Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 January	4 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Kodani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern appears to have been based on a request by the subject. In any case, 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) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, has never played in a WP:FPL and no evidence of coverage outside routine sports coverage. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL and has never played in a WP:FPL Tommy Syahputra (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. MbahGondrong (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wajahat Hasan[edit]

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

Possible autobiography, only references are not reliable, no indication of notability Kges1901 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 January 2015‎ (UTC)— Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWAyFqHSXM4

Delete: not notable; no acceptable references. One is to another Wikipedia page. Sorry, but YouTube videos do not count either. Fylbecatulous talk 15:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : notable; provided other website links^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep: notable; this guy made strong man like raghu ram cry also he is also talented singer.we know him very well. He deserves to be here ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.22.17 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep : notable; since the article has youtube link which is cent Percent real.Also news channels also shown this news on newspaper.^[3] Confirmed sock of Khwajablessed. Mike V • Talk 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep : notable; acceptable refrences.He is very popular Dubbing artist in india has been giving voice in Asia's super hit series like doraemon,shinchan^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmowais42 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Kmowais42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sock of Khwajablessed. Mike V • Talk 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete -Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - WP:MUSICBIO pass because the artist had been on the national channel i,e; Real (TV channel) and the show Sitaron Ko Choona Hai was on air in the channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ : reasons listed above, wikia not acceptable, video sites also not acceptable Kges1901 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) --being nominator, you are supposed to favor deletion, no need to !vote twice. You may however add comments as many you want. See also, WP:GTD. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep : notable I am come up with the solution and also a valid proof for the people who think that all the references here provided are not acceptable and the celebrity Wajahat Hasan's article should be removed from wikipedia.Wajahat Hasan was in the reality show called Sitaron Ko Choona Hai and He made [Raghu Ram]] moved to tears,this news was on the newspaper also the most popular and largest selling newspaper The Times of India had covered this story and they also have this article on their website^[1].

~~Wajahat Hasan voice we can hear from television channels like Hungama TV.He is Currently giving his voice for Suneo Honekawa which is very popular character of Doraemon.~~

~~I think I have given the Valid Justification to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumbulshujat (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)~~ — Sumbulshujat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sock of Khwajablessed. Mike V • Talk 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/tv/news/Raghu-gets-emotional/articleshow/4559517.cms

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO (the show appearance is insufficient), lack of substantive reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes of 2015[edit]

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

It is 100% taken from Tornadoes of 2014 and has no content. I have no control over what to do with an article with other users' contributions, but at the moment at least, this article is of no use to the encyclopedia at all. I have made a not-so-great attempt at Draft:Tornadoes of 2015 to create something with some details, although I have deemed that it too is "definitely" not worthy of publication. There are undoubtedly going to be many people who oppose my suggestion just because you can "wait", but why leave an article that won't even help readers if they happen to stumble upon it? This isn't a tropical cyclone season article, so there are not seasonal forecasts, which is perhaps the only justification for having an article before at least the first few to several tornadoes form (the number of tornadoes necessary may vary). I am not saying this article should not exist at some point, but it certainly is not worthy of publication at the moment in my truthful opinion. The page may be recreated at some point, and links to this page may be retained, but at least until the subject actually exists, this article contains the kind of information that could just be stuck on the Tornado article. Dustin (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to redirect the page to a section of Tornado which will contain a general summary, and at some point, someone can either create an article at the redirect or request an article be moved over it (I've created a draft, but like I said, it too will be pretty much useless until the first tornadoes have occurred). Deleting the article won't result in any users having wasted any significant amount of time, as that is as simple as a copy and paste, so redirecting might be a good idea. Dustin (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand in saying this article should not have been created so early. Even though it is always pretty much certain that a tornado will form each year, this article never had any hope for any content for at least its first ten days. It would have been preferable that I had nominated it then. This article is currently of very low quality in my opinion, and it could have done better had it been started as a draft then published a week or two into the New Year, but this is clearly futile. I should have brought up this issue when the article was created. Regardless, in the future, I do not think this sort of article should ever be created without at least a few unique details (that is, something other than the first paragraph which applies to pretty much every year). All creating tornado season articles this early can do is leave readers with articles that don't actually educate them about the subject. Dustin (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – There is no reason to delete this, as at least one tornado has been reported today in Mississippi. Just fix the page's problems and start from there. It would be a dumb idea to delete it just so it can be recreated in a few days. United States Man (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider my logic at all? You hardly deserve to contribute if you do nothing other than read the header, which is how it appears. Dustin (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same procedure that is done repeatedly year after year. You are doing nothing but creating an unnecessary fuss. I'm not going to argue, but this has no good reason to be moved, deleted, or redirect, only to be moved back in a few days. Just leave it. United States Man (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; request snowball close. Part of a well-maintained series of weather list articles.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter what you say, "speedy" does not apply if you have read what I have said at all, which I am guessing that you probably haven't. Dustin (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why this article was sent to AFD. There were several tornadoes across Mississippi and Alabama this afternoon, and we should expect to see survey results for those tornadoes sometime tomorrow. Those results will be added to the page accordingly. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there weren't any tornadoes when I first attempted to list this article as of my earliest check. That may have changed, but all of those tornadoes would have been today, so there at least weren't any before that. Dustin (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the same rationale you should be running around Wikipedia and AfD'ing existing list articles for 2015 television episodes in which the first has yet to air. I recommend starting with Game of Thrones (season 5).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you didn't fully consider what I said. No tornadoes had formed at the time of this AfD. Game of Thrones (season 5) actually has known information about it, whereas Tornadoes of 2015 was an entirely generic, useless stub with no information that couldn't be applied to every other year at the time of the AfD. Dustin (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, it is mostly non-unique. "This page documents the tornadoes and tornado outbreaks of 2015. Strong and destructive tornadoes form most frequently in the United States, Bangladesh, and Eastern India, but they can occur almost anywhere under the right conditions. Tornadoes also appear regularly in neighboring southern Canada during the Northern Hemisphere's summer season, and somewhat regularly in Europe, Asia, and Australia." That information applies to every other year, but with "2015" changed to the respective year. Dustin (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The chances of tornado formation in 2015 were an easily-predictable 100%.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they weren't. By that logic, we should start Tornadoes of 2016 and we may as well start Tornadoes of 2017 too while we're at it. Dustin (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated three days into the new year, not really an analogy to those far-off-in-the-distance examples. Now that the tornadoes are already being reported, this should be withdrawn.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep - I'm a great believer in deleting things created way WP:TOOSOON. We shouldn't be crystal ball gazing to predict the future with articles about things that haven't happened yet. That said, this article was created 8 days before 2015 about things almost guaranteed to happen in 2015 and it was nominated for deletion only a few days into 2015. I understand the nominator's point but we allow things like 2016 Summer Olympics to be created well in advance because while Olympics have been cancelled in the past, there's a pretty good chance that one will happen. In fact, we have 2020 Summer Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics too. By comparison, the chances of a single tornado forming in 2015 are very good; a "sure thing" in betting terms. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:39, 5 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 and redirect to Paris Hilton. (For those interested, there appear to be a number of fragrance sources in the main article, so Paris Hilton fragrances may be a good idea, though the individual fragrance articles do not have sources to merge.) czar ⨹ 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton (fragrance)[edit]

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

I'm nominating these following articles because they read almost like a WP:PROMOTION and there is nothing special about these specific fragrances except the fact that they are released under a famous celebrity. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure if there is enough written to justify separate articles for each fragrance (currently 17), but her approx. $2 billion (over ten years) branded fragrance business is written about extensively in the fashion industry. See, e.g., Paris Hilton: Building an Empire from Women's Wear Daily, so the general topic satisfies GNG. Perhaps a merge to something like Paris Hilton fragrances might be in order. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - I understand we're an encyclopedia & all that but I really see no point in fragrance articles at all.... All that aside I can't find any evidence of notability to warrant articles, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:SPIP; non-notable product endorsements or commissions by a notable celebrity; no reason these can't be a small section in the celebrity article (and debatable whether they merit that).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Paris Hilton. Little sourced content, and covered adequately in the article on Hilton. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paris Hilton. Poor references, fail WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:24, 11 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) 03:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gama de Oliveira[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? S. League not fully professional?

In yesterday, MbahGondrong edited the article. And now, why nomination for deleted? 00:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was played in Primeira Liga, Liga professional Bolvia, and S.League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.65.24 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - My fault, he is indeed notable after playing in S. League. Sorry. MbahGondrong (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Awatarsing[edit]

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

Pure promotion. Written by boy's father, Rameshawatarsing, after the user wrote Ramesh Awatarsing, which was deleted as autobiography and advert. Doesn't meet WP:Notability (sports), WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY, and is mainly promoting the boy's father. Prod removed by creator. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (utter) @ 21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 and familial promotion conflict-of-interest.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional wording throughout. Deb (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, lacks adequate reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:22, 11 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, under WP:CSD#G7 Mojo Hand (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavna Limbachia[edit]

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

Borderline notability, does not seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:NACTOR for inclusion. She has a recurring role in one television shows (not multiple shows as required), no significant roles in notable films. The existence of a fansite doesn't automatically suggest a large fan base. The source cited for being a fashion designer does not support the claim that the subject is actually a fashion designer either, but rather an actress knowledgeable about fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- At this time this actor does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG with only a role in Citizen Kane and some other minor roles in other shows and no sign of a significant cult following. The only source I could find for her to be a fashion designer was on her own fan site which does not qualify as a source.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax - copied from Salman Khan JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulrej Khan King[edit]

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

No proof of WP:NACTOR fulfilment. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yannai Gonczarowski[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Successful academic, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ph.D. students are usually far WP:TOOSOON in their career to be academically notable and he does not seem to be an exception. The only thing that even looks like a claim of significance in the article is the E-B number, and WP:PROF specifically cautions against basing notability on such numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 120.23.60.37 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a graduate student working on a Ph. D. with no indication of notability. WP:PROF does not apply and nothing to with regard to WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references to support WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:19, 11 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 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shina Animashaun[edit]

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

Shina Animashaun "(born 19 March 1993), is an illustrator and British philanthropist." As philanthropists are more often over 50 than under 25, this is intriguing; sadly, it's not sourced. He's the grandson of a somebody (unsourced); he "became a scholar of the Inner Temple in March 2013" (sourced).

He "opened a school which he co-founded in Stratford, London called the East London Arts and Music". As I type this, East London Arts and Music doesn't have an article here. (Two schools called ELAM do, but they're different.) The page "About ELAM" says that ELAM was "founded by a small group of leading figures from industry and education"; it names two of these, and neither of the two is Animashaun.

Yes, there's a reference to the Guardian and another to the BBC. But this isn't significant sourcing: neither web page even mentions Animashaun.

Prod template added, prod template removed. Notability not established; delete. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apart from the general implausibility of a 21-year-old "philanthropist", the two references mentioning the school being opened do not mention Shina Animashaun, so there is zero evidence that this is not simply made up. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) @ 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 21:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography making claims unsupported by sources. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, BBC, Guardian, Google) turn up nothing to indicate that this individual is notable. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of past Emmerdale characters#Last appeared in 2014. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary North (Emmerdale)[edit]

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

Non-notablr, short-lived minor soap character. TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 21:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 21:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of past Emmerdale characters#Last appeared in 2014, No evidence to warrant its own article but imho seems pointless deleting. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Davey's reasoning.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator The suggested redirect seems a satisfactory answer to meTheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 5 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lin Yu[edit]

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

Subject had an article on the basis that he was the CEO of a NASDAQ-listed company, but he has now resigned and I do not believe that this makes him notable. Shritwod (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He still has his awards, and he's still the founder of the company. This article was AfD'd here, and the result was speedy keep. That was just a week ago. (However, I'd like to know why he resigned, and whether it had anything to do with issues raised on Talk:NQ Mobile.) – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the result was speedy keep in part because I withdrew it, due to a concensus that as CEO he was notable. Now, he is an engineer and businessman with some awards, rather than an NYSE-listed company CEO. Shritwod (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mention that you were the nom there too. Um, it's not unusual for founders of tech ventures to move on when the company reaches a certain size. Currently I'm arguing at WP:Articles for deletion/Larry Bock that the founder of the company with 70% of the market for genome-sequencing machines is notable, even though he has gone on to other things. It seems like the same deal here. If NQ Mobile is notable then he is too. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having a flick through some of the other NYSE-listed companies, not all mention their founder, so I don't think that it is strictly necessary. But you raise an interesting question about whether NQ Mobile is notable in itself. It looks like only 1515 / 2800 NYSE-listed companies have an entry. What is the criteria for having an entry? Shritwod (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I have no idea whether NQ Mobile is notable or not. I was kind of hoping that John Nagle would weigh in here. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Merge Wikipedia notability is supposed to be permanent, per WP:DEGRADE. Since this just passed an AfD last week, it's rather soon to do this again. A merge into NQ Mobile, where he's the founder, might be appropriate as an alternative. John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he was ever notable, then he's notable forever. We don't delete people's articles when they retire.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a very credible claim that this is a notable legal proceeding, whatever further development the article may need. At a minimum, it is uncontroverted that it is supported by reliable sources and relevant to a notable topic, making this at most a candidate for merger and not for deletion per WP:ATD. The rampant (and barely coherent) WP:SOCKpuppetry and/or WP:MEATpuppetry does not sway that determination, and their ironic appeals to "Wikipedia policy" or the credibility of Wikipedia as an information source should provoke some self-reflection as to how attempts to votestack a discussion threaten those principles. I suggest interested editors keep a close watch on this and the parent company articles. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is completely promotional page. Somebody is violating Wikipedia policy. When already a Sahara India Pariwar page is existing then whats the use of creating an another page with the same name. Also, if we check out the media links that have been used as a reference to this page clearly states that the issue is with subrata roy or the other companies of sahara group. Then why sahara india pariwar name has been involved. Also, it seems to be like a news page rather than wiki page. Not only this if a new user will read this page then he/she will get confuse for sure. It is not at all a useful article rather it seems to be like a news page. So, kindly remove it. Qwerty0963 (talk) 11:43, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A case decided by the Supreme Court of India will be notable both by reason of satisfying criteria 1 (because it is the highest court) of, and also by reason of satisfying criteria 2 (because, by the Constitution, its decisions are binding: [1]) of, WP:CASES. James500 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with @James500:. As per Wikipedia's notability criteria for cases that has been brought under the highest court in a legal jurisdiction is considered to be notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disagree with @James500: As its an ongoing case and no judgement has been passed yet against Sahara India Pariwar. Also, I would like to clear here that wikipedia is not a newspaper/article/blog so until this issue comes to an end we cannot make any kind of judgement by our own this is against constituion. Why we post content on Wikipedia and why people serve it for any information because its a most reliable source on internet. And hence until the final judgement comes from the court side we cannot create any kind of page. There are millions of legal issues brought under many highest court's but not all have been highlighted on Wikipedia although all were more important or major than this sahara india pariwar investor fraud case. We use wiki pages to learn something but here this page includes very limited information about this issue that is again against constitution. This page is giving wrong message/information to people. Yes, this page is talking about facts but incomplete facts. So, currently deletion of this page is more important. There are a lot of mysteries in this case and hence currently there is no use of this page. But, yes once this issue comes to an end then according to it the page can be created but not now. Although already there is an existing page of Sahara India Pariwar and for a reference we can write over there about this issue but creating a new page that is not at all notable is of no use at all. The issue is still pending in court and daily some new stories are appearing in this case. Deletion is important for this case.ramesh985 (talk)(UTC) — Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Promotional plus confusing Page and doesn't meet Wikipedia Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giriban (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC) — Giriban (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ - Even if we went by WP:CASES, which is a failed proposal, this is not a case for which the highest court has rendered an opinion (WP:TOOSOON). As of now it's mainly an WP:UNDUE news story about one party failing to show. The name "Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case" returns almost entirely Wikipedia-derived ghits. Also problems with various aspects of WP:NOT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Struck my !vote until we can figure out what's going on here. The nominator and both delete !votes are SPAs who have only edited this AfD and one other Indian real estate company (one of which I've nominated for deletion as failing CORPDEPTH and gross promotional content). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Failed proposal" is not a particularly compelling argument. NJOURNALS is also a failed proposal, but it is constantly cited at AfD and used as a grounds for keeping articles with almost no opposition. I think there is a rough consensus in favour of criteria 2 of CASES. IIRC, most of the opposition was directed at criteria 1, because it was felt the expression "highest court" was ambiguous and capable of referring to an intermediate appellate court from which there is no appeal in respect of a particular type of cause, which is not what was intended by the author of the guideline. In any event, the supreme court isn't an intermediate appellate court. It really is the highest court. Much of the opposition wasn't even directed at CASES: It was directed at COURTS or JUDGES (often whilst supporting CASES), or the fact that NLAW only covered a narrow part of its subject, saying nothing about any legal topic other than courts, judges and cases (again often whilst supporting CASES in of itself). In fact, much of the criticism was that NLAW was so conservative as to be completely redundant to GNG, in that anything that satisfied NLAW was absolutely certain to satisfy GNG anyway. So I think there was precious little opposition to criteria 2 (or the intended effect of criteria 1) and it has indeed been followed in quite a few AfDs, so there is precedent for its deployment. Perhaps this could be regarded as invoking WP:IAR, which is policy. CASES also has the advantage of being common sense, since binding precedents are generally important and tend to receive coverage because they create (retroactive) law. James500 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If "Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case" produces few results that is entirely unsuprising because it is clearly not the name of a case (ie it is a description) and it is a very narrow (ie obviously useless) search term. James500 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could be wrong, but the impression that I get is that this article could actually be about a number of related cases decided by the Supreme Court, each of which satisfies CASES and GNG: Subrata Roy Sahara v Union of India and Sebi v Sahara India Real Estate Corpn Ltd (possibly several decisions on different dates for this last one). James500 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Issue is still pending in the court. Looks like a newspaper that is promoting the issue. No matter sahara india pariwar or supreme court or sebi are notable but doesn't meet WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Talk about facts instead of promoting SUPREME COURT/SEBI/SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR. Why to create nuisance everywhere when the case is still under process. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but this article seems to be as a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirect it to Sahara India Pariwar Ramesh 12:47 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) — Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CORPDEPTH is absolutely irrelevant because a court case is certainly not an organization. The word "case" can be defined as the written memorandum of a dispute. As you are not allowed to !vote twice, please unbold the word "delete" in your comment above. James500 (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The sources for this article are impeccable; I see Yahoo, The Hindu and The Times of India have run detailed articles on this case. Those certainly make the case for notability by themselves. I can see no argument whatsoever to simply delete this content given the strength of coverage presented. Dolescum (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Agree with @Qwerty0963. The page is completely promotional. Yes, reliable sources like Yahoo, The Hindu etc. are used being used over here but why are we not writing it in an existing Wikipedia page "Sahara India Pariwar". Whats the use of creating an another page of it. Although if we go through the sources then the issue is still pending in the court. Wikipedia is not a newspaper that we keep on updating the news in it as it happens. Delete this page and create it once this issue comes to an end. If check its sources then before sahara group was wrong and later it came into media that sebi was wrong. Now, again its being seen in media (that has not been mentioned over here) that subrata roy is wrong. We are here to show an article on Wikipedia so don't make it a newspaper or news channel. This way we are passing incomplete information to the people. There must be a right time to show something on Wikipedia. And this way we are promoting sebi sahara India pariwar without knowing the actual scenario of the case. The page is completely promotional. jolly.smith 111:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Jolly.smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia may not be a newspaper but it certainly documents notable news items. Take note that the main page has a section on it titled 'In the news'. If the information presented is incorrect, then you can easily correct it yourself to match that given in the sources. If you simply dislike what is presented in the sources..well, tough, wikipedia is not censored.

Furthermore, there are numerous precedents for splitting an article into a number of more specific sub articles to keep the sizes manageable, see WP:SIZE.

Finally, if you feel that the content should be resident in the main article on Sahara India Pariwar, that is your opinion, but that is an argument to Merge, not Delete. Dolescum (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and if you read this Wikipedia page then it completely looks like a newspaper. Yes supreme court sahara india pariwar are notable but at least let this issue come to an end. Then we can create it show it online. If we check out this page then it looks like as if we are seeing a news channel this is not Wikipedia's policy. Even I don't want this page to be merged with sahara india pariwar as the issue is not with sahara india pariwar its with subrata roy and other companies of sahara group. No matter if we create this page as the issue is very big but there must be a time of showing such things online. Its completely violating Wikipedia's policy and just on one thing that its notable we cannot confuse the other users of wikipedia. Why we create a wikipedia page? There must a usage of it then only we create a page but here whats the usage of incomplete information. And if somebody wants this page to be here then kindly update it accordingly as if we compare this page's information with the current scenario of this issue then a lot of facts will be missing from it. There must be a point of showing anything online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly.smith (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles here aren't static documents and to reiterate, we do document major news items. For example, go take a look at our article on the Charlie Hebdo shooting for an example of an article taking shape as a major news story unfolds. If it's notable, Wikipedia exists to document it.

As I said earlier, if you think something is missing from the article and you have trustworthy evidence to demonstrate such, that's what the edit button is for. Dolescum (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hebdo Shooting page can be made as this incident is facts based and notable too that has already been done. It has been shown on live CCTV camera too so there is no chance of any decision or confusion in it. And here there is no chance of deniability also. But if we talk about this page then here every next day new twists are appearing. Even the Supreme Court themselves are unable to reach to an end. Sometimes, sebi becomes wrong and sometimes subrata roy. And yes, I can make the changes in it as per the issue's updation on Media but what if later the scenario becomes different. Because here in this case since last 2 years daily the new updates are being made that are totally different from the previous one. Even the Supreme Court is unable to decide that who is wrong either sebi or supreme court. Also, subrata roy is not being imprisoned on the reason that he cheated investors although he has been taken into custody as he was unable to attend the court hearing due to the illness of his 92 years old mother. And if today also he is in jail that is because supreme court has asked him for Rs 10,000 crore for his bail. Then why to make other's confuse by just writing "sahara India pariwar fraud case". Let the issue comes to an end and then we can create the page. Also, again and again I am saying that the issue is not with sahara India pariwar its with subrata roy. The information is wrong over here. Last but not the least I would like to say that lets create this page once the supreme court makes the final judgement. Right now there is no use of keeping this page as a lot of facts are missing in it and still if we keep on updating the upcoming issues in it then at various places we might require to remove/delete many factual things. So, right now its better we delete this page instead of making people confuse all the time. User:jolly.smith 11:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree @jolly.smith strong reason to delete as its not a news site. Don't make this page a newspaper. Sadapuru — Sadapuru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

STRONG DELETE - NEWSPAPER is not allowed at WIKIPEDIA katiejones888 9 January 2015 (UTC) — katiejones888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Collegiate Baseball League Europe#Teams. (non-admin closure) Arfæst ! 14:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Emperors[edit]

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

No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Promotional page (one of six, others listed below). C 679 07:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages under the same rationale:

C 679 07:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. C 679 08:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. C 679 08:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, clearly not significant on their own. Wizardman 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No significant coverage yet in independent reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Change to redirect per user Раціональне анархіст. BRMo (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Collegiate Baseball League Europe#Teams.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:31, 2 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 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all as above. There seems to be a confict of interest problem here too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism: The Last Supper[edit]

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

Non-notable gore-porn film lacking RS; Village Voice ref looks like piggybacked blog article; ABC News ref doesn't mention title. Other refs non-RS. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: No matter what the nominator feels the source "looks like", the article in The Village Voice is an authored article in a source which meets WP:RS.[2] He is welcome to take The Village Voice to WP:RSN and see if it is suitable for citing this topic or not, rather than gently mislead here. And any possible animus for a topic does not mean we ignore WP:BEFORE or WP:NRVE, else I would not have myself looked and found Adult Industry News. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my continued WP:AFTER, I also found an in-depth authored article in City Pages. This, combined with authored article in Adult Industry News, and The Village Voice, is enough to meet WP:NF... even for a crappy gore film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since a bit of effort showed that this can be sourced. I do wish Mr Aнархіст would put more effort into checking before nominating for deletion. Chillum 17:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Y per speedy deletion criteria A7, "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Kyle Lee "SA"[edit]

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

Seems like a promotional article on a non-notable rapper. NetworkOP (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy delete - spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close Already deleted per A7 by Y (talk · contribs). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) the enjay 36 23:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc.[edit]

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

I think this article should not stay here on Wikipedia for I can't find reliable sources about the subject, therefore not verifiable. The article has also been tagged for speedy deletion before. What do you think, guys? Should we keep the article or what? —theenjay36 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DWBM-FM which is the firm's main asset and whose article has coverage of the history of the firm, although equally unreferenced. Highbeam includes search coverage from Manila Times, Manila Bulletin, etc., and all that I am finding about the firm is event sponsorship name-checks, usually with "(Crossover)" appended to indicate the radio station - nothing in depth about the firm itself, so falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider joining the discussion here, Mrschimpf. —theenjay36 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwajablessed (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Khwajablessed: Why do you think this page should be kept? the enjay 36 10:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. the enjay 36 05:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chinese_units_of_measurement#Chinese_area_units_promulgated_in_1915. Consensus to redirect (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meou[edit]

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

Removed PROD rationale: Nonstandard romanisation of unit covered in Chinese units of measurement#Chinese area units promulgated in 1915. I think this is duplicate content, the spelling only appears in this specific source, appears to fail WP:GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Chinese_units_of_measurement#Area. Much of the info in Cardarelli's book is unsupported elsewhere. PamD 12:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a variant spelling of mu, as you can see from this and this. (No, neither source is Cardarelli.) The mu is the basic Chinese unit of land, still commonly used today. In both pinyin and Wade-Giles, this word is spelled "mu." In Hong Kong spelling, it is meu and in Jyutping it is moe. So meou some kind of older, non-systematic variant. NotUnusual (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems reasonable to redirect. Raomanization is funky. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not only can written romanization be funky, but English speakers don't necessarily know how to spell romanized Chinese in the first place. Even if this were purely an error in one source, which it isn't, it would still be worth redirecting. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The unit is not sufficiently notable for its own article. I would not rely on the source used for this article (see WP:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) for more information), but given the above statements the page should be a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Insufficient references for independent notability. Redirect is appropriate, although spelling may be difficult to spot. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per speedy deletion criteria G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Enterprises in Singapore[edit]

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

This is basically just a directory listing of social enterprise organizations in Singapore, consisting of the organizations' names and brief descriptions of their mandates, and not citing any reliable source coverage for any of it. Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. Bearcat (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy delete - spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Randell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. If he ever plays in the NHL, enough games in the NHL or otherwise meets the notability criteria an article can be created at that point. But for the time being he is not notable. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and the routine sports coverage he has isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and by the looks of it WP:GNG from what I can find. Can be recreated when/if he does eventually meet notability requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 5 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. slakr^\ talk / 20:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Madaisky[edit]

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

Falls short of the requirements of WP:GNG, having never played in a top league and having too few games in a top-level minor league. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tchaliburton. This does not fit the guidelines for notoriety. Redflorist (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for hockey players.Jakejr (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here^WebCite, here^WebCite, and here^WebCite. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable ice hockey player. All links provided are just routine sports coverage and fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Deadman137 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Drinnan, Gregg (2011-07-01). "Madaisky closer to returning from neck injury". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Austin Madaisky learned how to use a meat thermometer last week.
  The Kamloops Blazers defenceman also found out that he has made awfully good progress from the broken neck that ended his 2010-11 WHL season.
  Madaisky, a 19-year-old from Surrey, spent the week at the Columbus Blue Jackets' development camp. He was a fifth-round selection, 124th overall, in the NHL's 2010 draft.
2. Drinnan, Gregg (2012-10-25). "Madaisky anxious to play". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Madaisky, 20, is eligible to return to the Blazers, but is under contract with the Columbus Blue Jackets, the Falcons' NHL parent. He is one of 10 defencemen on the Falcons' roster, and has been a healthy scratch for the regular season's first four games.
  ...
  A fifth-round selection by Columbus in the NHL's 2010 draft, Madaisky said that, other than not playing, he has enjoyed his first extended professional experience.
  "It's been good," he said. "We've been doing a lot. I'm usually in the gym and skating every day. I've been doing a lot of extra skating because I haven't been playing. Overall, that's been good so far."
  Before leaving for Springfield, Madaisky was in camp with the Blazers, who acquired him from the Calgary Hitmen during the 2009-10 season. So he has more than a passing interest in the run the Blazers have put together.
3. Drinnan, Gregg (2012-03-27). "Blazers' Madaisky suspended for two games". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Madaisky, 6-foot-3 and 200 pounds, added that he "was definitely surprised to get two games." But he had been forewarned by head coach Guy Charron and associate coach Dave Hunchak.
  "I was told to expect something," Madaisky said. "I was told to expect one, maybe two, and it happened to be two."
  Madaisky, who turned 20 on Jan. 30, said he was disappointed with the league's decision.
  "Especially at this time of year," he said. "It's never fun sitting out. You kind of feel like you're letting the team down by not being in the lineup. Hopefully, we're a deep enough squad that we have guys who are able to come into the lineup and do a good job."
  Madaisky played quite well in the first two games, picking up three assists and going plus-4. He and Tyler Hansen have been used in a shutdown role for much of the season, playing against the opposition's best offensive line. Madaisky also plays a point on the first power-play unit and kills penalties.
4. Drinnan, Gregg (2011-09-22). "Game to remember for Madaisky". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Austin Madaisky won't ever forget Tuesday night in Winnipeg.
  Madaisky, a 19-year-old defenceman, was in the Columbus Blue Jackets' lineup for the return of the Jets to Winnipeg.
  ...
  This also was Madaisky's NHL debut and, he said, it was something he never will forget.
  "Even just flying out there in the team plane and things like that . . . it was just a hell of an experience," he said.
  Madaisky, who watched the Blue Jackets beat the visiting Washington Capitals 4-3 in overtime on Wednesday night, was a fifth-round pick by Columbus in the NHL's 2010 draft. This was his second NHL training camp, although he has yet to sign an NHL contract. Still, he doesn't feel that he did anything to hurt his chances.
6. Petruk, Tim (2010-06-29). "Two Blazers selected in NHL draft". Kamloops This Week. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Austin Madaisky was in another world when he heard he’d been selected in the 2010 NHL Entry Draft.
  Seriously.
  The 18-year-old Kamloops Blazers’ defenceman was on a family vacation on Mexico’s Mayan Riviera last week.
  ...
  “I was following the draft on the computer,” he said.
  “The names came up on a little ticker on the screen.
  “And, actually, my computer crashed in about the fourth round, so I didn’t even know until everybody started texting me.”
  What Madaisky missed was his own name ticking across the monitor, announcing that he’d been selected in the fifth round, 124th overall, by the Columbus Blue Jackets.
7. Remillard, Jason (2013-03-15). "Defenseman Austin Madaisky assigned to Springfield Falcons from ECHL's Evansville IceMen". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
8. "Madaisky off to the American Hockey League". The Kamloops Daily News. 2012-09-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Austin Madaisky to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines says:
Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NHOCKEY says:
Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
...
Drinnan, Gregg (2012-09-11). "Really, Madaisky doesn't know". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
The source says:
Madaisky has signed a three-year contract with the Blue Jackets, who selected him in the fifth round of the 2010 NHL draft. So it is the Blue Jackets who, to a large extent, are calling the shots.
That's why he has played in just one of the Blazers' four exhibition games to this point, and why he isn't likely to play Friday when Kamloops (4-0) closes out its preseason against the Prince George Cougars (3-1) at Interior Savings Centre.
~~Because the subject played an exhibition game for the NHL team Columbus Blue Jackets, he passes WP:NHOCKEY.~~
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like it might be WP:Too soon for this article. WP:NHOCKEY seems pretty clear, but the Blazers aren't a "top professional league". NickCT (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the error. I used the wrong source above.
Drinnan, Gregg (2011-09-22). "Game to remember for Madaisky". The Kamloops Daily News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
The article notes:

Austin Madaisky won't ever forget Tuesday night in Winnipeg.
Madaisky, a 19-year-old defenceman, was in the Columbus Blue Jackets' lineup for the return of the Jets to Winnipeg.
...
This was the Jets' first NHL appearance in Winnipeg since a playoff game on April 28, 1996, after which the franchise moved to Phoenix.
Madaisky said the Jets, who won 6-1, were kind of pumped for this one.
...
This also was Madaisky's NHL debut and, he said, it was something he never will forget.
"Even just flying out there in the team plane and things like that . . . it was just a hell of an experience," he said.
Madaisky, who watched the Blue Jackets beat the visiting Washington Capitals 4-3 in overtime on Wednesday night, was a fifth-round pick by Columbus in the NHL's 2010 draft. This was his second NHL training camp, although he has yet to sign an NHL contract. Still, he doesn't feel that he did anything to hurt his chances.
"I thought I held my own," he said of the game, in which he played 11 minutes 16 seconds and finished minus-1. "It's probably the fastest hockey I've ever played. Everything happens a lot quicker out there.
Like most junior players who get to play in the NHL, Madaisky quickly learned that play is far more structured there than in the WHL.
The caption of the photo in the article is:
Columbus defenceman Austin Madaisky (54) watches as Jets forward Mark Scheifele (45) scores on Blue Jackets goaltender Curtis Sanford during the first period of an NHL exhibition game in Winnipeg on Tuesday. Madaisky, from the Kamloops Blazers, was playing in his first NHL game. Photograph By The Canadian Press
The subject passes WP:NHOCKEY because he has played in an NHL exhibition game.
Cunard (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that preseason games count toward WP:NHOCKEY given that teams routinely use prospects and farm team members. Sometimes they even play split-squad games. Is there any precedence for this? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHOCKEY says "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". It does not distinguish among preseason, during season, or postseason games.
Subject specific notability guidelines are meant to identify what articles will likely meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The subject passes WP:NHOCKEY, and the sources I've provided here support his passing both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but I don't think those guidelines intended for preseason games to be included. WP:COMMONSENSE would say they should not unless there is precedence. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q1–Q3 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ are instructive in noting that the WP:COMMONSENSE path is to look at the sources. And the sources confirm that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, so he is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask again (maybe someone else knows), is there any precedence for a preseason exhibition game conferring notability? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None that I have ever seen, there is no league that even tracks player stats from preseason games, look no further than this player's own profile on hockeydb. They are just an Exhibition game which by definition mean nothing. Also all of the additional links provided are still no more than routine sports coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine sports coverage" like reports about sports scores do not provide significant biographical information about the subject. The sources I've linked above do provide significant biographical information so establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read a little lower in the Wikipedia article that you keep citing which clearly states:

"Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."

Every single article that you have presented fails the criteria outlined in the last sentence, meaning the subject fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear how the sources I've presented here are from "people connected to the topic matter". Cunard (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says:
Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?
A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.
Whether there is "significant coverage directly related to the subject" determines whether the coverage is "routine" or not. Not other criteria. In this case, it is clear from my above quotes that the sources directly discuss the subject.
Cunard (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created when/if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, please clarify why you believe the subject fails GNG. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 11 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 ⨹ 16:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwavijay (film)[edit]

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

The article's subject is a future film that does not meet the notability guideline for films. It appears that the main author may have a close connection with the topic as well. MJ94 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: amateurish article about non-existent "upcoming" Bollywood film allegedly set for release in 2016. No RS.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 21:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 21:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only source is a blog. Whether the editor and the person whose blog are the same or two different people is immaterial as this does not meet WP:NFF. It feel like there is an uptick in these kinds of articles. MarnetteD|Talk 02:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete -Fails WP:NFF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep:I agree that it's a future film to release in 2016. I know you will delete the page. But what about others?there are several films that have not even started filming and they have their pages in Wikipedia. If you see the page of Vishwavijay (film),there is one more source-the IMDb page of the film. I am not saying this because it's my article but because doing this(deleting the article) and not doing so with others would be injustice. If any other source will be required, I am ready to give and I will not do any disruptive editing anymore. I did this because I thought the debate was over.

-Superheroprashast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superheroprashast (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Serpent[edit]

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

Some sort of Hindu concept devised by some obscure guru. Totally lacking in sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 21:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Term however seems to be applicable elsewhere, maybe TNT? Delibzr (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing valuable in this essay. Let other articles appear under more relevant titles. Shii (tock) 21:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delibzr (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Milliken Heisey Sr.[edit]

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

Biography of a politician and writer, making no strong claim of notability for either endeavour. His political career mostly boils down to unsuccessful candidacies for political office, as well as a term on the municipal council of a suburban borough which is not in the narrow range of global cities whose municipal councillors are granted an automatic WP:NPOL pass. The municipal council work, further, is summarized "won in 1976 and then lost in 1980", with no content about anything he actually did in that office (it actually says more about his successor's term on council than it does about his) — so his failure to satisfy NPOL is not counterbalanced by enough content or sourcing to claim WP:GNG instead. And his work as a writer is referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES — the "source" for his book is the book's own publication details rather than any media coverage, the "source" for his work as a newspaper publisher is the newspaper he was the publisher of, and on and so forth — with no evidence that he garnered any independent coverage or passed WP:CREATIVE for any of it. And beyond that, we're left with some genealogy coatracking about a few semi-notable ancestors and a son, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED either. It might be possible to write a substantive and well-sourced article about him, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if that actually happens — but as currently written, this is little more than a generic obituary which doesn't demonstrate that the subject belongs in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unionville (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Disagree about the suburban borough pitch North York population at amalgamation was 500,000 plus just behind the old City of Toronto pre amalgamation with the old City of North York it would have qualified as a global city or the old city of toronto wouldn't qualify either preamalgamation His 2 terms on North york council as an alderman qualify as notable in and of itself I agree with your other critiques and have dropped most of the content His book was cited in several independent sources on the net - 2 references have now been provided He was described by a columnist in 1976 as Canada's leading anti nationalist in an important daily Canadian newspaper , the Ottawa Citizen the reference is provided Free trade was opposed by most conventional thinking in Canada in the 60's and 70's The free trade debate was highly controversial in Canada for over 20 years during the 60s-70s Hope you reconsider your nomination for deletion 19:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Unionville HIs recognized role in this major issue in Canadian Political life constitutes notability in my view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionville (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is a local councilmember. Amalgamation of Toronto did not occur until 1998, and the subject was out of office in 1980. I do not think that inheritance of Toronto being a world-class city is transferable to council members of the (former) suburban cities of Toronto. I agree with Bearcat that it might be possible to create a substantive encyclopedia article about the subject, but at this point fails to meet WP:Politician. --Enos733 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here's case where rigid application of the rules gets in the way of building a better encyclopedia. Here we have a well-sourced article about someone who has several accomplishments that together make this article worth keeping -- city councillor, federal candidate, fringe mayoral candidate, published author. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 11:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Heisey Sr. published a book challenging nationalism and was a commentator on nationalism in Canadian mainstream media. Wikipedia entry for Canadian Nationalism provides a "further reading" list to which I have added his book. The list does not offer other examples of works criticizing Canadian Nationalism and advocating trade liberalization contemporary to their time. Being a proponent of that view, at that time, is what makes this subject notable.FlettIan (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article establishes the notability of the man as an author with a number of contemporary, independent and reliable sources, some of them scholarly. As an author alone, the bio is notable. By the way, the entry on Canadian Nationalism mentioned by User:FlettIan is here Canadian_nationalism#Further_reading Canadian Nationalism Nubeli (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing is sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Coverage, not accomplishments, is the primary definition of notability so failing NPOL, for example, is not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is clear that Alan Milliken Heisey Sr. is notable and accomplished. Deleting the page does a disservice to Wikipedia. His accomplishments as an author, politician and activist demand recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myersphmlaw (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is the only edit made by this new editor. Ground Zero | t 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tint (band)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Random86 (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (remark) @ 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some might argue the performance in Myanmar makes them notable, but if you've been to these kinds of events you know it takes not one bit of notability to get on the bill. Additionally, the source was Soompi and it was merely an announcement of an unconfirmed event. Did it happen? Was it covered in the media? Who knows. The only other sources were "profiles", an article in the sports (tabloid) section of a borderline-reliable newspaper, and a self-promo teaser from another group via allkpop. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:15, 2 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable Asdklf; (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 01:48, 5 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) soft delete with no prejudice against re-creation. Huon (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Rathi[edit]

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

There is no notability. Twitter, Facebook is all you can find and some video sites. Only IMDB is provided as a reference. IMDB has many non-notable profiles. నిజానికి (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2014 (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/2014 December 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabilan (Lyricist)[edit]

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

The article already exists under the name Kabilan Vairamuthu. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, you should nominate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A10. Everymorning talk 01:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, Actually Kabilan is not Kabilan Vairamuthu. Kabilan is a Tamil Lyricist,who studied Tamil Literature. And Kabilan Vairamuthu is second son of Tamil Poet Vairamuthu and brother of Tamil Lyricist Madhan Karky. Kabilan Vairamuthu studied Engineering. Sir, I edited correctly. Both are different from each other Sir. சு.க.மணிவேல் (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I just included some references on Kabilan article. I want to know whether it is a enough inclusion of references.

சு.க.மணிவேல் (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this Kabilan have some last name? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kabilan has no last name. But, Kabilan Vairamuthu has last name as 'Vairamuthu'. சு.க.மணிவேல் (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I just give two different links . Then, see the face different between Kabilan and Kabilan Vairamuthu.

Link that contains Kabilan Photo "Dinamalar Tamil News Paper"
Link that contains Kabilan Vairamuthu Photo "oneindia.com"

சு.க.மணிவேல் (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the page at all. There is a difference in Kabilan and Kabilan Vairamuthu. For years together there hasn't been an article on the older Kabilan. The above provided links are true. There has always been a confusion over linking the name of Kabilan on the soundtrack pages. I have briefly worked on recent Tamil soundtrack articles with other Wikipedia users and often this confusion had arisen. One can see the proof on I's soundtrack page which is clearly an edit to avoid this confusion. So in this case it is either necessary to have a simple article.Arjann (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks You Sir, Arjann. Thank You for your clear suggestion. சு.க.மணிவேல் (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok @சு.க.மணிவேல்:. Don't call me Sir and all. I'm so young :P :) Hope for the best decision from interested users participating in this discussion.Arjann (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Keep the article. Tag it as a stub. Arjann (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have given enough of proofs. So, I request you all not to delete the article of Kabilan. சு.க.மணிவேல் (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -As it is now clear that both are not the same person, -nominator is requested to either withdraw the afd or forward a rationale for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 16:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nahir Besara[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming I am reading correctly, he's playing in the top Swedish division, which is fully professional. The source provided shows appearances this season, I believe. Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting and I can reevaluate. matt91486 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: He has in fact only ever played in the Swedish second division which is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sandbox and recreate the article if he plays in the Swedish top division come April. IJA (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in Superettan. is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superettan is not fully pro (see WP:FPL) meaning playing in that league does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Superettan does not appear on WP:FPL as either fully professional or not fully professional. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:28, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Unsure why this has been relisted, the first Keep comment is fundamentally incorrect, only the top level in Sweden is deemed FPL for notability purposes and the second comment claiming the league is notable is irrelevant, nobody is questioning the notability of the league, merely the notability of players who play in it who have neither full international caps or who have played in an FPL either before or after the Superettan. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 5 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chua Sha[edit]

Please note: article now at Chuan Sha (actual name). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural nomination. This was an AFC draft declined long ago by User:Alexrexpvt due to concerns about notability, though User:DGG indicated that the author might be notable because his work was included in a major anthology. I moved the draft to mainspace and am nominating for deletion, which will hopefully attract more knowledgeable editors. I personally am leaning toward a weak delete, given that this Chinese author has lived in Toronto since 1999, and one would expect there to be more news articles about him in the English-language press since then if he were notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for short story writers has generally been inclusion in a major anthology. Whether there will be stories in the english language press would depend upon whether he writes in Chinese or in English, and that is not clear from the article. Unfortunate the article here is mainly a copy of this external reference, though it could be argued that the list of works does not have the originality to come under copyright. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Chuan Sha, since that's the name given in the article and the filename of the photo. It's also the name used on his blog. Leaning to keep, since Language for a New Century is a major anthology and one of his poems is in it. It isn't easy to find relevant stuff on Google because his name is a homonym of a suburb of Shanghai. I wouldn't expect coverage of him in the English-language press, because he doesn't write in English. The Canadian Chinese-language press does have something. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here he is in China Daily USA --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on any Chinese-language coverage, but the China Daily USA piece is just quoting him as a member of the local Chinese community, not covering his writing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my edit summary. They are, though, quoting him as somehow representative of the Chinese community in Canada (not as a protester exactly). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you made your comment, I revised my comment (after re-reading the article). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources I've found establish the subject as a real poet, dramatist and novelist active in the Chinese community in Toronto, but fall short of establishing that he meets the notability guideline for creative professionals. As things stand, the decision would seem to hinge on the assertion made by DGG above that inclusion in a major anthology can be taken to establish notability. If this is a good rule of thumb, the article should be kept. If not, do we just keep relisting until somebody with sufficient Chinese turns up to comment? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Mena[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 16:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ryan Fernandez G. (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Presently fails WP:NFOOTY (called up for Ecuador but did not play; currently plays in top-level league not recognized as a WP:FPL), and only WP:ROUTINE coverage fails WP:GNG. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mutant Giant Spider Dog. czar ⨹ 16:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylwester Wardęga[edit]

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

My original prod stated "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) requirement." Deprodded by creator after the following expansion: [3]. I still think it fails, per WP:NOTNEWS: passing coverage in sources of poor reliability and few seconds of spotlight on tv is not enough, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't 'a few seconds', his total amount of TV coverage was a lot more than that. He was a guest on Telewizja Polska, multiple times. Here's the first clip (7 minutes 13 seconds), from 19 June 2013: [4]. And here's the second clip (7 minutes 57 seconds), from 9 September 2014: [5]. They were already in the article before you wrote this. Check the sources thoroughly, and don't copy-paste the same text into multiple places. Make sure it fits the situation. Here are two more videos from TVP and one from Superstacja:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPooHYYkMjU - 7 September 2014, 9 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFqjg684ihc - 2 January 2014, 5 minutes 39 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx0TtxDCFks - (?), 25 minutes 22 seconds

— Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste is perfectly acceptable for similar articles that all fail WP:GNG. Three (copuvio) youtube links don't change anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another proof you don't really check the sources I provide. The first and the second YouTube link are not copyright violations, they are on official TVP channels. While they may be not suitable to be used as sources on Wikipedia, that rule doesn't change the fact that Wardęga appeared numerous times on television - which is not his only achievement (more than 100 milion views of MGSD; MGSD being the most popular YT video of 2014). While other articles about YouTubers I wrote may indeed fail WP:GNG, the one about Wardęga clearly does not. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Mutant Giant Spider Dog already exists; pick one article and fold the other in.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:18, 2 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Let's move Mutant Giant Spider Dog to the article about Wardęga. That's how the page about Vitaly Zdorovetskiy 'works'. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mutant Giant Spider Dog as it is more commonly referred to in sources. See Wikipedia:PSEUDONYM. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:12, 11 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. consensus clear enough after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McFarlane Sports Picks[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 14:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous and very long article. Reads like a product catalog. Delete -- Y not? 17:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: An article being too long or not reading right are not reasons for deletion. And if it appears to be advertising, it can be changed. This should be the first protocol not AFD. Sources like this [6] and this [7] and a general Google search do show these figures are highly collectable and popular. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then good luck with rewriting of the article. The Banner talk 20:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is consensus that the article should be changed then the first thing to do would be to ask the article creator I would suggest. That would be the civil/correct thing. Marksterdam (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it appears to be a big long directory of all the sets of all the sports action figures. Aerospeed (Talk) 04:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that AFD is not a cleanup WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. A poorly written article is not reason for deletion. Nor is length. Please see: WP:PLENTY, if an article is too long it can be reduced. These are not valid arguments for deletion and I would suggest should be ignored by any closer. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this article reads like an advertisement. And that is why I nominated it, not the length or being poorly written. Just plain advertising. The Banner talk 11:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my previous remark was addressed @Aerospeed:. To answer your point, the article does not strike my as advertising. Can you specify where the article does not comply with Neutral Point of View NPOV?

Why didn't you tag as such WP:ARTSPAM if this is your main criterion for deletion? This could also be a helpful step. Note also though that if the article content is notable, changing the article to a Neutral Point of View is preferable to delete WP:G11. As per my prior references and arguments I believe the subject is notable and does pass WP:GNG although barely, and so I would suggest there is no valid argument for deletion. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for deletion was WP:NOTDIR. Although ARTSPAM could work too. Apologies for not linking the article earlier. Aerospeed (Talk) 04:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE WP:IINFO clearly indicates that large information dumps such as this need to go. Perhaps if there was some unique figurines that could justify notability, but as it stands it's a giant catalog of indiscriminate information. Hasteur (talk) 16:05, 13 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forex Heatmap[edit]

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

Non-notable company, per WP:ORG - the WSJ article is the only reliable source I can find and (ignoring that it's improperly used in the article) it's a passing mention in a list of other similar companies (so failing WP:CORPDEPTH). Nik thestunned 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or userfy. I have not reviewed the subject of this article at all, however I want to point out that the primary author is a new editor who only joined on September 2014 and he already has a bunch of deletion nominations on unrelated article. Based on the wide varied subjects he edits per Xtools, he's clearly independent of those companies he's written about. I mean, wow! He's hardly two months old and has already contributed to over 300 unique pages. In order to avoid discouraging him as per WP:Bite, we should not delete his contributions lightly and instead kindly point out that he should be reviewing the notability guidelines. He may even voluntarily userfy those pages outside of AfD. I'd be open to revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. (Note: may include this argument in multiple AfDs) —CodeHydro 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected to Heat map, an already existent article whose "history" notes term devised to describe financial markets. [Google reveals common usage of term. Recommend Heat map article be expanded.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted; that doesn't seem like a useful redirect. ansh666 20:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not establish notability of this product or the company that offers it. ~KvnG 02:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Was not aware of the notability guidelines for chancellors prior to opening. (non-admin closure) –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Price[edit]

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

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

(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)

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

Part of a series of articles about non-notable University of Denver people created by Steven Paul Fisher. Others will be added to this AfD shortly. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't these all pass WP:PROF criteria 6, as chancellors of the University of Denver? postdlf (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne[edit]

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

Entire page violates WP:Gamecruft and does not satisfy criteria for WP:NOTABLE. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LISTN and a lot more. Main article about the game covers in too much detail already. ansh666 08:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only fails WP:LISTN, but would fail WP:GAMECRUFT as part of the parent article, so its not even worth a merge/redirect... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CVG/GL. Maduwanwela (talk) 11:54, 11 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. Disregarding unsubstantiated arguments and minding a lack of specificity regarding where editors searched to prove there is no coverage, I don't think it would be useful or fruitful to relist this discussion. Consensus is to delete. czar ⨹ 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac More[edit]

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

No third-party sources to establish notability; appears promotional as well since it was originally copied from Linkedin. Wizardman 01:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per above. smileguy91^talk 01:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. JimVC3 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's new in the media industry, I am sure the article will improve over the years 169.202.5.160 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep help improve this article Letlhogomokwena (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, no coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Article development, merging, or redirection will proceed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal accusation[edit]

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

Not a widely accepted term within the law. The topic is covered by Indictment and Information (formal criminal charge). No ascertainable definition from a reputable dictionary source. First and only search result which defines Criminal accusation as a specific term is Wikipedia.com WookieeV (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdrawn by nominator Apparent consensus that the article needs to be addressed in terms of redirection or merger, rather than deletion. WookieeV (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted. The term appears in hundreds of books in GBooks. Deacon and Starkie, for example, appear to suggest that it was a term of art in English law including indictment, presentment, information, inquisition and verdict. If this is the parent topic of five notable topics, it will itself be notable. At the very least this expression should be redirected as it is an obvious synonym for charge or complaint, which are definitely real. And I am far more interested in what is said by real law books written by experts than in what mere dictionaries have to say. James500 (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appeared indeed in hundreds of Gbooks etc. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Criminal Trial in Later Medieval England has a detailed history of the matter. A variety of technical terms are used in this such as presentment (which seems to need an article too, and I'll start one) but criminal accusation is the phrase used for the general concept. As legal jargon varies from place to place and time to time, we should prefer a summary in plain English for the general reader. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the first 10 pages of search on GBooks, criminal accusation is hardly a parent topic for indictment, presentment, information etc. It is, at very best (based on one source), a vestigial term of art that no longer has use or bearing in the common law system of the UK and absolutely no presence in US jurisprudence. Aside from The Criminal Trial in Later Medieval England (where the term is used twice in total), the term is used as a general catch all. If the community feels the article should be kept, I propose that it be merged into one of the accepted terms- Indictment seems the most likely. A 'Historical Context' heading and brief discussion would suffice.WookieeV (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least two treatises say the expression is an umbrella term used in England at that time for indictment, presentment, information, inquisition and verdict. Unless you can find a source that contradicts them, or casts doubt on their reliability, we are going to accept that what they say is true. This source has the term being used in an almost identical sense in the United States as recently the 1970s, probably derived from the English usage. This source has the term as a synonym for charge, will preclude deletion as a plausible redirect. A merge to indictment would be innapropriate as this term is broader than that one. If we were going to merge this, it would be to an even broader topic, possibly to an article on criminal procedure in general. Looking through the first ten pages of results is not enough. You need to look at all of them (WP:BEFORE). James500 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you linked has criminal accusation under the indictment meta-heading and as a direct result of indictment; further supporting the merger into Indictment. Paralegal Studies: An Introduction also lists criminal accusation as a result of formal indictment. The synonym for charge, I agree with you completely, does preclude deletion. Thank you for finding that. Perhaps that is the best place for it, redirection to information (formal criminal charge). I guess my real issue with this term/article is that it's extremely amorphous- we aren't finding anything that actually lays out what it is. It's circular: ″a criminal accusation is an accusation that is criminal″... well, gee, that tells us a whole lot. Whereas inclusion as a historical reference point for the current process of indictment and charging of a crime makes it relevant and, more importantly, accurate. So, I am agreeing that it potentially needs to be merged into the big article on Crim Pro. In US law, the 6th amendment makes a reference to an accusation, in fact it is included as part of the phrase on information. This is the basis for our current system of indictment and information. But that's US centric and not of general significance on its own. WookieeV (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Summary of American Law" does not put criminal accusation under a heading of indictment, it puts it under a heading of "indictment and information" and says that an information is a criminal accusation. This does not support merger into Indictment, because an information is not an indictment. "Paralegal Studies" does not say that an indictment is the only type of criminal accusation, and is obviously about the United States, so it can't contradict the books by Deacon and Starkie so far as they relate to England. A redirect to our article on criminal informations has the same problems as a redirect to our article on indictments, as it excludes other things that are said to be criminal accusations. In any event, if we follow the "American Dictionary of Criminal Justice", the logical target would be Criminal charge, that being the term defined as a criminal accusation. We have several sources giving us lists of things that are criminal accusations, and, in a sense, those are definitions. Legal terms are often amorphous because they are regularly redefined, because the law changes over time, and changes in different ways in different jurisdictions, and old labels are (confusingly) applied to what are arguably new concepts. Whether there is support for turning the articles for such terms into disambiguation pages remains to be seen. If you agree this page should not be deleted because it is a plausible redirect (eg to Criminal charge), you should withdraw your nomination, because AfD isn't for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per criteria 1 of WP:SK (the nominator has withdrawn and no one else has argued for deletion, as opposed to merger or redirection). James500 (talk) 14:19, 5 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 Bangtan Boys. Michig (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ji-min (born 1995)[edit]

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

Person is not independently notable.He does not Independent activities of the Group,Please redirect to the group, Bangtan Boys.(سعيدس (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article shows no evidence of notability of this singer outside his membership in the Bangtan Boys. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Bangtan Boys:Person is not independently notable.(Mrchurang (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
redirect or delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability outside his group. Redirect is also okay. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:11, 2 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability outside of his group.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Bangtan Boys as no evidence of notability outside the group. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a11, obviously made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaowanese Empire[edit]

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

I think this might be a hoax, I can only find Chaowan as a place on a map, but no trace of an "empire" except on other wikis. Asdklf; (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gave this a sniff, and it would appear to fail WP:V. The page creator asked that the article not be deleted quickly on the talk page. Perhaps someone ought to try to explain the basics of WP to them. NickCT (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesational[edit]

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

No notable sources given, topic is on a non-notable YouTube channel. NetworkOP (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWAyFqHSXM4

[2] ttp://videomi.cz/cz/video/RWAyFqHSXM4/Wajahat-Hasan

[3] ttp://ishare.rediff.com/video/entertainment/raghu-ram-moved-to-tears/621133

[4] ttp://topic.ibnlive.in.com/mc-mary-kom/videos/raghu-ram-moved-to-tears-LPViYcAiZO8-543398.html

[5] ttp://doraemon.wikia.com/wiki/Suneo_Honekawa

[6] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/tv/news/Raghu-gets-emotional/articleshow/4559517.cms

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]