any competition, this club does not appear ever to have done so, nor does it appear to have garnered significant reliabel coverage for any other activities to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the basis for your argument is incorrect. As FA Cup states: "The qualifying rounds are regionalised ..." If the consensus is that teams who have only played in the main, non-regionalised part of a cup tornament are automatically notable then the essay should state that. Further, it should apply to all countries including England. Just Chilling (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, I didn't believe that they were regionalised. Nevertheless, NFOOTY is always trumped by GNG and one appearance in a regional qualifying round for a cup competition is an awfully long way away from GNG. Where is the non-routine coverage (i.e., not just match reports / stat sites) for the club? Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 6 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did NOT play in the cup, only qualifying (if that counts, every team is notable, even my club), so not notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It went as far the 1/8 finals, please see better again here. FkpCascais (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was the 1/8 finals in the Belgrade Region qualification tournament. Only 1 team from the region (Šumadija) advanced to the tournament proper. If every team that participates in qualification for a cup tournament is to be considered as having participated in the tournament, then just about every team in every amateur league worldwide could be considered notable. That is the reason FOOTYN states that a club must participate in a cup tournament, not merely in qualification for that tournament. — Jkudlick tcs 00:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are right Jkudlick! My mistake for not looking carefully. I am changing my vote to Delete. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable team which has participated in the Serbian Cup. IJA (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though the club has indeed participated in qualification for the cup tournament, it has not participated in the tournament proper. Per WP:FOOTYN, "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." As the club has not actually played in the national cup, they do not meet FOOTYN and therefore must meet GNG, which they do not. If every team which participated in qualification for a national cup tournament was considered to have participated in the cup, then every club on every level in every country which has a national cup would be notable as they all participate in qualification. — Jkudlick tcs 06:12, 18 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - evidence leans to the fact that they have not played at the highest level. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 26 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 List of sports rivalries. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local derby[edit]

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

vastly incomplete duplicate of List of sports rivalries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcmaxx (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 21:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 21:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existing, better article, per nom. GiantSnowman 10:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per GS, List of sports rivalries covers this better. Fenix down (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should probably be pointed out that this article has been suggested for merging with crosstown rivalry for three years now. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 17:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The crosstown rivalry article is equally incomplete and very American-centric. The prose could be just copied&pasted/merged into the prose in List of sports rivalries, which seems to be much more complete. I nominated local derby because surely every local derby is a rivalry, it can be a friendly/amicable rivalry in some rare cases but even then its a rivalry of a kind and the vast majority are hotly contested ones, the List of sports rivalries contains all of the things in the local derby article anyway. Having only one article would solve problems such as "how local does a derby have to be to class it as a local derby" "what is a derby and what is just a rivalry" etc.Abcmaxx (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was the one that split the crosstown rivalry one off from the local derby one many years ago, because at the time, the local derby article was extremely large and unwieldy, and the phrase "crosstown rivalry" is more of an Americanism anyway (to tell the truth, we tend to use it in other contexts besides sports as well, such as newspapers, radio stations, etc.). Now, as for the issue at hand: not all rivalries are local derbies or crosstown rivalries; of course, then, any list of such derbies will be "vastly incomplete" compared to the whole, so the premise of the AFD is false. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:06, 9 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to J. Myrle Fuller: not all rivalries are local derbies or crosstown rivalries; of course, then, any list of such derbies will be "vastly incomplete" compared to the whole, so the premise of the AFD is false. Yes but all local /crosstown rivalries ARE rivalries, and therefore the premise of the AfD is not false. I still fail to see a big enough distinction between the three and too much overlap to merit 3 separate articles whereas 2 redirects and 1 comprehensive article would be much more beneficial Abcmaxx (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Abcmaxx: A crosstown rivalry is any rivalry between two entities, be they newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, storefront businesses, sports teams or anything else that represent different areas of the same town. A sports rivalry is any rivalry between two teams in a given sport. A local derby is both, although the U.S. almost never uses the term and I don't think Canada does, either. (I tried to place an edit into the article when I split it off mentioning the other uses of the term "crosstown rivalry" but someone deleted it; hence why that article only mentions sports.) The sports-rivalry article lists numerous rivalries that are not local and does not distinguish between which are local and which are not (because that is not the purpose of that article). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I understand but they are still subtle differences which can be put into one article, I'm not convinced it is necessary to distinguish it as much as to have two long (and incomplete) lists. The vast majority of rivalries are local, and the fact that in the U.S, & Canada the common terminology is different is all the more reason to have 1 unified article. Just because in North America they may call a crosstown rivalry doesn't necessaries mean it is not a local derby and vice versa, every local derby is a crosstown rivalry as well. Such naming distinctions are common, for example Londonderry is the same article as Derry as it refers to one and the same city, regardless of which name one wants to use.
Plus how local is a local derby? Man Utd vs. Man City is a local derby as they're both from Manchester but then again so is Man Utd vs. Liverpool as the two cites are quite close. But what about Leeds Utd vs. Man Utd both cities contest a derby both are only 40 miles apart but is it local enough to call it a local derby? In comparison Yeovil Town and Exeter City is local derby despite the distance being much greater than between Leeds and Manchester.
I fail to see why you would need to distinguish how local is a rivalry in that article - in Local derbies in the United Kingdom the rivalries are local from the point of view they are all within the borders of England or Wales or Scotland or N.Ireland but some of the local derbies listed are inter-regional, and therefore in the eyes of some probably not considered 'local' Abcmaxx (talk) 03:02, 14 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of sports rivalries. Local derby is better described in the context of other types of rivalry than as a stand-alone topic. Aspirex (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete would be my first choice here. An alternative would be to keep but reduce to a disambiguation page for the articles that we have on local derbies in different countries. I don't support keeping the article in its current form and I'm not convinced by the arguments for a redirect. --Michig (talk) 14:42, 25 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. Mr.Z-man 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest actors[edit]

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

Reprinting a list taken from a questionable source. Trivialist (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to base it on a single source may be a WP:COPYVIO. However there are richer actors than those in this list. Bill Gates worth billions. Elizabeth II has a personal wealth of $450M and runs crown estates worth billions. Richard Branson worth $5billion. Martin451 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the list is about actors in the dramatic sense. Trivialist (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Branson has appeared in many films and TV shows, often as cameo appearances, so should qualify as an actor. A quick search brings up several lists. [6][7][8]. However they don't agree with each other, or the list here. The first includes the actresses Dina Merrill worth an estimated $5billion, and an Oscar nominee for best supporting actress, Oprah Winfrey. This list [9] names Mel Gibson as the richest, and William Shatner as number two, neither appear on the article. Martin451 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE This is relying on a very wierd 'hollywood+bollywood' list which indicates that this list is compiled for commercial reasons and there are reasons to doubt its veracity. Delete is what I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.200.137 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google search "top actors net wealth" yields multiple sources on topic. Sure, reduce reliance on just the one source used so far. And for an encyclopedia article, covering past wealthiest actors also relevant. But topic is wikipedia-notable. --doncram 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be helpful if you could list a few reliable sources that you found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 6 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every one of the sources linked above in turn cites the same source: Wealth-X. This is still a single-source list with material taken entirely from Wealth-X (a subset of their database of high net worth individuals sorted this time by a particular profession) -- the reliability of which hinges on it being picked up as a listicle by mainstream sources. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:10, 12 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As-is the sourcing is single and terrible. If a much better source can be found this might be able to be kept, but we have no idea how the numbers came in, and the Wealth-X source pretty much makes clear their numbers are a big fat WP:ADVERT to recruit high-wealth individuals to utilize their services; a more neutral source is sorely needed. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete news trivia - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 27 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 as WP:G11 by User:Jimfbleak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gundriver[edit]

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

Not clear that this meet WP:BAND. I did some searches on Google and added a ref to an interview. Most google hits are user generated content/promo from the band. The article is created from WP:SPA with obvious WP:COI. Borderline CSD-A7, but I did find the one reference, so posting here. Gaff (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete–as spam. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In fact I would not complain if an administrator were to speedily delete it as promotional: it is certainly not far short of the speedy borderline. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 19 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. If the book later obtains notability in the form of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, or otherwise later qualifies per criteria at WP:BKCRIT, then no prejudice against recreation. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Token black guide[edit]

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

non-notable, as yet unpublished book Fyddlestix (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just can't find anything to show that this book passes notability guidelines at this point in time- the coverage for this book is so non-existent that I can't even tell when this book is to be released, who is publishing it, and so on, let along coverage of the book in reliable sources per WP:RS. If/when it gains that coverage it can always be re-created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of the book. — Joaquin008 (talk) 11:58, 22 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. Discussion said that redirect is not necessary Shii (tock) 05:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a yet to be published video game, can't find release date, it's WP:TOOSOON. Prod removed. Vrac (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA1000 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plenty of coverage, but it's all about the announcement from 2013. No news since. Anything that needs to be said can be sourced and put in Shadow of the Beast. Not a useful search term on its own if there's nothing at the location. Lacks significant coverage in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there really not any coverage, with all of this game's releases and ports? Furthermore, it strikes me as rather awkward to delete the original, but have articles for 2, 3, and the remake. If getting rid of it is the only option, I propose we rework the article into either a series article, or merge it to the remake. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The delete nomination is for the remake that hasn't been released yet (nor does it have a release date)...so we couldn't merge it to the remake... The original and 2 + 3 aren't up for deletion. Or did I misunderstand your post? Vrac (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread the nomination and Czars comment and though the nomination was for the original. Nevermind, ignore that comment. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shadow of the Beast#Remake ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have coverage beyond the announcement. I'm skeptical that this would be a useful redirect, especially given that it will presumably one day become obsolete. But I guess a redirect is alright if it's necessary for consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a good reason not to create the redirect since while it may eventually become obsolete (likely when it becomes notable enough for a separate article) it will, at this time, provide people searching for the remake with relevant info about it. it should be noted that there is a list of reasons to delete a redirect at WP:RFD And potential future obsolescence as one of them, nor do I think it should be--65.94.255.73 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is ever going to search Wikipedia for "Shadow of the Beast (upcoming video game)". Anyone looking for information will search for "Shadow of the Beast" and be taken to the appropriate article immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is not a useful search term and that there is no reason to redirect, even if it's cheap czar ⨹ 21:54, 24 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. KTC (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zor (Robotech)[edit]

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

I originally prodded this article under the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement.". It was deprodded by User:Knowledgekid87 who in edit summary stated "I disagree with the lack of notability given the sources here", without any further elaboration. Perhaps he will provide it here, as I still believe my original concern is valid. While the article has 25 footnotes, all seem to be from primary sources. There is no critical reception section, and the character concept section is unreferenced/based on primary sources (=OR). This article is an excellent example of stuff that is better covered on Robotech wikia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

* Delete Isn't there a Robotech wikia this kind of stuff can go into? Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Needs in-depth third-party sourcing, not YouTube links. --DAJF (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Refs are all either not from RS or are primary sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that notability hasn't been established based on our guidelines here, but luckily, as OP points out, Robotech wikia does (or can do) a fine job covering the character. Though that article may not be as comprehensive in the "concept" department as this one. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:29, 26 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Cheese Co.[edit]

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

Appears to not meet WP:GNG for reliable secondary sources to confirm notability. Copyedit needed for advert language. Even aside from that, seems to fail GNG. Gaff (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:52, 18 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. —Cryptic 05:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Adonis[edit]

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

This page seems to quite clearly have been started as a vanity page. Although it appears to be well referenced, establishing notability, many of the claims and references are bunk. For example, it states that he is most notable internationally for the book "Ten Letters to Obama", but this book gets 38 real Google hits, most of which are just links to buy the book. The Wikipedia article also states that he is frequently cited in newspapers, however, following those links shows that he is merely the originator of a single quote, "Voting is not a right. It is a method used to determine which politician was most able to brainwash you", that has received infrequent coverage in minor publications. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST. May some day be notable, but now is WP:TOOSOON. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any reliable sources / awards / other stuff needed for notability. It is true he has been occasionally cited by some media in Pakistan/other low-key countries, but just being mentioned in passing in those media is not sufficient. If any of them would dedicate an article to describe his person, it would be another matter, but as it is, he can claim to be at best mentioned in passing by third-rate newspapers. His "most notable" book was published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform", i.e. a self-published site. So - yes, vanity bio, delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just a two-bit hack, trying it on. Self-published books with no readership do not a career make. Same for passing mentions in corrupt third world online news sites. prat (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The man in this picture looks nothing like the one in the article. And he's publishing eight books a year on topics ranging from better sex manuals to bodice-ripper fiction to Middle East politics to computer manuals written in flawless English?
The last link preceding contains a random highlighted string of text, "some professional-grade Tablet PCs use pressure sensitive films", which when thrown at Google attracts hits to other technical write-ups predating the 2012 copyright of the Adonis work in question. The likely source of Mr. Adonis' astonishingly broad expertise comes into focus: serial plagiarism. Pax 13:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not referenced properly, not notable, deletion is the right action.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To say that newspapers in Pakistan, India, and countries within Africa, and those with an high concentration of African and Indians is low key and lacks credence because they are from the third world amounts to racial profiling.

Those references are adequate.

Are we saying that the author should be removed from Wikipedia because of the colour of his skin or because he is from a third world country?

Almost all of the authors in the past 72hrs that were nominated for deletion by Bueller 007 are either of African or Indian ancestry (check his log).

Is this a coincidence? Maybe.

Is this suggesting that two particular ethnic groups should NOT be included in Wikipedia unless they are extremely notable?

Additionally, a large swathe of Guyanese authors and musicians were selected by Bueller 007 for removal from Wikipedia.

Are we saying because these people are from a third world country (as the more wealthier editors from in the North puts it), should NOT be in Wikipedia, even if they are notable in their country and an extensive region?

Nonetheless, if editors are of the view that an article on Dennis Adonis should be removed because his writings (as established in the article and references) challenges slavery, Indian indenture sufferings, and Middle Eastern politics, then delete it. But if fairness and non-racial profiling is not part of your culture, then do the right thing and be more objective in your analysis of the page.

I am from the Caribbean, and have accessed several additional sources of reference that would substantiate notability, but I realize much of them are not available online. I would choose not to use them, as Bueller 007 has already removed quite a few of them for reasons that only God knows.

The article was edited to reflect what is confirmed in the references, all of which are reliable sources that is used throughout Wikipedia for less referenced articles. Wikipedia’s policy on notability does to confine an author to be listed simply on the basis of an award. The problem here seems to Bueller 007 failure to accept that an author that is known throughout the Caribbean does not necessarily means that he has to be known in Canada or elsewhere to warrant a page on Wikipedia.

Bueller 007 should invite other contributors to give the article a chance to be edited for additional references (if needs be), before targeting two particular racial group of authors for removal from Wikipedia.

Additionally, another editor seems to find it impossible for an author to pen eight books in a year. This is nonsense. I don’t think we should envy what someone else can do if we can’t. Are you saying that is impossible? Please.

Another also highlighted piece of a sentence to say that seems like plagiarism, and then add the assumption that all of the man’s books are plagiarized. Again that is utter nonsense. That statement is seemingly vindictive and defamatory at best about that Caribbean writer.

Note is take of the repeated tone on self-published books, and 50 Shades of Gray comes to mind. Are we saying that self-published books (even those without an award) should not be in Wikipedia?

I also looked at the statement about the photo, and can see that the photo at the top of the article seems to be an editorial oversight (my personal guess). Because the same face on Wikipedia is correctly embedded more than once throughout the article.

Anyway, in conclusion “I have a Dream”, that profiling of a certain creed of authors would cease, and that all editors would apply fairness to their assessment of articles associated with writers of a certain skin tone. Thank you. Webwatchergy (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So I'm a racist? Or else, based on the shoddiness of the references provided for this Guyanese "author", I went through some Wikipedia categories of other Guyanese "celebrities" and deleted the ones who had crummy articles that did not establish notability. Many of which were already flagged as "not meeting general notability criteria" or had previously been nominated for speedy deletion before I got to them. (And in fact, Webwatchergy himself/herself had already commented on some of them to say that he/she did not think the person was notable. But now's not the time for ideological consistency.)
On the topic of this article, there's absolutely no evidence provided that Dennis Adonis is known throughout the Caribbean, except for laughably false newspaper articles that make grandiose claims like "his book is being considered for the New York Times Bestseller List"! Meanwhile, that same book gets about 38 Google hits, has never had a book review in a major source, etc. I went through every single one of the references in the Dennis Adonis article, looking for the information that was supposed to be supported by them. The majority of the references were misquoted or taken out of context. For instance, before I got to it, the article for Dennis Adonis claimed that he was a CNN reporter. When in fact he has a CNN iReport profile, which ANYONE can sign up for. Stuff like that.
To me, it looks like someone's upset that they wasted their time writing Wikipedia articles about a "nobody" and a "nobook". Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of all the books listed in the article, WorldCat seems only to be aware of the Windows 8 book and its holdings are a mere 4. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Notability can't be established right now. I'd also like to hint at this request directed to me by Webwatchergy. What I first thought to be a good faith request for translation appears now like soapboxing to me. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Special:diff/643066382 & Special:diff/643069903) Unacceptable.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is my final comment on this article.

Again, though there is a greater number of delete votes that actually do not provide any detailed reason as required by Wikipedia, I am still optimistic that an Administrator would see reasons why the article ought not to be deleted.

References: the sources listed as references are credible sources that are used throughout Wikipedia, and a few have provided extensive information on the author that did not require any significant research. I had stated earlier that to suggest that an author is not notable because he might only be widely known in one country, is from a low key (poor country) as Bueller 007 puts it, or a particular geographic region, is not consistent with Wikipedia policies for deletion. Nominating an article for deletion because the nominator feels that the references are from “Low key countries”, is not a reason in any way for deletion. As a matter of fact it is discriminatory and against Wikipedia’s policies.


Notability: the coverage established in the references would even make a adequate argument for the person to be considered for inclusion under Wikipedia’s Any_biography.

Neutrality: From reading the article, the controversy and criticisms sections alone have drowned out any claim that the article is promotional. Because I do not see anything benefitting to the author in those sections and even within the entire article itself. When I first discovered the article, I have repeatedly edited the article for neutrality and facts. Bueller 007 even went ahead and edited the criticisms and controversies section and even expanded to identify incidents for which the author was acsued in more detail. So for him to accept one section of an article and even using the reference himself, but then claiming that the references has no merit is contradictory.

Furthermore, the claims raised by the article deletion nominator are untrue or is no longer valid since the article has gone through several edits to correct any perceived inconsistencies.

Overall, there are no irrefutable arguments to remove the article.

Fortunately, Wikipedia has made it clear that majority vote numbers does not necessarily translate to mean that an article should be deleted, especially when the voters fail to provide any significant, justifiable or detailed reason as to why the article ought to be deleted. At best, most the delete votes are just a single line with two or three words that provided no proper explanation. This usually makes the vote seems as if a voter is simply being supportive of the nominator, especially if there is a pattern of the same group of people inter-voting within each other’s nominations or are strangely voting throughout Wikipedia in unison.

I am sure that an Administrator’s fair review of the article and review of the references will support my argument that the article belongs to Wikipedia, and has scope for continued editing over a period of time.

In closing, I hold no grudge against the nominator or any of my fellow Wikipedians that have voted contrary to my belief. In my quiet moments, I sincerely think that Bueller 007 may not had necessarily mean any harm, but was expressing a fundamental right that is given to all of us. And that is a right to his own opinions.

After all, even genuine opinions can often be misconstrued to mean something else that it is probably not.

My only regret is that I should have properly read through Wikipedia’s policies, and engage Bueller 007 more professionally on this talk page when he suggested that I should, and I am sure that the article would have been better guided for more substantiated edits, probably leading to even favourable results.

For me, this has been a positive learning experience; and I look forward to having more healthier arguments (if needs be) with my fellow Wikipedians in the future, in our quest to make Wikipedia a better place.

Bueller 007, though I do not agree with your deletion nominations reasons, I sincerely agree with your notion regading some earlier elements (and indirect advise) within the article, which I was able to correct. Its all in the learning process.

Anyway, let us see which direction this will go for the administrator. Thanks all. Webwatchergy (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 05:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Letters to Obama[edit]

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

No indication of notability. For me, "Ten Letters to Obama" gets 38 real Google hits and they are almost without exception just links to buy it on various local versions of Amazon, etc. The Wikipedia page currently says it is published by "IntelliPress", but the Amazon link here says it was published by CreateSpace, which is a self-publishing company associated with Amazon. The book is not in OpenLibrary or even WorldCat. The Wikipedia article is likely just a vanity page. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same reasoning as above. Also, it's extremely politically partisan and they appear to have started a 'help me translate this for free' Wikipedia marketing campaign. Subtle abuse of the platform for these ends must be discouraged. prat (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, self-promotional. Delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything via a search and I'm doubtful that any of the sources on the page would count as a reliable source since they're both kind of dodgy and read like they're essentially PR that was handed to the paper. Case in point: one of the papers (Guyana Chronicle) writesthat the book is "being considered for addition to the New York Times Best Seller List". While the NYT is very closed mouthed about what exact level of purchases makes something show up on their lists, you can't "be considered" for the list. You either sell enough to land yourself on the list or you don't. The list is all about sales numbers when you get down to it so if something sold well enough to warrant being on the NYT list then there would be at least some sources out there from a reliable source. It's not a guarantee that a book will pass GNG, but there are usually at least 1-2 sources from mainstream papers. This book doesn't have that and the sources on the article really don't seem all that reliable, so this is a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd probably recommend blocking the editor in question until he can show that he understands Wikipedia policy. He's been editing since 2013 and some of his prior edits show that he does have a working knowledge of Wikipedia's policy, which he doesn't seem to be applying to this article. I'm also concerned about Webwatchergy's accusations of vandalism over the AfD noms, sockpuppetry, and his translation campaign that borders on spam. I'm a little uneasy recommending this but the promotional-ness of the article and his accusations (which primarily seem like it's retribution against Bueller 007 for nominating the articles for deletion) kind of make me think that this guy would benefit from stepping back and reading over the policies a little more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article focuses on an important subject matter that is of public interest.

50 Shades of Gray was a self-published book that tells a story that is seemingly of public interest.

Assuming that the article is promotional without a single shred of proof is making a claim in bad faith.

Asking other editors to aid in the translation of a page into other languages is not spam. Are you suggesting that the editors should have been asked to be hired for compensation? Please.

Can’t a book have multiple ISBN’s and multiple territorial publishers?

Are we saying that a book with a createspace ISBN is not a book?

As I had mentioned in an earlier post pertaining to the author, the person who have selected this book for removal have also selected a large chunk of authors of a certain ethnicity for removal from Wikipedia.

As the creator of this article, I was never notified that it was selected for deletion, neither did the selector sought to invite additional contributions (if any) before using deletion as a last resort.

I can only assume that the book was selected because of the ethnic background of the person who wrote it.

Another editor on here also suggest that the book is partisan probably because its primary focus was on the plight of the people in the Middle East, and which does not seems to support Western interest.

Are we saying that any book that does not lean towards Western interest should be removed from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwatchergy (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Webwatchergy (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty Shades of Gray also sold more than seven copies, was reviewed by numerous major media outlets, was picked up by a famous international publishing house, was turned into a motion picture, and gets more than 40 real Google hits. Let me just check how many of those are true about Ten Letters to Obama. Oh, wait. None. The end. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @ Bueller 007, - Can additional references from additional reputable news sources about this book in other languages (such as Arabic and including those that are presumably offline) be included?

Outside of that, there are many books on Wikipedia’s that have not won any award, and have two or three trivial coverage, but have been allowed to stay.

I am of the view that this book have received and is still receiving global coverage, as I had discovered after a whole week of trying to seek information sources from even the author’s agent himself. However, most of the sources are ironically from newspapers in other languages and several Arabic inflight magazines and middle eastern government (propaganda?) literature, all of which intensely refers to the book. I am now surmising that this book would have had a more extensive list of references, probably if the article was original entered into Wikipedia in Arabic.

To add insult to injury, some of the references (especially those from Morocco etc) are probably not accessible online. I don’t know for sure because my translation tools sort of make this awkward and complicated.

But all of that aside, I will reiterate that the references in this article are adequate, and the book in itself has coverage, though in a different geographic zone.

With regard to the best seller list question, my research has indicated that to be discussed for inclusion in the New York Times, a book only needs to have some high sales within a given week at any one or more of more than 4,000 retail sources from which the assessors gathers their information. In any case, being considered for inclusion is trivial, but significant in its own right. With regard to the greater vote to delete; I had explained in a related article that; - Wikipedia has made it clear that majority vote numbers does not necessarily translate to mean that an article should be deleted, especially when the voters fail to provide any significant, justifiable or detailed reason as to why the article ought to be deleted. At best, most the delete votes are just a single line with two or three words that provided no proper explanation. This usually makes the vote seems as if a voter is simply being supportive of the nominator, especially if there is a pattern of the same group of people inter-voting within each other’s nominations or are strangely voting throughout Wikipedia in unison.

My final take on this is that this article ought to be included Wikipedia, which allows for inclusion of content without the editor having to adhere to strict guidelines if the material is of significant public interest with supporting references. Not because a book may be accepted as popular or well received in a poor country, it should not be included because it is not well received in a developed Western country. With fairness to all of the Wikipedia users across the globe, and with fairness to Wikipedia’s policies itself, we ought consider the inclusion of this book since it has satisfied at least the most minimal requirement for inclusion.

At worst, the book should instead be allowed to remain with an invitation for further edits and sourcing of additional references.

Deleting the article may not be the best course of action.

Nonetheless, I will respectfully support whatever position the Administrator’s at Wikipedia may take on this without any grudge.

Again, I will still thank all those who have contributed to this talk, and hope that even they too can review the significance of this book. Webwatchergy (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sales are counted together, but the thing about the NYT is that there is no "consideration". A book either sells well enough to satisfy the algorithms that the NYT uses to compile its list or it doesn't. There's no considering because considering gives off the impression that the list is chosen akin to how people choose to give out an award. Granted the NYT isn't completely transparent about how they tabulate sales results, but they don't pick and choose who gets on to the list based upon a larger list. Not only that, but if the book was going to sell enough to warrant landing on the NYT list then odds are extremely high that it'd be listed on the USA Today bestseller list, which is more liberal in what it includes (meaning that they count pure sales numbers and it's easier to get on this list). That the book is not on the USA Today site at all is pretty telling as far as sales rankings go, as it's impossible that a book selling as many as you are claiming would gain no attention from the NYT and USA Today bestseller lists. I'm actually relatively familiar with the lists so I know that in order to get onto just one of the specific lists (not the main fiction and non-fiction lists) you have to sell at least 15,000 copies in a one week period per some accounts. To get onto the main lists it's even higher than that. Now while the bestseller lists aren't a guarantee of notability (a common misconception when it comes to book articles), being on the lists does make it more likely that there will be coverage in reliable sources. It's just kind of odd that a book would reportedly sell well enough to potentially land on the list (especially when the book is in the 2 million ranks on Amazon, meaning it isn't selling well) yet it has failed to gain any coverage in sources that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. There isn't even any real blog chatter about this book and the book blogging world loves to talk about indie and self-published books that manage to get onto the bestseller lists. That gives me the impression that the claim about being considered for the list is just a marketing gimmick done by someone who doesn't really know how the NYT list works. However that's all sort of a moot point since being on the list isn't considered to be something that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines (not even achieving the #1 spot for the main lists) and since the book hasn't made it onto the lists, arguing that the author clearly misunderstands how the list works is a little overkill I suppose. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Tokyogirl79, I have further research this based upon your comment; and would want to agree with you.

Consideration for adding to a best seller list indeed sounds a little more like the article had made an overstatement. I do not want to go all out and say that the journalist may have overstepped a logic in this case. However, I don't see such a claim finding its way into Wikipedia. That aside, I have decided to limit my edits to this article and leave it to the discretion of a wider scope of editors to determine whether it is worth inclusion, expansion, edits, or a stay.

I humbly thinks that it may nonetheless require additional input and possibly a further review. But overall, my earlier arguments on its reasons to stay seems acceptable(?). But then again, that is just my opinion.

Thanks for your comment in any case. Webwatchergy (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Userfication available on request. Shii (tock) 05:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Materials Horizons[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. For those wanting to argue that it is published by a notable society, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and note that the JISC citation is from an independent, reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unfortuantely, if I click that link, I don't see anything. In any case, a press release (what this seems to be judging from the nature of the website) does not contribute to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON, neither well-established enough nor sufficiently covered by independent and selective indexes to pass WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've updated this article to include all current indexing sources that are known (this probably requires a tidy). The journal is currently awaiting inclusion in the Science Citation Index, but being indexed requires time, so perhaps I was premature in creating this page. I appreciate that you wish to keep standards in line with WP:NJournals. One hopes this is sufficient information? DrJWoolf (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your efforts, but unfortunately I don't think that any of these indexes is sufficiently selective in the sense of NJournals. Given that this is published by a reputable society, there is a good chance that this will survive and be accepted in selective databases. However, "a good chance" is by far not certainty (I have links on my userpage to some journals started by reputable publishers that failed after a few years). Indeed too soon, I think. I would recommend that you copy the article to your computer and re-create it if it gets indexed in MEDLINE, SCI, or similar. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll accept this. However, I will recreate this page once Materials Horizons is indexed in SCI, which is due to happen in the near future. At that point, I will expect the new version of this page to hopefully not be deleted. DrJWoolf (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absoltely: inclusion in the SCI really is definite proof of notability for a journal. Even if the journal would subsequently fail a few years from now (which, of course, I hope won't be the case, that goes wihout saying), the journal would remain notable based on that (as notability is an absolute thing and not temporary). --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: New journal but supported by adequate sourcing to establish notability. Montanabw(talk) 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me which sources you think are sufficient to establish notability. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability standards in use for journals are some of the lowest that Wikipedia has for allowing anything to have a Wikipedia article. I think it is established that this article is not meeting those standards and that no one has provided evidence that it does. This can be userfied to DrJWoolf's personal space if they want to keep this article anticipating the journal's future indexing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:21, 23 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. —Cryptic 05:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Ito (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. This emerging actor has had one very minor (un-named) part in an Oscar-nominated film, and has not yet received any in-depth third-party coverage, so the article relies only on primary sources. The fact that this and the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article (already nominated for deletion for the same notability reasons) were both created by the same WP:SPA may also mean that there are self-promotional or conflict of interest issues. --DAJF (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DAJF (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ja:伊藤晃 (俳優) is created by the same user one day prior to this, and is also in AfD (Wikipedia:削除依頼/伊藤晃_(俳優)). It features one more stage role in 2014 that I do not recognize myself but someone else might. It also uses more sources (numerically), but not adding much to notability with only IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and personal blogs, and not mentioned at all in Telegraph and WSJ sources. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, only coverage in WP:RS I could find was only brief mentions.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Birdman is not only an "Oscar-nominated film," it's nominated and won hundreds of awards all over the world.--Fatwitchnewyork (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not necessarily inherited, especially when Ito stars an unnamed and minor role in that film. Again referring to WP:NACTOR, notability is established for having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 04:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ito seems to have played "significant roles" in "multiple" notable stage performances.--Fatwitchnewyork (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to help when most of the sources (4 and 6-11) don't even mention him by name. 3 and 5 have him in primary-source cast listings, only proving existence but not giving notability to the actor. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search in English did not produce any significant independent RS, and neither did one in Japanese. One may be able to establish that he has appeared in multiple stage performances by using non-independent sources, but since I cannot find any independent RS that discuss his role in those performances in any significant way, there seems to be insufficient evidence that his roles were major and/or that the theatrical pieces were notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Lynch[edit]

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

Relative to notable people is only claim, no notable activities on own behalf. Only references in article to Wikia and a primary reference site that mentions siblings. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The line in the article "Most people do not know of him" sums up the problem here. A search reveals no independent coverage and he doesn't even seem to be notable enough in the R5 story to justify a redirect there (the other possible AFD outcome.) Notability is not inherited. Valenciano (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without notability independent of his relation to Ross Lynch, this should be deleted and possibly salted. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 16:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:08, 22 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) 14:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Agarwal[edit]

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

Most of the sources in this article do not discuss the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. - MrX 13:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:11, 18 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 per CSD G7. The author blanked the page and stated in the edit summary, "try to undo creation(i wanted to create a category not a simple page". NORTH AMERICA1000 13:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troezenian colonies[edit]

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

The editor claims he wanted to create a category, however such category already exists Burklemore1 (talk) 13:22, 18 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. This is certainly a borderline case. It's not insignificant that the guy had an interview on a specialist website and took 1st place in an age division. But this specialist website contains a rather bold claim that he trained Navy SEALs, which we might like to confirm elsewhere. Ultimately the best argument for deletion is that he fails WP:MANOTE and only has a passing reference in RS. The article might be created if he wins a weight division. Shii (tock) 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Palhares[edit]

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

Lack of notability, rank signifies time spent practicing at black belt level, and doesn't imply merit. Having won PanAm competitions in the sport doesn't make one notable for a stand alone page either. There are many people who won Pan Am competitions that do not have a stand-alone page. Lack of third party independent sources that are verifiable. The one external source noted used self-reporting from a previously deleted wikipedia page that was created in 2012, that has subsequently been deleted due to lack of notability and independent, verifiable sources. Submitted correctly on behalf of nominator Californiatitan by Bellerophon talk to me 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The Pan-American Championship is a national level tournament with competitors from multiple nations. In this event Palhares has achieved gold three times, both within his age/weight division and in the absolute (open) division and therefore appears to meet WP:MANOTE#Martial artists § 4. While the nominator claims that his grade is no indication of notability, it is considered sufficiently noteworthy of a section at List of Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners, and in contrast to the nominator's claims on the article talk page, 11 out of 15 entries at that grade have stand alone articles. Moreover, he was interviewed by Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Eastern Europe [10] precisely because of his grade and achievements in the field of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. He thus has a credible claim of notability against point 2 of WP:ANYBIO and against WP:MANOTE#Martial artists § 1. His work for the U.S. military is largely tangential to the article and I am entirely ambivalent as to whether it remains, or is removed from the body text. This page was previously speedy deleted at the request of the only significant contributor to the page; per criteria G7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Such deletions are in no way binding. Finally, I can't make any sense of the nominator's final sentence as the article features only external sources (outside Wikipedia) and non of them are primary sources. While the subject of the article may be barely notable, this nomination for deletion makes no sound policy based argument for such. Bellerophon talk to me 23:00, 10 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 10. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We agree that per wikipedia policy being included in a list doesn't make you notable for a stand alone page. As far as the Pan-American Championship wins at the Senior 2 level is concerned, they are not notable enough even for their own mention there. You'll see that he isn't listed among the champions at Pan-American Championship (jiu jitsu), and the Senior 2 division doesn't get a mention in the "Divisions" section of the infobox there. So while he may be able to get credit for these wins as a teacher, they are not notable enough even in his own sport. As a matter of fact I don't know any jiu jitsu practitioners that have won Senior level championships, that were deemed notable enough for a wiki stand alone page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.108.80 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero contributions outside of this AfD. Pray tell, what brought you here? WP:CANVASSING perhaps? WP:QUACK much? And who is "we"? As a point of order, the Senior level 2 division does get mentioned in Pan-American Championship (jiu jitsu), since his wins the division has been renamed Master 2. It is for the sake of brevity, rather than notability, that the article only includes a table of results for the adult black-belt division. Bellerophon talk to me 19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is almost certainly Californiatitan who also has no edits outside this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's sources don't support notability via WP:GNG because they're either listings of results or ranks, or a promotional interview for a seminar he was giving. Even if Senior-2 level results show notability (a highly debatable point), a look at the IBJJF results would not support notability since several of his titles were "won" by being the only entrant and none of the divisions he medaled in had more than 3 competitors. That's far from the "several dozen" threshold mentioned in the criteria and certainly argues against those titles being significant. Papaursa (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Winning an international competition is a pretty good indicator of notability in general. The case for notability is boosted by RS coverage such as [11] also helps, although admittedly notability is pretty borderline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you actually look at the IBJJF site's results for the 2000 event that article refers to, you'd see he was the only entrant in the division (which was super heavyweight not heavyweight) and that it was an age group division (Senior-2) not the open adult division. Showing up is not grounds for notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing his 2000 entry is super-heavyweight. It says so in the article infobox. You seem to be overlooking his wins in the absolute (open) division which would seem, according to your own arguments to be far more worthy of note? Bellerophon talk to me 20:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article referenced by ThaddeusB says he was "last year's Pan American heavyweight champion"--I was just correcting the division and clarifying that it was an age group title. The other division he won is also age group limited and had only 3 entrants so it's more impressive only because it means he won at least 1 match. Tiny divisions don't come close to meeting the criteria at WP:MANOTE and WP:NSPORTS isn't met since winning an age group title is not the same as "competing at the highest level" (especially with very limited competition). Apparently he has no appearances, or at least medals, from the world championships. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to jump on people, you should probably make sure you understand what they wrote first. I never said anything about the reference referring to a championship. I said 1) he was won an international competition (as establish by existing article sourcing) and 2) references such as the one I provided ALSO help establish notability (under general guidelines). The two thoughts are independent evidences of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "jump" on anyone. I thought it reasonable to point out major errors in the article you highlighted as being "reliable" and helping to meet GNG. I also don't believe that the competitions he won are at the highest level or meet the conditions at either NSPORT or MANOTE. My point was that I disagree with both of your premises. To quote another editor, "make sure you understand what they wrote first." Since we're beginning to stray from the topic, let us leave it at that. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, its not a "major error" in the source and as an established newspaper it is definitely considered a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a big fan of having a healthy catalog of articles regarding the former and current masters and grandmasters of BJJ, as has been steadily accumulating in the List of Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners. As a coral belt, Mr. Palhares would fall in this category. I would personally believe his notability predicated on his standing within art of jiu-jitsu, more than his moderate competition achievements. While his particular rank does not confer notability in itself, I think it's reflective of the notability he independently possesses, as with most, if not all practitioners who have reached that pinnacle. Buddy23Lee (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy23Lee, you cannot recommend a keep based on personal preference when notability, and significant independent sources other than promotional have not been established according to wikipedia criteria. There may be a repeat of the earlier created article in 2012, where this one too was created by a user that has no other edits who may just be a friend of his Sciambro which would be against wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiatitan (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "it was deleted previously argument" has already been discredited (it was deleted voluntarily, not via AfD). Repeating it does not help your case. A proven conflict of interest is not relevant to a deletion discussion, so your suspicion that one might exist is completely irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but smile when an someone with no edit history gets suspicious regarding the motives of someone else with no edit history. How do we know you (Californiatitan) is not just as likely an enemy of Sciambro, which is likely against some other unnamed Wikipedia policy? All sillyness aside, you can take heart Californiatitan, as AfDs regarding martial arts bios tend close as delete, even when there is little to no consensus, so you're probably going to achieve your aim, whatever your true motivations may be. Buddy23Lee (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Mainly concerning WP:MANOTE. A few points:
    • The wording for WP:MANOTE#Martial artists § 4 came about in large part to the BJJ situation where notability was being claimed for success in blue belt competitions. The idea is that competition is supposed to be at the highest level. It is for the same reason that Junior and (although not explicitly said) other age dependent (or special) groupings. If there are 1-3 competitors in a subdivision that also has issues although in this case § 1 (again explicitly read) seems to refer to the entire competition.
    • By long standing consensus high rank does not confer notability. This was a direct response to all the mega dans being claimed by who knows who. That said I would like to see articles on the major players of major martial arts styles not just dependent on competition results - certainly a number of deserving individuals of different martial arts don't compete. Still - I can not vote Keep based on the color of his belt. We need to see why he is important.
    • As soon as training Seals comes up my eyes role and this bull sees red flags - see the article's Talk page for another questioning bull.
    • Finally - I seem to remember the previous withdrawing of the article was in direct response to an impending AfD. I could be wrong and there should be no prejudice against this article. If the previous AfD had actually started it would be relevant as a possible attempted end run.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the IP complaining on the article talk page and Californiatitan are clearly the same person. Presumably he created an account so that he could send the article to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps (or not) - but there is nothing inherently wrong in that. Just one more person enthusiastic enough about a point that they create a SPA. Annoying to be sure but unless they all show up here nothing more.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly nothing wrong with it. I was just making it clear that it wasn't two people with the same opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant coverage to meet GNG and winning some small division senior age titles is not enough to meet NSPORT or MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 21:14, 13 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, Michig (talk) 12:07, 18 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. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Base (Jonghyun album)[edit]

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

Album fails WP:GNG. It has not even been released yet. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources. The only link is to the artist's own website. Except in very exceptional circumstances, something cannot become notable before it has occurred. This is much too soon. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possibly could have been speedy deleted. --Random86 (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm gonna create the site again in a few days anyway and I'll add some reliable sources and not allkpop like the user right now, so you can keep the site.--46.114.139.225 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As you can see the article has been updated with reliable sources. And the album will be released in 3 days, some of the songs were already pre-released.--BoikoseLife (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Album released, I don't even know why it was a concern.--binvoiler (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for consideration of sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the addition of sources, there is still no evidence of notability to me. That's why you don't make articles for something that hasn't been released yet or has even just been released. Notability isn't automatically due every release, but there's a firm belief among too many kpop editors that it is. Anyway, right now the article has more sources but it still doesn't say much. It's an album; it's been released (barely); it has some songs; and? The articles mostly report that it's sold well. Those articles would have been written no matter what album was on top that week. They don't say anything about the album. I don't know, I guess I'm just weary of legions and legions of kpop album and song articles that all basically say "it exists." Write articles once there's something to really say. If there's never anything to really say, don't write an article. SIGH. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This article should not have been created before the album was released. A week ago I would have !voted delete. However, it has now been released and there are some fairly in-depth reviews available, e.g. here and here. It also ranked #2 in the World Music category on Billboard, with a preemptively archived cite to prove it. The artist is notable. So on the merits I have to say keep. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note, those reviews don't come from reliable sources so cannot be included on Wikipedia or used to establish notability. :( Shinyang-i (talk) 23:41, 17 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, Michig (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retract nomination. Despite this article still being kind of empty, I think this album now shows evidence of notability. At the time I nominated it, it hadn't even been released, so of course it wasn't. None of this should have had to happen. Just don't make articles for stuff that hasn't been released or occurred yet and don't make the article the day it comes out; wait until it can possibly be notable. In the future, I think these should be deleted on sight and recreated once they really are possibly notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Way too notable for deletion as it climbed up at spot 1 of Korea's most important albums chart. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 20:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep:this article is valid With respect to Terms of Wikipedia (Mrchurang (talk) 18:28, 26 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) 14:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Efthimiou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, due to never having played in a FPL. An IP, almost certainly either the subject of this article, or linked to his company, has been going around fluffing up this article, and many others, with claims that simply aren't backed up by the sources they use (which half the time are Wikipedia articles or categories, or flat out don't work). After cleaning up the mess, there's nothing left here that suggests notability, and nor is he particularly notable for his company. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The first two references are from reliable sources and attest to the fact that he played at UNC, but participating in college sports is not notable. The third reference appears to be a fansite, and no copyright notice on the page only serves to confirm that it is not reliable. I cannot review the fourth reference from work as archive.org is blocked, but even if it confirms that he played for the Dallas Sidekicks, he still does not meet WP:NFOOTY as the leagues of which the Sidekicks were part were not full professional. The three reliable sources are only WP:ROUTINE coverage, therefore WP:GNG is not met. — Jkudlick tcs 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:44, 19 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) 16:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:10, 22 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Downey (Internet performance artist)[edit]

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

Author of two self-published books, neither of which gained much attention. He has performed two "internet performance pieces": getting everyone who can to aim laser pointers at the moon at the same time and petitioning the Nobel Committee to give an award to JK Rowling.. Neither effort succeeded or resulted in significant coverage of him. This person does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Rezin (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored this vote, which was removed after AadaamS changed from "delete" to "weak delete". Cunard (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the references/external links, only one seems to be from reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, and is not merely for a single event.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added sources below that are not about the "Paint the Moon" event that he spearheaded in 2002. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Downey to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 19:23, 14 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,  Sandstein  11:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete barely fails to satisfyWP:GNG Although user Cunard above has listed many reliable references where he is mentioned, it would imply that the events themselves might have generated interest individually, that still doesn't amount to a WP:GNG general notability as the sources are about the events and not the artist himself and his career. AadaamS (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

    This article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was published half a decade after the "Paint the Moon" event and discusses Downey as a science-fiction author. This article from USA Today, titled "The man behind 'Paint the Moon' has made his point", discusses Downey more than the event.

    I would characterize the "events" as Downey's "internet performance pieces". That they received international coverage establishes he is notable per WP:CREATIVE point 3: his work "has won significant critical attention".

    Cunard (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • James, Christopher (2015). The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes (3 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 732. ISBN 1305461592.

    The book notes (bolding added for emphasis):

    A fine example would be James Downey's 2001 Internet campaign to have as many people as possible direct their personal red laser pointers at the moon at the same moment ... in order to change the color of the moon. No, it didn't actually work, but it enjoyed the same status and critical theory referencing as the event promoted by New York City radio host Jean Shepherd in 1965, in which he urged the people of New York to construct miniature box kites and come to Washington Square Park to fly them in conjunction with the transmission of pictures from Mars.

    This analysis supports the position that Downey passes WP:CREATIVE point 3, which requires that his work "has won significant critical attention".

    His piece received significant international coverage:

    1. Germany: link from n-tv.
    2. United Kingdom: link from the New Scientist, link from The Times, and link from The Register.
    3. United States: numerous sources listed above including USA Today, the Associated Press, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

    Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources that directly discuss the subject in his 2002 "Paint the Moon" campaign:
    1. "The man behind ' Paint the Moon ' has made his point" from USA Today
    2. "Columbia artist hopes for big response to 'Paint the Moon' campaign" from the Associated Press
    Sources that feature the subject outside of his "Paint the Moon" campaign:
    1. "Artists' Responses Offer Poignant Views on Terror and Aftermath" from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2002
    2. "Write it, play it, publish it, sell it, Do It - Yourself Internet lets artists get around industry gatekeepers, grow an audience" from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2007
    There is sustained, in-depth, coverage of the subject.

    Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm not understanding the opposition here. Combining the references currently in the article with those Cunard assembled above, we have quite a number of big publications covering him and/or his events in depth. Most of the coverage is for the events, but talk about him in particular in great detail. Usually the big concerns there are if the coverage is entirely about the event and then say, credits him once, or if a person is only known for a single event. Neither of those is the case here. NPR, USA Today, London Times, BBC... I'm someone who tends to be skeptical when I see something like an "Internet performance artist" at AfD, but this one is easy. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:04, 30 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. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese pet names[edit]

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

This article has changed very little since 2005 when it was created. It has had the same clean-up templates since 2009, complaining that it is unsourced and an orphan. Wikipedia does not have an article on pet names generally, (though perhaps it should), merely a minscule mention under personal name. There is no need for a poorly written unsourced article that is mostly just a list of common pet names in China when we don't even have an article discussing the practice of humans giving personal names to animals in a more general context. It is unencyclopedic and falls under WP:NOT. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In theory the topic could merit an article but !delete if no one wants to take it on. Vrac (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge I agree that we should have more content about the naming of pets because there have many many books written about the topic and so it's quite notable. The habits of the Chinese are somewhat different from the west, because they are reluctant to use names which might insult people of the same name. This is discussed briefly at Personal_name#Non-human_personal_names and there are sources out there which confirm this. There's even a nice story that the Chinese weren't allowed to call their cats names which sounded like miaow when Mao was in power. Andrew D. (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 22:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 22:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm neutral on whether to keep the article, but if it is kept, I think it should be renamed to Chinese names for pets or something similar. The current title is slightly confusing—it looks like it could be using the phrase pet name, meaning "nickname". —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:24, 3 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has only a few names that are still not verified. SamuelDay1 (talk) 18:11, 13 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, Michig (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Seems to be all WP:OR.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - we are not a web host for a list of somebody's trivia. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 26 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. —Cryptic 04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madelyn Marie[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG or other suitable specific guidelines. No award wins, just a few nominations. Interviews to pornographic websites and press releases do not carry enough notability to justify an article on the subject. In my searches I found anything of substance, except for several false positives about other people with the same name. Cavarrone 08:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #2. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     17:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - Passes PORNBIO #2. –Davey2010Talk 19:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cavarrone's analysis is spot on. PORNBIO #2 is not met; absent evidence that BatfXXX is generally regarded as "iconic, groundbreaking, or [a] blockbuster", and that the subject's role constitutes the "unique contribution" required by the primary element of PORNBIO #2, the argument must fail. (And routine trade press hype would generally be insufficient.) Moreover, and more important, this BLP is singularly devoid of reliable biographical sources; the subject's various versions of her biography are inconsistent, and include rather implausible claims (US colleges generally do not offer premed majors, and GWU's page on premed programs doesn't even suggest one exists; the claim that the subject owns a plantation and runs a horse breeding operation is even less credible). Just a BLP without reliable sources and unusually dubious claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't expect sources to fact check their straight interviews, just that they properly attribute things. The interviewee could be lying or presenting a fictional character, but I don't disqualify wrestling publications as being reliable because the interview may be kayfabe. A pre-med major is not a specific major but is any science major that includes classes that satisfies the prerequisites of most medical schools. The typical premed majors are biology, biochem, anatomy, biomedical engineering but could be most science degrees. Students, faculty, and admins use the term interchangeably. You usually don't hear the same for pre-law because most law schools don't have class prereqs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe Batfuck qualifies as an iconic, groundbreaking, or blockbuster movie to satisfy criteria 2 of PORNBIO. I also don't believe the sources in the article are independent enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. A combination of interviews and articles based off the same press release/conference (the contract signing) is not enough to cut it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand how there could be any doubts over BatfXXX: Dark Night Parody being an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" with this many awards. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how it is iconic like say Deepthroat, Debbie Does Dallas, or something recent like Fashionistas? How was it groundbreaking? Did it sweep the awards or even win best video like Pirates? As for blockbuster, do you have any evidence of revenue? So yeah, there's plenty of doubt on my end. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was the second most awarded film at the 28th AVN Awards. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how is being second in a year to another Batman parody groundbreaking? Criteria 2 is meant to be a more rigorous standard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:19, 17 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, Michig (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with Morbidthoughts. Finnegas (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails Gng and is a blp. Arguments around iconic batfucks are not persuasive. Spartaz Humbug! 13:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus indicates that the subject meets WP:PROF. Since WP:PROF is specifically created for this type of articles hence PROF prevails over GNG. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silvina Montrul[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." This person seems to full under that category. No significant coverage by reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. No awards; never been apart of a prestigious society; no deep or lasting impact that I can observe has been done by her to a large amount of people; therefore she doesn't meet WP:PROF. Can't see a reason to keep. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem to meet any of the points of WP:NACADEMICS. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:NACADEMICS #C8, "head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal". One of the two editors-in-chief of Second Language Research, a top-quarter ranking journal in the "Linguistics" and "Education & Educational Research" categories. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Margin1522: perhaps, but the article fails the general notability guideline: little to no "significant coverage" by "reliable independent sources" (read: Even if a prospective editor wanted to expand the article in manor befitting encyclopedic articles, they couldn't. There just aren't enough reliable third-party articles to justify anything but a passing mention in the Second Language Research journal, perhaps. Food for thought.) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Ceradon: You seem to be misinterpreting the guidelines. WP:BIO says that many academics are notably influential without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources (emphasis mine). Most academics never have their biographies covered in the New York Times. But they are notable nevertheless because of their ideas. That's why we have the WP:NACADEMICS guidelines, which are unambiguous about this: "Academics/professors meeting meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." She meets #C8 so she is notable. As for the content of the article, she has had two books published by the Cambridge University Press. Together they have been cited almost 600 times. Someone who wants to expand the article can start by examining what other scholars have said about her work. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She has been cited many times. This I see. But a Google search reveals that there just aren't many reliable sources that have covered her significantly. WP:GNG states that to be notable you must have significant coverage (read: more than a passing mention) by reliable, independent sources. She was mentioned once here in a news article, but little places else. Yes she's has written a myriad of scholarly articles, but she herself isn't covered significantly. She may be notable under WP:PROF and cited 600 times, but the question is whether this warrants a full article. As you say, she is the chief editor of a peer reviewed journal, perhaps her article could be redirected to that article, since she is only notable within the confines of one criterion of WP:PROF and there are no sources that cover her significantly. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as well as C8. ceradon: according to her Google scholar profile there are some 3688 reliably scholarly publications that discuss the subject's work. The vast majority of these are independent of the subject, and presumably a smaller (but nonzero) fraction of them cover her work nontrivially. It is appropriate to consider these as sources in light of GNG, just as one would consider a newspaper story about an athletic accomplishment to be a source for a story about an athlete and a concert review that mentions a soloist to be a source about that musician. In this view, WP:PROF is a much much stronger criterion than WP:GNG, and one that the subject clearly passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I added ten reliably published book reviews to the article. Based on these, the subject also passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 11 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 09:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - University scholar, huge number of citations to her works, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Scott Riccitello[edit]

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

This article was speedy deleted once under this name and 5 times under the title Dominic Riccitello. There is some incidental coverage due to a tweet of his about a Miley Cyrus/Kelly Clarkson spat but beyond that nothing resembling meaningful coverage in multiple reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: some minor coverage for a tweet and a following on social media: nothing worthy of a Wikipedia article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has a following and articles written. I've seen more people with pages that aren't half as interesting. If you search his name the "who" comes up - this page is helpful. 172.56.17.158 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article was put up for speedy deletion and denied. His relation to those articles isn't incidental as those articles wouldn't exist without his original comment. Has other articles and a print magazine source that suffice. TV | talk 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Link to previous AfD discussions? Piboy51 (talk) 14:55, 13 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, Michig (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you can buy 325,000 twitter followers for $5 on fivrr Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. The article isn't based on Twitter followers. Anyone can buy notability. Might as well delete Wikipedia. 208.54.39.221 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Upon searching the guy's name I found numerous websites posting his quotes and thousands of individuals. The notability is there. Seems the page could use more sources which weren't hard for me to find. As the page was only recently created my suggestion would be to keep and let it build. 208.54.39.221 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bizarrely, I found my way here because an article I wrote two years ago had been used as a source in this WP:BLP. Surprisingly, the article discusses Wikipedia and WP:N in particular and the fact that the wikipedia article had failed to meet criteria to avoid Speedy Deletion. Two years on I doubt any of the new sources on the internet meet any test of WP:N. Mainstream sources haven't yet discovered the article subject yet. Until then, unless an editor can pull a rabbit out of a hat with some source that discusses the subject de facto then I am reminded that Wikipedia does not predict the future. Mike33 - t@lk 07:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he fails WP:42, and he's not even famous for being famous - he's really just a run of the mill tweeter. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 26 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 merge to New Rochelle, New York#Fire Department. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Rochelle Fire Department[edit]

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

no indication of notability. of course there are newspaper articles,it's a fire department. but there is no discussion here, and no indication of in a google news search, that this is anything other than a run of the mill fire department that every single city in this country has. John from Idegon (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to New Rochelle, New York – Fire Department. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Imagine, this city has a fire department noted for being available 24/7, 365. Can't we speedy this as not notable? Now if they have a calender... Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per User:Northamerica1000 above and this similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oroville Fire Department. It would be good to have some guidance specifically about notability of Fire Departments, maybe posted to WP:FD, the Fire Service project page . Gaff (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, I would NOT support a merge. I agree that some guidance somewhere about when a fire department is notable would be great, but as far as settlement articles go, 90%+ of the time, there is nothing useful to be added to an article by including copy on the local fire department. Full time/volunteer is really the only thing that is generally important. Possibly some history on especially note worthy fires or scandals, but that info could just as easily go in the history or controversies sections. All this what I refer to as firecruft has no place. This isn't firebuff wiki. Every city has a fire department. John from Idegon (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling other people's hard work "cruft" has no place in a collaborative project. Just because something is uninteresting to you doesn't make it garbage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - article currently has no independent sources, although plenty exist: [12][13]. It also has excessive details in places. Certainly, a lot of information can be cut (and other information such as history added), but it is silly to say the only thing worth mentioning on Wikipedia is whether it is full time or volunteer... At current, I lean merge because of sourcing, but definitely believe there is way more than 1 sentence that should be retained. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Notability. The sources cited by ThaddeusB mention the department only in passing. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New Rochelle, New York#Fire Department Not enough independent, in-depth sources to justify a standalone article (fails all notability guidelines I can think of), but there is enough verifiable information to retain somewhere else. Would benefit by trimming, but I found the bulk of the information presented to be interesting. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 23 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 Adventures in Babysitting#Remake. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film)[edit]

Further Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a film yet and not in production. Premature according to guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If filming hasen't begun yet then what's the point of the article ?, No evidence of notability Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting per MichaelQSchmidt would also be fine, so I've adjusted my !vote above to include it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is okay by me. (I voted "Keep", before, have just revised this. ) Meets wp:GNG. Use Google search link above for news, but drop the "(2016 film)" so you just search on "Further Adventures in Babysitting". Multiple hits in reliable sources, including this Hollywood Reporter article of January 2015. GNG trumps rule-of-thumb guideline that films generally meet Wikipedia notability when principal filming commences. --doncram 14:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So should it be moved at least to drop the (2016 film) part of title? Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it cold be moved after a close to Further Adventures in Babysitting per WP:NCF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 09:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Definitely TOOSOON, but unlike many Disney projects which get a page before the casting sheet goes out thanks to the crufters, I fully expect this telefilm to get on the air thanks to the existing sourcing; we can break it out once we get casting/BTS/scheduling specifics, and we don't need the (2016) tag at all. Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am okay with redirecting, have changed my "vote" above. Keeping would be okay too. --doncram 01:30, 23 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) 09:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Squad[edit]

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

"Upcoming" low budget film still unrealesed after five years from the article's creation (and without any evidence the project was ever started/completed). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Article was created by a SPA account. Cavarrone 09:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am less concerned about a SPA account creating an article 5 years ago (before being chased away) or the film being low-budget as I am about the film being still incomplete, and that as an unreleased film it lacks the required coverage to meet WP:NFF. A return may be considered once this is release and only if it then has coverage required by WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. Earflaps (talk) 15:36, 24 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) 09:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RWeL8? Showcase (Germany, Sweden, Brazil)[edit]

RWeL8? Showcase (Germany, Sweden, Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is literally nothing in this article except for a set of 3 tour dates. There is no reliable sources either. It fails WP:NTOUR. TerryAlex (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find a single reliable source in English or Korean initially. Finally, after much searching, I found an article in the Kyunghyang Shinmun linked from Bangtan Boys' official Facebook, primarily another "kpop is taking over the world" thihg. It doesn't even mention Bangtan Boys in the title. I can't see anything that makes this mini-tour notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An obvious fail of WP:NTOUR. --Random86 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:11, 22 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. —Cryptic 04:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Street, Surry Hills[edit]

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

Non-notable suburban roadway, fails WP:GEOROAD. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't see what there is that could possibly make this street notable. Just another street in Sydney. Sure, there is a nice variety of historical architecture but nothing you couldn't find elsewhere in Surry Hills or Millers Point or Darlinghurst or any number of "historical" suburbs in Sydney. St★lwart111 08:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Surry Hills, New South Wales. There may be coverage of old housing here in Caring for Old Houses. As the place is a named location and we are a gazetteer, we should preserve the content pending further work. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just another street. Oppose merge, Surry hills is one of Sydney's older suburbs and is full of old housing otherwise we'd be merging every street. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Only coverage is in a directory and an architecture text.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alka Matewa[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer or MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Has only 1 win as an MMA fighter and only 1 top tier fight so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. As a kickboxer he has a world title from some minor organization, but doesn't meet any of the notability criteria listed for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Jakejr (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all of the previous comments. Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he lacks the accomplishments to meet the specific notability criteria for either kickboxers or MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 7 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:20, 11 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:12, 22 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) 18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by FamilyNet[edit]

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

a page for a list of programs for a network that no loger exists Digifan23 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Network does still exist, but has always existed to mainly air syndicated reruns with very little original content. No real use for this article seen unless FN actually authorizes original series. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:54, 11 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 18 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 usual, this isn't prejudicial to the suggested redirect, which may be created at editorial discretion. —Cryptic 04:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until Proven Guilty[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: cited sources are blogs failing WP:RS, no awards, no derivative works, not used in instruction, author not historically significant. Vrac (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or maybe redirect to Nigel Hinton, but I've already tagged his article as possibly failing notability. I think he might come up for deletion soon, too. Regardless, there seems to be very little in the way of Google hits, and the presence of blogger reviews really just makes me doubt that I'm ever going to find anything useful. There are a whole series of poorly-sourced articles on books by Hinton, and I think it might be prudent to examine them in more detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 6 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:54, 11 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T2 Design & Prototype[edit]

T2 Design & Prototype (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for speedy deletion with the tag "No in-depth coverage, no sources independent of the subject, author has made no edits at all other than this article". I felt it did not meet appropriate speedy deletion criteria but thought it should be referred to here. NW (Talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP.Tiny company (5 employees) with no outside coverage that I could find. Not even the standard self-supplied listings such as Bloomberg, not even the BBB.[14] I agree it did not meet speedy deletion criteria because it does make some claim of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Better Business Bureau listing is sufficient - [15] as well as the following sources [16] YELP [17] [[18] Final source talks about involvement with American Inventor which is now also found on the american inventor wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.38.158 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MelanieN and as the Nominator for Speedy Deletion; that was my edit summary quoted above. There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, the sources used in the article are not independent, regardless of the depth of coverage; the One Stop Invention Shop has an association with T2 Design. As for the sources presented above, none of them pass muster either. Any coverage elsewhere that I could find consists of passing mentions only. It is clear to me that the article creator's intent is to promote the company. A Draft article was G11ed and s/he has written another. The article had about 15 images of products the company has been involved with, all of them copyvios added to Commons by the article creator. I removed the gallery, they were added back. I removed them again and they were all deleted from Commons. The article creator has uploaded many of them to Commons again and added them to the article again; I have removed them a third time because they are all still copyvios. YSSYguy (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP, not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have spoken to the creator of the article and she has agreed to stop uploading the pictures and find the original source files so that there will be no issues as to who they have come from. Just as a precursor, the One Stop Invention shop doesn't even have a tenuous link to T2 Design and Prototype it simply shares a similar field. The company is of note due to its work with a number of television shows listed on wikipedia which we have been in contact with and have agreed to give credit. The article has now been revised to take away all aspects of self-advertisement - please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.38.158 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page on the One Stop Invention Shop website states that there is an association with T2. YSSYguy (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(From the article author): I have made several edits to accommodate more external references that showcase T2 Design's claim of notability. We have also inserted external links to the article and no more pictures will be uploaded. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitached (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment so in one book of almost 300 pages and another of more than 300 pages, T2 is mentioned on two pages of each? That does not appear to be "featured". YSSYguy (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (article author) 4 pages of direct quotation taken from T2 in one book, the book was worked on with the company and featured has been replaced with quoted to remove any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitached (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but this is all starting to sound like a desperate company PR effort. That makes it all seem more like WP:COI and WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 22 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five All Night Live[edit]

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

Television program which aired on a single station in a single media market, with no evidence of the national distribution it would take to give a series an automatic WP:NMEDIA pass — and with only a brief mention in a single book for referencing, there hasn't been sufficient evidence provided that the show would get over WP:GNG either. Delete unless the volume of sourcing can be significantly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is this book by Danny Schechter, which has 5 pages of stories about the program. It was the first late-night entertainment show, so historically significant as far as that goes. There are famous interviews of Frank Zappa and Bob Marley online. The New York Times mentioned it as one reason why SOME SAY THIS IS AMERICA'S BEST TV STATION. Apparently it was known beyond Boston at the time, although there isn't all that much online. This was 1980. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources don't have to be online; if you can dig out old newspaper coverage as Hirolovesswords did below, that still counts as sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep received significant coverage in the Boston Globe (see below) in addition to the above mentioned sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sabulis, Thomas (March 15, 1980). "Channel 5 comes alive at night". The Boston Globe.
  • McLean, Robert A. (March 3, 1980). "Live and Lively on Channel 5". The Boston Globe.
  • Siegel, Matt (January 2, 1983). "Matt Siegel: Remembering the early, unpredictable days of 'Five All Night,' Ch. 5's experiment in live TV". The Boston Globe.
  • "'5 All Night' replacing Matt Siegel with Villone". The Boston Globe. December 30, 1980.
  • McLean, Robert A. (December 11, 1982). "Channel 5 cancels 'Five All Night Live'". The Boston Globe.
  • Now that's a lot more like it. The article's been significantly expanded and source-improved over the bare single-sourced stub that existed at the time I submitted this nomination, so consider this withdrawn. Thanks for the save, guys. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aro gTér[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-promotional article about a fringe organization or limited notability. Most sources go to the organization's own web site. Those not to such sources tend to be supporting side topics and do not establish notability Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom (If the above isn't considered a !vote, and if it is, I'm not trying to vote twice) Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article concerns a minor and insignificant western cult.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I found saying cult are definitely unreliable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing my previous comment Sought consensus and compromise on article talk page, then withdrew when editors abused principle of incremental process. Lily W (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - The article is obviously notable. There are many other Talk:Aro_gTér/Sources to expand. There is a coordinated attack on this faith. I am responsible and will leave for a while. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ZuluPapa5 has a probable COI. And his sources either don't discuss the article subject at all, or are written by Aro gTer members.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe all of that, you have been misled. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have engaged the topic on the talk page for a week now (notability concerns date back there for years, see archive) and have been unable to find notability: barely a mention in any sources anywhere. This is a private religious group of a handful of persons and is not only not notable, it is barely even possible to find a cite after many days of people looking pretty hard. Ogress smash! 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that few folks show up here, that lie will win here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say I lie? Ogress smash! 10:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading the article talk page, where all of this has been hashed out for weeks already, I can see that ZuluPapa5 is still playing the same old tune. I'm seriously wondering just how many more years we have to deal with this? Either ZuluPapa5 is here to build an encyclopedia or he's not. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that to heart. I want to do better for wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know - Very few sources. The group is being mentioned by Melton & Baumann; it has been banned by e-whatsersname, what may be a claim to notability. I don't know. They exist, that's it. ZuluPapa5, if this article is being deleted, so what? Just let it be. There's more to life (or Buddhist practice) than Wikipedia. It's not worth the attachment. And hey, better no coverage than negative coverage. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it goes, just seems like a waste to me. Aw, and thanks best advice I've ever had on wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zuluppa, you can "userfy" the article in your own namespace if you want to keep a draft to work on. Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please AGF on this, as I have been looking at the source material on this article for quite some time. Of the sources you found above, [2] is an encyclopedia, and Ok as far as it goes for a tertiary source, but [3}, [4], [5], [6] are ALL by the founder of the group and/or his guru - Ngakpa Chogyam and/or Khandro Dechen, and hence at best, are primary sources. The Google Scholar search at [7] is also top heavy with works by these two people. The reference at [8] is to "Aro Gar," not "Aro gTér" and is too short to determine if they are even talking about the same group, the reference appears to be about a concept. [9] is the same book as [4], [10] is another Google scholar search, but for "Aro Gar" and is less useful. [11] is an in-house web page. The only sources that would pass WP:RS would be [2] and maybe [8] if that source is even discussion the same thing. Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Citing material written by the founders of the group proves that this group is not notable.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment Removing my previous recommendation. Wikipedia is not a place to pick fights based on personal hostility and religious prejudice. I hope abuse of the principles of consensus seeking and genuine collaboration can be addressed systemically at some point. Lily W (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, see analysis above, these are mostly not independent sources. I put up this nomination because after weeks and months of drama, none of the people seeking to expand the article have come up with anything that passes WP:RS, their propsoed the source material, other than refs for things unrelated to this group, are mostly "in-house" sources from various Aro web sites or else books by the founder of the group or his guru. There is a dearth of third party notable source material and an overabundance of WP:FRINGE. Montanabw(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lily, you made one edit in 2008, adding fouur fact-tags. yours is a WP:SPA. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned my involvement with the article here because it says in the AfD guidelines that you should do so. Lily W (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide titles and links, instead of "a book" etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO the page has some issues but that doesn't mean the group itself necessarily does. Should be rectified but not deleted; deletion promoters seem to be unwilling to consider any mitigating info or arguments.JosephYon (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JosephYon:, we "deletion promoters" cannot FIND sources to rectify, and the article keepers haven't provided any. Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is notable enough for an entry in the "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices", an actual paper encyclopedia with reputable editors, then it is also notable enough for wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very skeptical of your argument. Many of these so-called "reliable" entries are self-submitted. This particular source has been seriously criticized as non-scholarly on Amazon.[30] The professional review offered by Wade Osburn of Freed-Hardeman University also points out very serious shortcomings with this source. Sorry, but if this is the best argument you can offer, deletion seems to be the best option at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015
That is not for you to decide, but thanks for your unsolicited opinion. Reviews on Amazon however are not a source we are even allowed to consider in making judgments here, as I am sure the closer will realize.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the best argument for a keep that you can make is based on a likely self-submitted entry in an unreliable tertiary source, I would have to say that your argument doesn't cross the keep threshold. Perhaps I should start my own religion and submit to this encyclopedia since they will publish anything. Of course, Wikipedia is based on high quality coverage in secondary sources, so perhaps you may wish to reconsider your decision. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aro gTér has a half page, four paragraph entry in "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" - two of those paragraphs are a rambling preamble which actually have nothing directly to do with Aro gTér, and half of the other two paragraphs are quotes from Ngakpa Chögyam. The rest is just a paraphrase of some of what Aro gTér say about themselves. The only sources cited for the Religions of the World article are two books by Ngakpa Chögyam (aka Ngakchang Rinpoche) and his "consort". I've been hunting for weeks but cannot find a single good independent source on Aro gTér - though there are plenty of websites and quite a few books by Ngakpa Chögyam and his followers. The whole "tradition" appears to be based on a vision of Ngakpa Chögyam himself or a recollection of his past life as the male consort of Arö Lingma who is supposed to be the original discoverer of the Aro gTér teachings. In the end it boils down to whether one believes in Ngakpa Chögyam and his visions - which a small group of his followers do. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Im seeing reliable sources brought forward here and on Talk:Aro gTér the fact that they were published and multiple books at that is something to consider. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequately described in a few reliable citations.[31]-[32]-[33] Bladesmulti (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bladesmulti and Knowledgekid, please do consider this assessment of the sources: [34]. Everything keeps tracing back to the same person over and over again. Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out below, RS are RS, the publishers are not primary sources used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - everything I can find suggests this is a small sect ("cult" seems unnecessary) popular among a small group of non-Tibetan Buddhists. Adherents publish prolifically but few outside the sect have taken the time to provide the sect with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Looking at the resources produced by the organisation for its own members, again there is a suggestion that we're talking about a relatively small group with most "events" in Cardiff or Bristol and a handful elsewhere (but focused on a select few locations). Yes, it gets a mention in Religions of the World but the content is quite plainly sourced to books published by the organisation itself. Yes, you'd expect the same for most of the religions there but that's kind of the point. None of those entries really cite coverage in independent sources. That might be sufficient for them, but we have slightly different standards. There's maybe one or two other sources there - I'm not convinced they quite get us over the line. St★lwart111 10:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see enough depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. On first look the movement appears to have a number of sources supporting its notability, but they all seem to come back to primary sources produced by the movement itself and I don't think we have the third-party coverage needed to demonstrate notability. If it is kept, the factual statements about lineage need to be changed to say that, for example, the movement claims its lineage rather than stating it factually, as there are no third-party sources attesting to the claims. Squinge (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (update: see below Squinge (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I've now done a fair bit of Google searching, and I can find precisely zero independent coverage of Aro gTér in reliable sources. Everything, even "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices", seems only to quote or paraphrase the primary sources of Aro gTér itself. Squinge (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Squinge For Wikipedia's notability standard, it does not matter whether an academic Encyclopedia quotes primary sources. That would matter for an academic standard, but Wikipedia standards for 'independent source' are not the same as academic standards. There's a list here[35] of independent sources on the Aro gTer that meet Wikipedia's criteria, with an explanation of why and how they meet Wikipedia's standards as independent sources for notability. Those 10 sources do match the notability criteria. If you want to argue that any of them do not meet wikipedia's standards for notability, you would need to explain, for example, how and why an independent national newspaper like The Observer with a double page spread on the Aro gTer, does not fit this explanation, (from WP:INDY) of independent source: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." In what sense does the Observer have any vested interest in the Aro gTer? Or this: "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" (from WP:AUD.) In what sense does a BBC program largely about the Aro gTer not fit that standard? A Google search would be a good first point of call if no sources had yet been detailed...but it is meaningless if sources are already listed. Lily W (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But The Observer's "two page spread on the Aro gTer" doesn't mention Aro gTer. On the Talk page, it was described instead as being about Ngakpa Chogyam: "*A two-page color article solely about Ngakpa Chögyam, the Aro lineage holder, in his teaching role, in The Observer, a UK national publication, the world's oldest Sunday newspaper." Also "*A 21-paragraph newspaper article solely about the Aro gTér, (particularly vajra romance) in The Western Mail, a Welsh national newspaper." doesn't mention Aro gTer either. Both support there being a Wikipedia article about Ngakpa Chogyam, but not about Aro gTer. I assume no deception is meant in characterizing the sources, which I guess are all on the general topic, and there's no real issue that description of two-page spread morphed somewhat, but I want to make a distinction between coverage of Aro gTer as an organization vs. coverage of lamas involved. Other sources on Talk page might or might not mention Aro gTer, I don't know what to believe does actually specifically cover it now. --doncram 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lily W, yes, you've convinced me that there are good sources out there for notability, so I've changed my !vote to Keep. Squinge (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos for info-based reappraisal Squinge Lily W (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Squinge:, did you actually LOOK at the sources used in the article or just take the arguments here? Also, a list somewhere else of RS is useless unless actually in the article. As far as I can see, these sources all just blindly quote the same people's stuff. Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I insert comment above, that the two-page spread doesn't cover Aro gTer, nor do some (all?) of the others. --doncram 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw:We've been over this too many times. You seem to not understand the requirements for notability. Many of the sources used in the article (as it was prior to mass deletion) are primary, and that's fine. They are not required to prove notability. The ten sources I linked to above are independent in wikipedia's terms, and any two or three of them would prove notability. Lily W (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked over the sources both in the article and some of those suggested by Lily W, and overall I think there's enough to support notability for the organisation and/or its founder. I do think it's marginal, but I'd err on the side of inclusion in such cases, and I do think there's enough to support some coverage in some way - maybe at the current title, or maybe renamed as suggested by doncram. Squinge (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usefy at best, per Montanabw. As of now, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an entry in a subject encyclopedia is definitive proof of notability for this or any other subject. It indicates the expert editors of the encyclopedia considered the group sufficiently important. Small does not mean non-notable, especially for religions. Sources related to the group are reliable enough to give the basic facts and the beliefs. DGG (talk)
    • Comment: Not necessarily; some of these works are either pay to play or else they just gleam from everyone's web site to increase sales. I mean, I've been "invited" (for a fee) to be "honored" in a who's who of college professors, and I'm just an adjunct. (I've also been similarly "invited' to be in a who's who for my day job too, but I can assure you I'm not particularly notable there, either) All it takes is your credit card... Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t know of any subject encyclopedias that are pay to play -- as distinct from who's whos and the like. Certainly not this one, from a reputable publisher. RS are RS , even when they cover what you personally think unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that RS are RS. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage in a paper encyclopedia by a highly reputable publisher is proof of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is the coverage actually general notability according to Wikipedia? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" ... "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ogress smash! 09:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the content in "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" is short and is sourced solely to quotes from the movement itself, I'd say that does not count as significant coverage by independent third parties. Squinge (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There was no WP:RS for the article as it was when this AfD was posted - only primary sources by the founders of the tradition, websites associated with Aro gTer, and a couple of tertiary sources which only repeat what Aro gTér says about itself were used as sources (other than for a few parts which really had nothing to do with the subject of the article). Since then someone has removed the junk and effectively made the article into a stub (which is better than it was). If the article is kept, then it should not get filled up up with all that junk again. Just leave more or less as is until some good quality reliable secondary sources appear (which, if the subject is notable, they should). But meanwhile, in the absence of such sources, I don't think the subject really meets notability guidelines. Currently there are no reliable independent sources that actually examine and discuss Aro gTér in a meaningful way - only a couple of tertiary sources with brief, rather insignificant, entries that do nothing more than summarize or repeat a few things Aro gTér says about itself. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question: any list-article available? - This seems to be a difficult AFD case, with well-meaning editors applying good consideration. Seems civil and constructive discussion of disagreement at Talk page of article and here. I haven't attempted to review available sources and won't "vote" now and am relatively uninformed. Nonetheless I like one compromise about the article suggested at the Talk page, that the article content need not be bogged down in distinction of whether tradition/history of group is objectively historic or not (I probably am not summarizing it correctly, but the compromise seems constructive). Also I sense validity on both sides of AFD: that there is a sect or religion here with some coverage in at least one encyclopedia so it seems sort of obviously valid as a topic, but on the other hand there's little/no evidence of size of the sect or religion and most or all of the sources seem to be primary or reports based on the primary sources. So, how to close? I would sort of hope for some compromise in closing, perhaps that this be merged/redirected to some list of similar sects? So the edit history remains available and the article could be restarted if/when more reliable coverage becomes available. For a list-article item, the standard is lower for coverage; an item does not need to be Wikipedia-notable for an individual article. Is there any possible list-article available? Or what list-article could now be created to cover this and similar sects? Let's start that now? --doncram 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list article would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Oh, thanks. I was adding: Specifically, there is Category:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism with 12 direct members and 10 subcategories, but no corresponding List of schools of Tibetan Buddhism (currently a redlink). How about List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism (a redlink now)? Wherever there is a sizable category in Wikipedia, it is usually helpful/good to have a corresponding, complementary list-article, as described in guideline wp:CLT. I am not at all familiar with this topic area, but it seems to me that a broad list-article trying to discuss and make sense of the different schools and lineages and so on would be really useful. There is a brief listing in the main Tibetan Buddhism article at Tibetan Buddhism#Schools, but that is short and could have a "main" link going out to a more expanded list-article. It would not be appropriate to include an entry about Aro gTer within the main Tibetan Buddhist article. Define a list-article broadly enough so that it can have a section listing schools or lineages like Aro gTer that might be considered "fringe" or "minor" or whatever. There must be others, right? Again, I am uninformed about this topic area, but I have experience elsewhere in Wikipedia with list-articles that helped a lot in stabilizing coverage and enabling sensible continuing development. --doncram 17:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My "weak delete" position was for exactly the reasons you outlined. The only real "coverage" available is in the encyclopaedia mentioned above. It does, though, treat this sect as one of a list of major and minor religions, sects and other groups and I would have no objection to Wikipedia treating it the same way until such time as a more substantive article can be justified. However, I am in the same position as doncram and would not be well-placed to create/manage an article like that going forward. St★lwart111 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think nonetheless it would be relatively easy to start or help start a list-article, drawing from treatment already in Wikipedia, and leave it in good condition for others to further develop it. Please watch and/or help at Draft:List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism where I will start something. Advice on better title and anything else welcomed there or its Talk page. --doncram 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources listed here[36] seemed to match notability criteria at least adequately. This was agreed on the talk page. The edit history of the article does not reflect talk page discussion. A series of mass deletions from 14th January on, by those purportedly engaging in discussion on the talk page, ignored any constructive discussion there had been prior to that date. These sources were almost entirely deleted from the article when it was reduced to a stub. Lily W (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the sources listed at the Talk page aren't great. One was presented as "*A 21-paragraph newspaper article solely about the Aro gTér, (particularly vajra romance) in The Western Mail, a Welsh national newspaper." However, the source has NO mention of Aro gTer. The source goes towards establishing notability of Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche, however. Why not develop an article about him, if there is not one, and cover Aro gTer within that. (Or should it be Ngakpa Chögyam or Ngak'chang Rinpoche or set up redirects to whatever it should be named). --doncram 00:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aro Gar seems to be the same as Aro gTer. Google-searching on ("Aro gar" buddhism -wikipedia) brings me to The Buddhist Experience in America, p. 224-5, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004, by Diane Morgan. Google book excerpt The passage on p224-5 is:

One unique branch of the Nyingma tradition is Aro Gar. The Aro Gar lineage, also called the Mother Essence lineage, emanates from a succession of enlightened women. The Aro Gar was the place in the Himalayas where Khyungchen Aro Lingma (1886-1923), the source of this lineage, lived in a community of practitioners that formed around her and her son Aro Yeshe (1915-51), the latter of whom received pure vision transmission directly from Yeshe Tsogyel, the female Tantric Buddha. Aro Gar is a nonprofit organization, serving the United States and the Americas. It works closely with Sang-ngak-cho-dzong and its sister organizations in Europe, dedicated to bringing the "white tradition" of the Nyingma school to the West. The Aro Gar is a nonliturgical, nonmonastic tradition that specializes in the teaching and practice of Dzogchen. The Aro school has found some favor in the West because of the emphasis it places on the importance of everyday working life as sexual equality and the spiritual dimension of romantic relationships. In the United States the Nyingma school has focused more intently on meditative, devotional, and Tantric practices than academic textual study. / Another Nyingma organization is the Chagdud Gopa, founded by ...

This is one book in a series "The American Religious Experience". Series intro by a Philip Goff. This appears to be a valid, reliable source, and I think it was not already mentioned.
There's also this Google book entry on "Aro Gar" within book "The New York Guide to Buddhism: Where to go...etc." by Jeff Wilson. The Aro Gar entry gives URL http://www.aroter.org/organizations/orgs_us.htm, which is no longer a specifically good link, it brings one over to http://arobuddhism.org/, the URL given as external link in the current Aro gTer article under AFD. Also this is a little bit at http://www.aroter.org/ (which also gives link over to arobuddhism.org). The full Aro Gar item's text description is:

This small lineage is notable for being nonmonastic and for the unusually strong role of exceptional female lamas in its history. The emphasis is on using the teachings and practices in everyday life. They meet on Tuesdays for meditation in members' homes and hold retreats and workshops whenever prominent lamas of this lineage visit NYC. Though a minority within the Nyingma tradition, members of the Ngakphang lineage are unusually high-spirited. Aro Gar publishes vision, a quarterly magazine. See their Web site or call for more information.

I found that linked at a Talk page discussing this AFD elsewhere.
In one or more of several Dechen and Chogyam books, e.g. this Google book, there is listing of Aro Gar among other "Aro sanghas" (which are each charitable organizations?). Sang-ngak-cho-dzong is in Vale of Glamorgan, U.K., Aro Gar is in United States; Aro Gesellschaft is in Austria; Aro Gemeinschaft is in Germany. Certainly all should be covered in one article, certainly not separately covered, but these give more material to cover and more search terms? Try searching on them and try Google-searching on ("Aro gar" buddhism -wikipedia).
Isn't the first above a substantial coverage, not already considered? --doncram 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: The problem is when we try to find sources for this "history" it turns out that in reality the history of Aro gTér only goes back to Ngakpa Chögyam and his "visions" - there is nothing verifiable about Aro gTér beyond him - so talking about the "strong role of exceptional female lamas in its history" is quite meaningless and silly, when there is really no actual history to speak of. The place Aro Gar (in the Himalayas) and the person "Khyungchen Aro Lingma (1886-1923)" and her supposed son "Aro Yeshe (1915-51)" are also part of Ngapa Chgöyam's "visions" (or, viewed less charitably, a figment of his imagination). Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong about this, there is absolutely no objective evidence that Aro Gar, Aro Lingma, or Aro Yeshe ever existed. They are no more real than Enid Blyton's character Noddy and his friends and the Toyland which they inhabited (though I'm sure many small children really believed those characters and that place really existed). The only Aro Gar there really is is their group with that name in the US. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram:@CFynn:We don't need sources for any lineage history to establish notability for an article on the Aro gTer. The article was largely about the present day organization and their teaching & practices, and there are independent sources enough to meet notability criteria.[37] The lineage history, I think we can figure out some wording to make it clear that it's 'visionary' history - like many Buddhist histories - and that it's an emic perspective, just what they say about themselves. That's no reason to delete an article - there are Buddhist organizations and lineages with articles on Wikipedia that have similar 'visionary' histories, for example: Longchen Nyingthig[38], Nam Cho [39] and plenty of Christian sects with similar imaginative backgrounds. Lily W (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The visionary history doesn't bother me, (reminds me vaguely of Mormonism, with its assumed history established by Joseph Smith), but I don't see the substantial coverage of Aro gTer. As I note elsewhere some of the Talk page sources stated to cover it don't even mention Aro gTer, though they do support an article about the founder. Maybe the Longchen Nyingthig and Nam Cho organizations you mention are similar and could be covered with Aro gTer in a list-article about Nyingma lineages, though i am not sure, but I don't see that being developed. I am "voting" merge (to an article about the founder) below. --doncram 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You raise an interesting idea, Doncram. I don't think the "Aro" lineage or concept within the Nyigma tradition is precisely the same as this small fringe group, but they may be a part of something slightly more significant, but with more people involved than just this bunch. My thinking is to delete but userfy this article in the namespace of one of the lead editors (User:Arthur Chos or User:User:Lily W, provided they aren't the same person) and then recommend that a list article be created, with the content here possibly being part of a larger annotated list with some appropriate title about the overall lineage. Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'they may be a part of something slightly more significant, but with more people involved than just this bunch'. What is your source for these claims? I'm not sure what 'this small fringe group' and 'this bunch' refers to, could you clarify? (With links/sources?) Thanks. And could you reference the 'something slightly more significant' that you think might have more people involved? What organization is that? Also, by 'this small fringe group' are you referring to the Aro gTer? It's been pointed out in several places already that their website has contacts across the UK, USA and Europe and teachers (presumably with students) in 16 places. There are some centers which appear to be their own listed on this page.[40] One of the references on this version[41] of the Aro gTer wikipedia article, now reduced to a stub, refers to Sang Ngak Cho Dzong as the UK charity/administrative center. They have about 5 or 6 large websites, which suggests they may be larger than you think. There's an event site which lists events simultaneously in France, Germany, Austria, New York, Wales, Bristol, Finland, and so on...all of these are easily verifiable facts. I couldn't find anything at all when I searched for Aro, or Aro lineage, or Aro Buddhism, which was Buddhist but did not refer to the Aro gTer. What or who, specifically, were you referring to? Lily W (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: @Montanabw, Bladesmulti, Stalwart111, Doncram, Joshua Jonathan, Ogress, and VictoriaGrayson: Maybe no need for a new list article. Aro gTér is already briefly mentioned in the existing article Buddhism in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that could be expanded into a brief paragraph (which is currently about all we really have good sources for) or a sub-section in that article, and Aro gTér could redirect there. If, at any time later, some good independent sources about Aro gTér, sufficient for a full article, appear then the redirect page can always be changed back into an independent article using those sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that we need 'good independent sources about the Aro gTér, sufficient for a full article' is misleading. We don't need 'good independent sources' for article content - only for notability purposes. The 'independent sources' that reference the notability clearly match the Wikipedia criteria for 'independent' - it doesn't matter, for wikipedia purposes, that they may originate in what the organization says about itself, so long as they're written by someone outside the organization. eg: In the case of organizations, "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" WP:AUD. Independent sources are not needed for article content. Wikipedia policy seems to encourage expanding articles from paragraphs or stubs, and reliable sources for that would include self-published material. Lily W (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be disputable - sources that are compiled only from submissions of first parties (eg trade directories, all those various kinds of paid-for "who's who" things) are usually not considered sufficiently independent for notability. I think it depends on how much independent editorial decision went into the inclusion, and whether there was more than just "We include anyone who asks" - and that's what's unclear here. Squinge (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squinge. An academic encyclopaedia, and an academic journal published by an international press, are not the same as a 'trade-directory' or a 'who's who thing'. The encyclopaedia entry is written by a third party academic, it's a peer-reviewed encyclopaedia and it's ok for Wikipedia purposes if the person writing the encyclopaedia entry used primary sources for their information. Their personal independence from the organization is the key thing - not the source of the material that they wrote. Lily W (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There was an Aro Yeshe Jungne who was active in Khams (E. Tibet) in the second half of the 10th or early 11th Century - his Dzogchen instructions are part of the Nyingma Kama (not Terma) tradition and they are said to unite the teachings of the Dzogchen mind-class (sems sde) with the teachings of the Chinese master Heshang Moheyan of the Northern Ch'an tradition (and hence were always somewhat controversial in Tibet). Of course we can properly speak of an "Aro lineage" in connection with those teachings as they have come down to the present day through a long list of known teachers. However the lineage of Aro Yeshe Jungne's instructions did not come from Yeshe Tsogyal or any Aro Lingma, they are not terma, and have nothing to do with Ngakpa Chögyam's Aro gTér - and the two should not be confused. Of course you can find some good academic references for Aro Yeshe Jungne and his instruction lineage. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though academic sources are not required for article notability or content, there are a couple on the Aroter. Discussion of their quality or length or original source is irrelevant - they fit the criteria for purposes here. Lily W (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but plan to re-title/move to Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche, and edit to develop the material about him, while covering Aro gTer in a section. (I first called for "Merge with redirect"). I tried working on a too-general list-article in draft-space as a possible redirect target, but it is not making much progress, and I am not sure if Aro gTer should be covered even if the list-article draft is narrowed to be just about Nyingma lineages (currently a redlink). I find it beyond my ability to write such a list-article anyhow. As made clear in discussion above, the historic lineage for Aro gTer is "visionary", i.e. apparently assumed/adopted, which is okay seems to me hard to work into a history-type list-article of longer, larger lineages. Probably merge/redirect to an article about the person Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche (or name it Ngakpa Chögyam or Ngak'chang Rinpoche), who is the founder, who had the vision of the historic lineage, and who seems individually notable to me, as a public figure who has been interviewed and has written books and more. Why not develop an article about him, if there is not one, and cover Aro gTer within that? Best accomplished by moving this article and re-focussing. Or another alternative is to merge and redirect to Buddhism in the United Kingdom, where there could be a section, as suggested by Chris Fynn. It doesn't bother me that there is some Aro gTer group activity in NYC and in some European countries; it seems mostly in the U.K. --doncram 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I possibly could support a merge to an article about the leader. I would oppose a merge into the Buddhism in the UK article. Montanabw(talk) 09:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Marie Munroe[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. The article claims numerous awards, but lacks support. The references in the article are not independent (IMDB and personal website), trivial (Hachette), WP:PRIMARY (interviews), or don't mention the individual (yahoo and many others). Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY support. There is nothing to support the awards discussed in the article. Author has failed to meet WP:BURDEN. reddogsix (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006#Green Party. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. This article was deleted via WP:PROD and then restored via WP:REFUND. Campbell was a third-party candidate for Governor of Michigan in 2006. He fails WP:POLITICIAN, having never held statewide office. His career as an engineer isn't notable and has not received significant, independent coverage. In 2009 a small group of editors rejected a merge to Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2006, preferring a stand-alone article. I don't see that this discussion binds anyone although there's barely anything here that would require merging. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, no significant, independent coverage. There's not a lot to justify a merge/redirect. Neutralitytalk 05:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. In a March 2009 discussion there was a consensus to keep and not to merge. At that time I supported keeping the article as a separate entity and thought the Douglas Campbell was notable for the reasons stated there, but I also conceded the stub needed further development. The fact that there has not been further development, shows a lack of interest in the article by other editors, and I realize their may not be a consensus this time around to keep. I do, however, consider Campbell's role in the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 to be significant enough to warrant including these two brief paragraphs in the main article: Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. This modest inclusion would reflect his lower electoral success, and would not be undue. Rather it would result in an article that recognizes the election as a multi-partisan event. As a realist, I think a consensus of Merge. would be the most satisfactory resolution of this discussion.
It would be appropriate to keep the page as a redirect to the main article since there are several persons named "Douglas Campbell" mentioned in Wikipedia. Having the links that already go to that page go to the main article would clarify which "Douglas Campbell" was being mentioned.
--Libertyguy (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge content to Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. This is a common and appropriate outcome for losing candidates for a state-level executive position. --Enos733 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge unless more significant biographical content can be found.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge The full content of this article should be pasted into the main article. Douglas Campbell is a notable figure, and should have a separate article. So I am disappointed with the small size of this article. Merging would keep the page available if an editor becomes inspired to create the article he deserves, and we would save the description of him.--Redandready (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion can't mandate the content decisions for a separate article. If Campbell is notable, then you want to keep a separate article. If he's not notable, then he merits a brief mention in the 2006 election article. The current content could always be userfied. Out of curiosity, why do you think Campbell is notable? The premise of this discussion is that he is not (with reasons given), and no one's rebut those arguments. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here there is a brief section pertaining to third party candidates. Since most of the content in the first paragraph refers to his 2002 run for the same office, I would be willing to create similar section in the article Michigan gubernatorial election, 2002 and use the 2002 information there rather than paste it all in Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. Redirection would allow the history to be preserved on the page so any information there could be used later if new information or activities by Mr. Campbell warrant an article.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Being jailed and hospitalized by the police for the mere "crime" of showing up at a debate is a notable event, even if it speaks more to the political environment than the individual. For the same reason, James Moody should be mentioned because even though he did not appear on the 2002 primary ballot, he escaped any persecution by virtue of being a member of the Republican party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.163.133 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

On 31 January, User:The Herald, who is not an administrator, closed this discussion as keep. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, which states, inter alia, that "[non-admin d]ecisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator", I, an administrator, have vacated this closure. I've done this because I believe it to be wrong and non-compliant with usual standards. In particular, User:BluntWorthy, and User:94.204.55.125, each of whom have no recent edits outside this topic, have placed two "votes" each, which are liable to be discounted. The preponderant consensus decision is therefore delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smokingroove[edit]

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

This article has been speedy deleted three times, including once by me (Recently). There is no real credible claim to importance (in my mind) outside of maybe being popular on the UAE club scene. The other claim to being extras in the upcoming Star Wars film seems to be sourced to something that is referencing one of the brother's twitter feeds (i.e. like a magazine saying "hey these guys say they are in the new star wars film"), which seems highly unreliable. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smokingroove boys were an integral part of the London radio scene and helped to shape the dance music culture in London through the late 90s. I'm still rewriting the page (forgive my newby-ness) and adding sources. I've been a fan of their music for a while and wanted to contribute and share some of the information i've found. They currently release records that sell in over 35 countries so i think that is indeed worthy of inclusion here on Wiki. Other artists of a similar level are listed here so i think it's only fair that we also feature Smokingroove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also see the TMZ links for evidence on their participation in the Star Wars movie. I'm told that due to contractual obligations, they cannot expand upon their roles in the forthcoming movie. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add, they've been verified by both Twitter and Facebook as 'personalities of note' (with the addition of the blue tick) and as we all know, this is an independent verification by them and not something that can be applied for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it's debatable that they pass WP:MUSICBIO; a lot of the references are either passing mentions, blogs, or interviews. They have not won any significant awards, and I do not believe a Star Wars cameo really counts as "notability." However, the article is still being worked on and could potentially demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The page qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO as they've proved Number 7 "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." with the verified awards without a shadow of a doubt. Their approx 10 years on London's radio scene should also be taken into consideration. BluntWorthy (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be noted that The What's On Award they won had a vote count of 200,000. [[42]]BluntWorthy (talk) 23:26, 10 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, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Wiki's rules stated that they needed to meet at least one of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO and they clearly have. This should be closed off asap as a Speedy keep. 94.204.55.125 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where your clearly comes from, Number 7 is almost a non-rule, since it relies on at least one other rule being fulfilled. Additionally, I would argue that the awards are small-time magazine awards that are not sufficiently significant to meet Criteria 8.Primefac (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While i do respect your opinion (and the help you gave towards finding extra resources), i have to add that these are the biggest publishers and magazines for the entire middle East. The awards given are based on votes, media influence and national influence through their years of work to build a scene from nothing. Up until the last decade, the middle east was exactly what you thought it was; basic and nowhere near being on-par with Europe or the states. Now it's a huge scene with hundreds of clubs, bars and hangout spots. The Smokingroove boys have worked to create something special and have top ranking, playing all of the major festivals and clubs. My hats off to them for the endless work they've done to build something special. BluntWorthy (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article still reads as blatant advertising. If my eyes don't deceive me, this looks exactly the same as the version that was deleted weeks ago, so why would this be speedy delete? Not sure how to check the differences, but I'd say either delete it or move it to a draft space so we can get rid of the puffery and exaggerations, and go from there. Sock (tock talk) 03:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all due respect, i've worked long and hard to make this as factual as possible. I understand they had someone else attempt to write a page for them in the past that came across as blatant advertising. I've researched all of the facts and have come up with a lot more info than some of their peers here on Wiki. My only argument here is the downplaying of the influence they've had on a national level and the years running up to it. Again, there are artists of a similar level Roger Sanchez, Greg Stainer, Dj_Sneak to name a couple who have pages and i have worked to get them also listed here. 94.204.55.125 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They don't meet either the musician-specific guidelines, nor is the general coverage enough to pass GNG. I recommend salting as well. Maybe in six months or so this can be revisited once there's actual significant coverage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The musicians guidelines state they must qualify for one of the list on WP:MUSICBIO. They have qualified under number 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obtains notability through a future and minor role, and does not pass through WP:GNG. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to draftspace per the significant coverage here from The National. There also many other sources discussing Smokingroove in Google News. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 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 ⨹ 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God (NC.A song)[edit]

Oh My God (NC.A song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song seems to fail WP:GNG. Song by NC.A was released digitally in Korea and charted poorly. Article claims this song was promoted on "all" music shows (in the world??), but there is no evidence of this and there appears to have been no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. All links are to record charts and the artist's own youtube via allkpop. Any relevant information can be included on the artist's main webiste Shinyang-i (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not warrant its own page Asdklf; (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks coverage and fails notability guidelines.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:56, 3 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:41, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough information for a separate article. --Random86 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:14, 22 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. —Cryptic 04:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismat Alamgir[edit]

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

First reference does not even include the name of subject. The second one is an unreliable interview. Probably not an independent source. Also WP:TOOSOON Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Also no claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 04:24, 5 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:56, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky one. She seems to have had a starring role in Bengali cinema's second-highest grossing film of 2013. But there seem to be no reliable sources on her in English, and searching on "ইসমত আলমগীর" almost nothing in Bengali either, except mentions that she was in the film. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Only two refs, one is just routine.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Galdi[edit]

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

Not justification for notability. NetworkOP (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 14:09, 3 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:29, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A single publication does not meet WP:AUTHOR unless highly significant or groundbreaking. All coverage found seems to be interviews about the one published novel, or otherwise promotional, therefore WP:GNG is not met. — Jkudlick tcs 05:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:15, 22 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 merge to Pantech#Pantech_smartphones_in_South_Korea. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pantech Vega Racer[edit]

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

This should be deleted because it is about a non-notable smartphone that was released in South Korea that doesn't have any sources. Frmorrison (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Pantech Vega N°6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pantech Vega R3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Shinyang-i: thoughts on this? I would say delete but I don't live in Korea, so I will just have you decide on this for me. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't live in Korea any more, and even if I did it wouldn't qualify me to judge notability in this case. However, it is a one sentence article with no sources. Notability has not been established. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:38, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be no information available about this phone other than its specs. Piboy51 (talk) 16:56, 14 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, Deadbeef 01:23, 18 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) 09:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinee World 2014[edit]

Shinee World 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is really no information that suggests anything notable besides the fact that the tour happened. The only worth-mentioning information is the number of attendance, but even so, this info has already been indicated within the main Shinee's article, per WP:NTOUR. TerryAlex (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: Has reliable sources and pretty descriptive. But it does need more reliable sources though. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Tibbydibby: I agree that this one has more content than most of these tour articles, and about the sources. The first 5 references are from official sites before the tour started. In other words, they are PR. Two of the others were Soompi, which according to WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources (which I found via your user page, thanks) is not considered an RS for K-pop articles. That leaves only one possibly reliable source. This is pretty thin. Is there a good reason why this tour can't be described in a paragraph or so in their own article? – Margin1522 (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Margin1522 Most K-pop tours can/should only be described in a paragraph within the main artists' articles because there are hardly ever enough sources/coverage.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Margin1522: You do have a point there. I was just suggesting that it's only a Keep for a temporary period (maybe a few more months) while people find other reliable sources of the tour (from various Japanese news outlets preferably). If the article can't be improved by then, then I'll support the AfD. Tibbydibby (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, fails WP:NTOUR. Significant coverage means significant coverage. Most tours really do fail WP:NTOUR. This one's not even done yet - how can anyone attest to its notability or legacy? Despite the amount of content in the article, a lot of it isn't Wikipedia-worthy. It's details about announcements, straight from the firm's PR materials. Listen, I like Shinee quite a lot, but it's crazy how many Shinee-related articles there are on Wikipedia about things that truly are not notable. There's simply nothing notable about this tour - it's just another kpop tour. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:44, 14 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, Deadbeef 01:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability as specified by WP:NTOUR. --DAJF (talk) 00:00, 19 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) 09:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campbelltown Collegians[edit]

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

non-notable amateur rugby league club Mattlore (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 21:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 21:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability in lower level amateur sporting clubs. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 5 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:38, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:22, 18 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 without prejudice to the creation of a redirect if so desired. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William P. Hoar[edit]

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

No indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:39, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. No objection to a merge/redirect if desired. Neutralitytalk 05:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to John Birch Society. No evidence found of notability, but may be worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 25 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) 09:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Greenup[edit]

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

Basically unsourced BLP and lacking indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) @ 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination, article doesn't establish why he is notable and is unreferenced. Whilst the subject does appear to receive some mention in a range of sources it doesn't appear to be significant per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 04:56, 15 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, Deadbeef 01:21, 18 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Amateur Radio Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Google Search brings up their social media and aggregate websites that make passing mentions of the subject. No one but me participated in last discussion. Still fails WP:NCORP. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Online, i find only the club's own reports and sometimes mention of the club at general amateur radio sites, e.g. this coverage at SouthgateARC.org. There are also mentions of British, Royal Engineers, Signal Corps activity in Cyprus, but that seems historical and not associated with the current Cyprus radio club group. So delete i guess, unless more turns up. --doncram 19:25, 9 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:10, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:21, 18 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 Tom and Jerry: The Chuck Jones Collection. Maybe there is some way to save the article using sources we don't have. Not much as it stands. Shii (tock) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, Jerry, Quite Contrary[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as non-notable. The article is unsourced and I couldn't find any independent reliable sources after a google search. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 05:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:11, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Only refs are to database entries.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague hint of Keep. I found something in the NY Times. Normally, I consider the NYT a pretty rock-solid reliable source, but this is rather minimal. I wouldn't consider this enough to justify keeping by itself, but it's a start. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 26 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan[edit]

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

Not independently notable. No claim of notability. Does not demonstrate notability through sources- one source is about Tan Kah Kee, and the other refers to it's membership in redlinked Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 05:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (quip) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article meets most, if not all of the criteria set out in WP:NONPROFIT. The problem seems to stem from poor referencing practices by editors, which I have now rectified.--Lionratz (talk) 08:02, 6 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 05:18, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew & Lionratz - significant improvements & sourcing since nominating, Passes GNG. –Davey2010Talk 08:42, 18 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) 09:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somer Onur Engin[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this person is "well-known". Approximately 40 Google results, most of which derive from Facebook and other social media. Nothing on Google News. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 06:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is possible that there are more sources in non-western script. More important, can the nominator explain tot the author what is going on and what has to be done? Otherwise the guy will get himself blocked for not having a clue, that would be a pity. The Banner talk 16:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somer Onur Engin is known in social media. He a Turkish. Her followers from more than 10 countries. Her has more than 100,000 followers in total. See her Twitter account and Facebook page. On the Facebook page and Twitter account has more than 10,000 followers. Moreover, a new creation. Moreover, her pages, channels and accounts new was created. He also began modeling at the young brands. Than at the beginning of his career. I think this explanation will suffice. --Blue-03 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Wikipedia, we assess the notability of a person by the extent to which that person has been discussed in reliable, independent secondary sources – see WP:BIO / WP:BASIC for more information. Has Engin been the subject of any detailed discussion in any newspapers or on any third-party websites? Please note that social media presence and numbers of followers are not sufficient to demonstrate a person's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 09:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please change the article in an appropriate manner. I think not need to delete the article. Somer Onur Engin's article to will be required. Do not forget! --Blue-03 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove this project anymore. --Blue-03 (talk) 16:24, 20 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, Deadbeef 01:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the author is requesting this in "Please remove this project anymore" above. To User:Blue-03, if this is so, please post "Please delete the article" on this page and sign it. Otherwise, I can't see the notability in the article. It's interesting to see that the author is replacing the AfD notice that Estergo1 is removing... Peridon (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Simple case of non-notable (probably auto-) bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Article is clearly trying to promote a non-notable autobiography. Article deleted in tr.wiki many times with same reason. [44] Estergo1 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's right on that - 10 times in two years. Here, it would have been protected from creation after five times, if not before. Peridon (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article: February 15. Her a lot of photos and videos will be published. I think do not delete. The tr.wiki article is pointing to another person. --Blue-03 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to create your autobiography in tr.wiki with your own account,and now claiming that its another person. Estergo1 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with previous delete comments, promotional BLP without any WP:RS and not even close to meet WP:GNG. But at least it has an interesting unsourced claim about having 5 colour eyes ;) .--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:12, 22 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) 09:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz ciphers[edit]

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

Along with the laundry list of problems, this article doesn't appear to assert any notability, and more ominously may be a hoax. Its here for community input on its fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am the person who put up the original (incorrect) deletion nomination. Aside from the fact that it is quite clearly a hoax, its only citations seem to be on fringe/hobbyist blogs which all refer mack to ciphermysteries.com. Eladynnus (talk) 18:48, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No evidence whatsoever of notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:17, 22 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. I'm calling this a unanimous consensus to delete. Yes, I know two people said keep, but both of them went on to say it needed citations, which (especially) in a WP:BLP situation, means delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Grant (private investigator)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP and no indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. I'm assuming all the claims in the article are true, and simply in need of citation. If the claims are true, and he's been on multiple television shows related to a high-profile celebrity death, and gone on to represent other high-profile celebrities and political figures, he's arguably quite notable.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant is very much a one event personality. That event being the Death of Kurt Cobain. As an alternative to deletion, a blank and redirect would work well. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
added comment Grant's books on the Death topic are now listed in the article as further reading items, with ISBNs – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources in the article are self-referential. A Google search confirms that he is, indeed, known for promoting the murder theory; nothing else in the article could be confirmed. CBS News interviewed him once and mentioned him another time. Articles about Cobain usually give him a sentence-long mention, as in, "A certain sector of fans and observers -- most notably Tom Grant, the private investigator and former cop hired by Cobain's wife, singer and actress Courtney Love, to find Cobain when he went missing during the days before his death -- have insisted that Cobain's death was not suicide, but rather a murder conspiracy." (CBS). And that is all I could find in Reliable Sources. Unreliable, conspiracy-driven sources - well, that's another matter, but not one that concerns us. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 14 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, Deadbeef 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article needs better citations. not deletion. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable fringe theorist. In lacking any reliable sources, this is s a WP:BLP disaster. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: By all means mention him in some nirvana fringe theory area, but we have no good sources showing individual notability warranting a BLP. It simply can't be kept without independent reliable sourcing.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:42, 27 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. Some of the sources found were questionable, but it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium oil[edit]

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

I can't find any information on this topic from reliable sources. All I can find are sites selling the product. I've tried searching the .edu top level domain and using Google scholar but didn't find anything relevant. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 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, Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 14:55, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NorthAmerica's sources. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yet more faith-based medicine. If editors insist of adding this stuff, it behoves them to at least source it. As it is, even with the sources listed above, they're still primary-sourced anecdote more than a credible peer-reviewed source. WP:MEDRS anyone? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 22 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 ⨹ 02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Done Productions Publishing[edit]

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

Publishing company fails WP:GNG, sources are the org's own website, a resume directory, and a blog; can't find any coverage from WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at the various articles about the SA Military, many, if not most, of them cite books published by Just Done.
The GNG requires books/websites/articles about the publisher. The amount of publishing it has done is not necessarily important - what matters is that others have written about the company. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 4 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, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 12 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, Deadbeef 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Only one ref is not to one of its published works, and it is from the subject.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:57, 26 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 16:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Wainscott[edit]

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

fails GNG / scant RS sources are rote database listings for executives - obvious promotional/vanity article DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 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, Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 14:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional piece. Would be OK on LinkedIn, but not here. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a couple more "Also known as Jim"s from the author of this article. Interesting. I wonder if if Jims are a hobby or a more commercial interest. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:14, 18 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) 09:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokii[edit]

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

The references are basically PR; The article in the Sacramento Bee for example, says at the bottom it is a press release. The article in the Globe and Mail is not about the company, but quotes the CEO. ... I note also the promotional bio at Karla Stephens-Tolstoy using mostly the same references--but it talks about other work also, so it needs separate consideration. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:58, 4 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, Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It looks like the web-based service never made it. It has now shut down and in its place the company is providing an iPhone app. I found no evidence at all that the app is notable, so the article couldn't be created today. This leaves the question, what to do about the old service? It got some publicity around 2012 when it was launched, but nothing since then and the article has had no substantive updates since then. Under NTEMP we're not supposed to delete these articles if they were notable enough to be created in the first place. But IMO it was too early. We shouldn't create articles on startups until they've been around for a year or so and are still notable. Instead of being a good idea that looked like it had the potential to become notable but in retrospect never did. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:06, 10 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, Deadbeef 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company got press at launch, but not afterwards. Shii (tock) 06:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Besides launch press, there is no indication of notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:20, 22 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Newcastle sharks attack[edit]

2015 Newcastle sharks attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of long term notability. SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One human injury, no human fatalities. Sharks often attack dolphins. Run-of-the-mill local news. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. Neutralitytalk 05:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Slightly better than most of the spate of local articles recently created by this author (and thus at AFD rather than immediately speedied or redirected), but just a relatively minor event of local note. [[WP:NOTNEWS. Meters (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the "gallery" is the most ridiculous part; images available in each of the disparate articles brought to together like hieroglyphs or a pictogram. Yes, we understand what a shark attacking a dolphin near Newcastle might look like. St★lwart111 06:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely per Stalwart111 - I've seen some stupid shit in my time but by far that gallery's the most stupidest!, I think we're all well aware of what a shark and dolphin look like!, Anyway back on topic - Clearly fails NOTNEWS. –Davey2010Talk 08:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:53, 18 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) 09:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Krishan Pranami Bal Sewa Ashram, Kaimri[edit]

Shri Krishan Pranami Bal Sewa Ashram, Kaimri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

school with no evidence of notability Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:26, 11 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, Rcsprinter123 (inform) @ 18:10, 17 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 merge to Jaerock Lee#The_Message_of_the_Cross. czar ⨹ 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Message of the Cross[edit]

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

Book that does not meet WP:NBOOK. The sources are based on press releases, or primary sources, or very brief mentions. Simply having been translated into a number of languages doesn't make a book notable, not when there don't seem to be any sources talking about the book in those languages... Note that there's a walled garden of promotional articles around Jaerock Lee and his books; he is a notable person, but this book does not appear notable in its own right. bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If it had been translated into two or three languages, I would agree that translation was not a factor in notability, but the article claims 56 translations: that is not a small number. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a substantial number, but that's not in itself a claim to notability. When a book has been picked up by a publisher in another language and been independently translated, there tends to be sources in the other language talking about the translation, but no such sources seem to exist. It is not unusual for an author or organisation to arrange for translations of a particular text into other languages, in which case the translations are a way of marketing the book, and that's not notable (unless, again, the translations are written about in secondary sources). --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 18 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, Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article about the guy. This subject may be notable but the article is uninformative for lack of sourcing Shii (tock) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to author's page. The number of languages that a work has been translated into does not confer notability. Neutralitytalk 05:15, 18 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 ⨹ 16:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gunderson (artist)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Launchballer 01:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not finding anything notable. Here is a CV from his site, and no reviews, and no major shows, and another here that is more up to date.. Theredproject (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links on the references, and half are dead links. There is this and this, though, in advance of a show curated by Hans Ulrich Obrist, though no reviews of the show itself.Theredproject (talk) 21:53, 11 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, Rcsprinter123 (gab) @ 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage thus far does not rise to the requisite notability level, as far as I see. This is a pure WP:TOOSOON one. Neutralitytalk 05:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable at this time. No independent coverage found from a web search. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 25 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 Why So Serious? – The Misconceptions of Me. Clear consensus that we should not keep this as a standalone article, but sufficient support for a redirect to the album. Michig (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Leave[edit]

Can't Leave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song fails WP:GNG. Song was released digitally as part of an album and charted poorly. There is no evidence the song generated significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The discussion about the song is all record reviews of the song by the usual kpop promo machine, as part of reviews of the entire album. The rest is padding with superfluous information about the personnel and descriptions of performances at Shinee events. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Why So Serious? – The Misconceptions of Me: Not even a single, so why does it have it's own article in the first place? Tibbydibby (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song was performed several times, for their showcase for example where many reporters were present, was praised in many reviews and it was downloaded often enough to rank in the Top 50. The site just needs more sources, why should it be deleted? I have seen song sites of western artists which had less text but still got an own site. Seriously, you guys are just way too fast to delete some good articles just because it lacks some sources, give other users the chance to improve it without deleting it.--46.115.144.142 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. By all means, feel free to AFD those western song articles you feel are bad. And if you can actually find content to add to these many, many random song articles, please do. By the way, "content" does not include a big list of every place the song was ever performed. Fact is, these articles never get beyond stubs with no real information in them, because the songs are non-notable and haven't been significantly written about independently in several reliable sources. What is there to actually say about them? Visit WP:SONG: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." Most singles shouldn't even have articles, so why should numerous non-promotional album tracks? Shinyang-i (talk) 00:33, 7 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:24, 10 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, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 18:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as above). I have no objection to a redirect to the article on the album. Neutralitytalk 05:18, 18 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. While the arguments for keeping don't present any real evidence of notability, there isn't sufficient consensus for any other outcome. Michig (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinee World III[edit]

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

There is really no information that suggests anything notable besides the fact that the tour just happened. Even what the boys said in quotes are just "fluff" information, per WP:NTOUR. TerryAlex (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs improvement though. It is notable but requires more references; two news outlets mention it for not just happening but also gathering a successful relationship with audience and excessive press media coverage by over 100 reporters. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: Needs more reliable sources but seems notable for its own article. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been sitting this one out, because the above editors thought the article had potential. I've been waiting to see if things would change. However looking at it now, I still don't see how it passes WP:NTOUR. I respect the first editor's comments about the kind of material that's out there, but at this point - where is it? I guess I just doubt that this one concert, out of all the other kpop concerts, has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the SM Entertainment marketing machine. I'm sure it was a great concert and meaningful to those who attended but...I just don't think it's Wikipedia-level notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:38, 14 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, Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 18:05, 17 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. (WP:SNOW) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 13:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan (browser)[edit]

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

This topic is, as of know, purely rumor and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Of the three sources mentioned, one is Mary Jo Foley, ZDNet writer whose reputation is not that of full accuracy. The other is Boy Genius Report (BGR) which previously committed forgery in a case related to Blue Screen of Death. (See Blue Screen of Death § Incorrect attribution for details.) As there is the case with all rumors, sources give contradictory details: The Verge says it is going to be a "Windows Store app" while Softpedia says it is going to be a traditional app. (For none-technical people, suffice to say that "Windows Store apps" and "traditional apps" are opposites.) BGR and Softpedia show contradictory screenshots.

Information given in the infobox of this article are totally fabricated. There is not even a source to support them. In fact, "Engines" field of the infobox is refuted by existing (unreliable) sources. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I neither agree nor disagree with the deletion, but I think it shouldn't be deleted until 2 weeks have past to see if there is any relevant info t be found. since Microsoft might reveal this browser on the Jan.21 event, if not then I think it should be deleted.Tony0517 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to know that. Wikipedia's fundamental policy is waiting those two weeks and then writing the article. But on the other hand, an AfD should run for seven days unless closed per WP:SNOW. I think in an ideal rule-based Wikipedia, this article is moved to the draft space or userified to remain on standby until 21 January. Minimum destruction, minimum efforts, no major policy violations are the benefits. But I am not a picky person either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place for rumors. Even if more information should be available shortly, it is inappropriate to feature this pure speculation in an encyclopedia. Piboy51 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as reasoned by Codename Lisa. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:07, 16 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, Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I completely agree with Lisa, Wikipedia isn't a place of rumors. There must a reference providing official announcement by Microsoft. These two references don't provide exact info. But Microsoft will provide detailed info regarding Windows 10 tomorrow ( 21 Jan 2014 ), if it'll make the announcement, then keep otherwise delete.  HPD   talk  08:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Internet Explorer. Too early: just wait until Windows 10 comes out. 202.160.36.103 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now confirmed. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per ViperSnake151. --RaviC (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per ViperSnake151. Chmarkine (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not just rumor anymore, it was announced and more information about it will be released in the next few months. Greatedits1 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Confirmed. VirusKA (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It was revealed todayTony0517 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It was also in the German Tech Press: http://t3n.de/news/project-spartan-microsoft-589745/ --MartinThoma (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep: When will people learn to "read & research before nominating for deletions"? Anyhow, this browser has been confirmed on multiple official sources, and since it is very likely that Spartan will gradually replace Internet Explorer after Windows 10, this article should most definitely be kept. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above. All it needs now is a bit of fleshing out. -- Teh Cheezor Speak 09:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as explained above. — Joaquin008 (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is no longer a WP:CRYSTAL, so it is no longer a prediction, but rather a fact. Other than that, although the listed sources are poor and the article is not of good quality, more reliable news sources are popping up these few days and it is possible to rewrite the article with a huge room for improvement. This is salvageable. With a quick search with Google, it is easy to find at least five reliable sources which all provide sufficient information to put together an article. This is not worth deleting, by all standards. If it is deleted, it would be a massive problem because then Wikipedia will not have an article about the browser to be bundled with Windows 10 and successor to Internet Explorer. We would then be, not predicting a forthcoming event, but becoming seriously out-dated. Given, also, that this topic has generated such debate for keep/delete, there must be quite some traffic going on this article and many would refer to it. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOT confirmed. It's codenamed "Spartan", it's not the name of the browser. We all know the browser is real but the name of it isn't. For all we know it's IE12. Remove totally until Microsoft itself announces it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.14.113 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The name doesn't matter. The article can be renamed after its official name is announced. Chmarkine (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Internet Explorer: IE is not dead and "Spartan" is basically IE12 without legacy code (more info from the IE team). 89.114.227.105 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you provided actually says "Internet Explorer will also be available on Windows 10. Internet Explorer will use the same dual rendering engines as Spartan". So Spartan and IE are different browsers. Chmarkine (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Spartan" is still IE, it just doesn't support ancient stuff such as ActiveX, P3P, and document modes. Just because Edge is a new engine, it doesn't mean it's a full new browser, which it isn't. 89.114.227.105 (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Spartan does not supporting legacy features. It uses new engine. It has three new features (i.e. reading mode/reading list, Cortana integration and ability to annotate on webpages). I think these are enough to call it a new browser. Also, actually each version of IE has its own article, like IE 10, IE 11. Chmarkine (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : as this may have previously been a rumor, it has been confirmed as real now. I disagree with a merge with IE because this is a separate entity not a new IE version. Ppl seeking info about it will search it via it's current codename, not internet explorer. DeltaDelta5 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the Spartan browser was once just a rumor, it was, as of January 21, 2015, confirmed to exist by Micorsoft. This is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The upcoming Microsoft browser Spartan was showed off at the recent Microsoft and is expected to be in Windows 10. Polloloco51 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In all fairness, this request for deletion should be withdrawn. It might have made sense to delete on January 9. It sure doesn't now. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, getting plenty of coverage, and has been confirmed as the successor of Internet Explorer. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely announced by MS at https://insider.windows.com/ and elsewhere tompagenet (talk) 09:28, 24 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) 18:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl[edit]

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

Not sure if an article for a list of video game soundtracks that are put on vinyl records is notable. There's not a list on albums still being released on vinyl. Or any list involving vinyl besides this. GamerPro64 04:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems to be notable enough that RSes like Kotaku, Game Informer, and Destructoid make note of the practice. Of course the article is massively under-reffed, but that might be improvable. Anyway, in its current state it might be a good candidate for merging with Video game music. -Thibbs (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - As a list article, the coverage of the topic as a whole only takes place in the lede and the bulk of the article is composed of sourced entries. There are some good RSes that cover the topic generally (e.g. 1 and 2) and from WP:VG's Custom RS searches I see some nearly 250k hits worth of articles that could probably source many of the individual entries. I think the article just needs cleanup. -Thibbs (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a lede now and used those two RSes as sources. That introduces the topic as a whole and defines the inclusion criteria. I don't find a whole lot more that covers the topic generally, but it's not hard to find RSes for the individual entries. So I think it meets the bare minimum for GNG, but if that's not good enough then I'd ask for userfication in the hopes that I can find a few more RSes in the future that treats the topic generally. -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial intersection. Being released on vinyl does not mean it's good music. In one case only 500 copies were pressed.Borock (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not the music is good is entirely subjective. It's the fact that these small 500-copy releases are often covered by the RSes that suggests the concept is considered novel and notable enough to cover in the encyclopedia. -Thibbs (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "good music", or a soundtracks availability, is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm unsure of my stance yet, but that rationale is invalid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there any sort of general "video game soundtrack" type list? It seems like this could be more of a column in that chart than its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any. There is an article about Video game music but it does not have any lists of soundtracks and I think adding one there would make the article too large. We also have Category:Video game soundtracks but looking at that shows that we only have article on individual soundtracks not a list of them though with 132 entries there may be enough material to create a list.--64.229.167.161 (talk) 18:51, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regular music albums released on vinyl aren't worth a list, so why would video game music? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Thibbs (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point. The fact that lists for mainstream music being released on vinyl don't exist does not in itself prove that this list is not worth it since it could be the case that creation of other lists of this nature have simply been overlook and that it should be them being created not this one deleted. If, on the other hand, there were lists of this nature and they were deleted by consensus that would strengthen the case for deletion since deletion here would be a case of following an established precedence, not simply a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF.--67.68.161.176 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, let's try this argument then. To my surprise, there are lists of best video game soundtracks (e.g. by Forbes and Rolling Stone), but none for them on vinyl. The only one from possibly(?) a reliable source is this Goldmine article.[53] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Almost all of the sources currently used in the article are in fact reliable. Check them against WP:VG/RS. I think the only one that is a non-RS is the discogs ref (#30). There are also several list entries that have no source and those should probably be cut if no RSes can be found to support them. The two reliable sources that discuss the topic in general plus the many (44) other RSes that cover the individual list members should be sufficient. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing the point. Just because facts can be verified doesn't mean they're notable. A banana has about 1 mg of sodium.[54] A serving of banana peppers contains about 16 mg.[55] Doesn't mean this merits a List of fruits and vegetables by sodium content. Show me another source (besides the one I found) that compiles a list of soundtracks in vinyl. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Per WP:GNG notability is presumed when "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The two reliable sources that are currently used to source the lede of the article give the topic significant coverage and they are independent of the subject and they are both reliable. Membership in the list is also not difficult to demonstrate - currently nearly all of the supporting refs are reliable and it is a trivial matter to remove the list entries that cannot be reliably sourced. A stand-alone list article is different from a normal article because often only the lede treats the topic in a general manner and the remainder of the list is individually sourced non-prose list members. Since the lede is only 2 paragraphs long, I don't see the need for more than the minimum requirements set forth in the GNG. If there is consensus to hold the article to a higher standard then I ask for userfication. -Thibbs (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the article in its current status, I believe that it not only looks improved, but it might meet notability standards. Might be incomplete due to it only going far back to 1996 but I trust that if Thibbs puts more work into the article, it might be a very informative page on a subject I didn't believe had enough to warrant an article. GamerPro64 06:04, 16 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, Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 17:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of reliable sources, and the mere fact that stuff like this is being released on vinyl in this day and age is interesting and possibly notable in and of itself.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Thibb's additions. It looks like coverage exists, and there's valid content beyond the list itself too, so I'm all for it now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see anything wrong on this page, it is an actual proper music list. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 17:13, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_18&oldid=1142626004"