Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 March 20 March >

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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Bukhari[edit]

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

Non-notable property developer and occasional blogger: fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Most of the references given don't mention him, and the few that do only mention him in passing. Speedy declined; prod contested by new WP:SPA who just happened by on their second edit. Dai Pritchard (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, & notability is not inherited from this man's clients.TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP policies listed in nom (as much as I like Kylie). Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shout Out UK[edit]

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

At first sight it appears well referenced, but dig into the references and you see passing mentions, and work by the founder. One reference might be useful for a bio of the founder but seems to be less useful for the entity he founded. I'm willing to reconsider this nomination if references can be found that demonstrate and verify genuine notability, but, until then, this is a somewhat minor student newspaper, at least as expressed in this article.

Those entering this discussion may wish to take note of the major sock puppet campaign to vandalise this article. The investigation(s) may be seen via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nucleargeek and the article talk page. It is possible that the deletion discussion may be similarly disrupted, hence this alert Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes, I was the WP:AFC reviewer who accepted the draft. It was a very different article then. I realise that someone is going to point out the irony that the accepting reviewer has also proposed it to be discussed for deletion, so I have done so myself. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- these are all the references that seem to exist for this organisation (people looked for more when the article was culled last week), and they're only sketchy, passing references. There's no real evidence of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The sources for this article include 2 mainstream media publications, 1 known UK charity and 1 mainstream local newspaper. many articles in wikipedia are shorter and have LESS sources than this. The article was fine until 1 individual was hell bent on vandalizing it and I don't think we should let such an action delete the article. Yes, the vandalism was persistent and he spent many, MANY hours vandalising, but considering the credibility of the sources and the new nature of the organisation I believe we should retain the article. Again, the sources may not seem much, but wikipedia has many other articles that have less sources.

I suggest the article should remain as it is, it is still a valuable piece of information on an organisation in the UK which some would wish to know about, in the end that is what wikipedia is about. Helloskiable (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what I said I would like us all to consider the following references I have found: Official parliament week website (part of the UK govt) https://www.parliamentweek.org/partner/shout-out-uk-the-worldwide-news-network

Youth Media Agency Directory (UK directory for youth and student media) http://www.youthmediaagency.org.uk/directory/shout-out-uk/

Youth Media Agency of the month: http://www.youthmediaagency.org.uk/youthmediaofthemonthshoutout/

Open Media, a large internet campaign group: https://openmedia.org/blog/shout-out-uk-drip-now-law-giving-uk-government-more-power-over-your-privacy

Youth Space, a recognized local charity: http://www.youthspace.haringey.gov.uk/news/shout-out-uk

RAGA, a recognized think-tank/media platform http://www.raga.org/news/category/shout-out-uk

Platform1st, a small youth blog http://platform1st.co.uk/?p=702

Fougen, a foundation to help young people, sponsored by the Mayor of London http://www.fougen.org/#!shout-out-uk-/c1fa9/EBD54655-754C-4C0B-B4DF-8B56E4F4DA63

I do not see how most of the above are not considered or used in the article, also a video released by Shout Out UK on youtube has hit 100,000 views. I know it is released by them, but this video was published on an independent youtube channel and due to the volume of viewers, would it be relevant? I have placed the link below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84_wShLNb4E

Helloskiable (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Helloskiable, it doesn't look like anyone's explained how a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. For the most part, a subject needs to pass WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline, which requires that a subject receive "significant coverage" in multiple, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This can't be a casual mention -- it's usually the case that several paragraphs about the subject is a minimum standard -- and we generally look for newspapers, magazines and major media outlets. User-generated content doesn't qualify -- which includes YouTube, Twitter, blogs, most websites and Wikipedia itself. What we're looking for are articles about Shout Out from the BBC, the Times, the Guardian, the Daily Mail -- that level of coverage. It's just not there. Nha Trang Allons! 19:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of course the vandalism campaign shouldn't count against the article as it has no bearing on notability and we have tools to lock down the article if needed. It's an interesting case because the paper probably meets our definition of a reliable source itself and yet is non-notable. While we have somewhat lax notability standards when judging RS notability (in part because RS rarely write about other RS), try as I might I can't find anything to justify an article. I've reviewed the sources in an earlier version of the article, the current version, and done my own search. Everything was either clearly not-independent (written by the paper or its founder), clearly trivial coverage (one-two line mentions), or clearly not reliable (pay-for-play writeups). I am open to changing my mind, but right now I just can't justify a keep !vote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to Delete. As I noted on that article's talk page, there is no evidence that this publication has a substantial circulation and readership, or is in any way influential. One of the sources appears to be a self-published opinion piece. Others merely passing mentions. The article is clearly supporting the organization rather than the organization supporting the article. The fact that the organization seems to be political or at least ideological in nature immediately raises eyebrows. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Almost unanimous consensus to keep: closed per WP:SNOW. Note: nominator does not provide a valid rationale to delete the article as per WP:DEL-REASON except for WP:NOTDICTIONARY, however, if that is a problem, it can be fixed via normal editing. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 17:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutanese passport[edit]

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

A bhutanese passport is a passport issued by the Bhutanese government. And, er, that's about it. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid reason to delete this page. The United States passport, the Canadian passport, the Pakistani passport, etc. all have their own page. I can see no valid reason to punish the great nation of Bhutan by deleting their passport page. Et0048 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. WP:NOT a dictionary. This article does not state anything beyond the obvious, almost a speedy deletion candidate in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 223 national passport articles on Wikipedia. Should we nominate all of them for deletion? It makes no sense to remove one passport article but then decide that the other 222 are okay. Et0048 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article features far more than what's obvious. It includes information about feudal passports, the organization that administers passports, languages and more. Even if it is a short article, there are many articles for the passports of other nations. Wqwt (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has interesting historical information as well as practical current information. It would be a shame if it were deleted only because it got attention for the audio recording by a person with an unusual accent. Archedeyebrow (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the nom is an Admin on WP?! WTF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One would hate to think that this request to delete the article is an end run around the multiple Keep decisions about the "embarrassing" spoken-word version of the article. The article seems valid within the rules for passport articles. It should stay. -- Robster2001 (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This isn't even close to WP:NOT a dictionary. The article details information on the different types of passport issued, for example (regular, official, and diplomatic). Pop over to any dictionary, and I'll doubt you'll find this info under the entries for "Bhutan" or "passport." In fact, if tautological and redundant information is enough to get a "speedy delete", by that logic, forget just deleting all passport articles; speedy delete the article on the Pacific ocean (the Pacific Ocean is the largest of the Earth's oceanic divisions) and Jet aircraft (A jet aircraft (or simply jet) is an aircraft (nearly always a fixed-wing aircraft) propelled by jet engines.) Professor Ninja (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zzbulletin[edit]

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

Non-notable, just released software. No significant secondary coverage. Contested PROD (by re-creating the article under a separate title). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No external evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are user-editable sites, incidental mentions, and company PR, not WP:RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This list is found to be original research and not valid for inclusion in an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-speaking places occupied by Axis powers in World War II[edit]

List of English-speaking places occupied by Axis powers in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What exactly is the purpose of this article? Who care about the language spoken in the occupied territories? We likely only concern about the colonies/territories of a country that fell into foreign control. No reliable non-wiki reference, the author use other wiki articles as a reference, so let's consider it one way or another as WP:NOR. ༆ (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the list: "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Who cares? I cared. Maybe others will care, too. References: It's conceivable every entry on this list should have a link to a WP:Reliable source demonstrating that (1) most of the area's residents spoke English (for example, Attu and Kiska) or (2) English was one of the area's official languages (Philippines), but the lack thereof shouldn't result in the deletion of this article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite interesting, but a contrived list which violates WP:OR unless some reliable source has made the same connection between these places. Borock (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I cannot see the point of this. If it were to be kept, I would want to see it restructured, so that head title was not continent but the nation whose territory was occupied - USA for Aleutian islands; Australia for Christmas Island; British dependencies for Channel Islands; British colonies for the other southeast Asian lands. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the language is a weird criterion nobody else has come up with. I could stomach List of regions occupied by the Axis in World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete isn't this what categories are for? Rhialto (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 02:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intercollegiate Studies Institute[edit]

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

This was speedy deleted as blatant promotion. Consensus at DRV was that a good article could potentially be written from the available sources, but I am unable to find a demonstrably NPOV version in the history which relies more on reliable independent sources than on the organisation itself and closely-allied sources (i.e. we only have a least-worst version available). Given the fact that it was deleted, I think it is fair to ask that if it is not substantially improved with reliable independent sources giving a properly balanced view of the organisation within the AfD timeframe, it needs to be deleted until such time as a Wikipedia-compliant article is offered. We can't keep it as-is, due to canonical policy, so I invite people to improve it significantly, or else delete it. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is kind of confusing. In the DRV close, you wrote, restore the article and revert to a neutral version, but you also nominated this for deletion. These seem at odds with each other. Could you explain your intentions here, and/or update the DRV closing statement to make this more clear? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is the least non-neutral I could find in the history, but still lacks any independent analysis or reliable independent sources. As a courtesy, and based on the good faith view that there should be potential for an article, I have restored it, to a least-worst version based on my own flip through the history, but the article we have now fails badly and in the end the concern of promotion and bias is valid, so if we don't fix that then we should remove it and wait until someone comes along to write a good article in its place, because leaving a bad article up doesn't really serve the project well. That's my view, anyway. I amended the rationale slightly. Is that clear now? Maybe not. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with you deciding to bring this to AfD, but could you please update your DRV close to explain this? I also see that @DrFleischman: edited your DRV closing statement in a way which makes it look like you wrote it! That seems like excedingly bad form, and just makes this whole thing even more difficult to follow. That should be reverted. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this. No reason to revert, it was a helpful edit and Guy didn't mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nothing remotely close to the level of promotion necessary to demand deletion and the organization is clearly notable. --B (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...a claim which you will no doubt promptly substantiate by adding the requisite reliable independent sources to the article. Thanks in advance. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Come now. It's no flipping tougher than clicking on the "news" [1], "newspapers" [2] and "books" [3] links above to find dozens of good sources. What the heck? That this seems to be a polarizing outfit with some strong political views is true, but getting upset that the article isn't Fair-And-Balanced is a content issue, not one appropriate for AfD. Nha Trang Allons! 20:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And no doubt as one who wishes to keep the article, you've added those sources. Haven't you? Because I nominated it as being unsourced and therefore not provably WP:NPOV, and NPOV is not optional ever. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And no doubt as someone who's read the relevant guidelines, you're aware of the GNG ("Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet ... If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.") and WP:Deletion policy ("Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."). And y'know? If your problem is that the article violates NPOV, what in the merry hell prevents you from changing it yourself? Deleting an article because of a content dispute not only violates policy, it's the lazy man's out. Nha Trang Allons! 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, having read my deletion rationale (that we cannot establish NPOV because the article cites no reliable independent sources and never has, and for most of its life has been pure vanispamcruftisement), when will you be adding these reliable independent sources establishing notability and allowing an assessment of the neutrality of the article? I do encourage you to re-read the deletion rationale. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was the original CSD nominator. I nominated for blatant promotion (G11). It's certainly not neutral, so the POV tag is warranted, but now that Roy has reverted, the pervasive promotion is no longer there. No question that the subject is notable. Barely scrapes by the notability threshold from the sources I have found. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, having read my deletion rationale (that we cannot establish NPOV because the article cites no reliable independent sources and never has, and for most of its life has been pure vanispamcruftisement), when will you be adding these reliable independent sources establishing notability and allowing an assessment of the neutrality of the article? I do encourage you to re-read the deletion rationale. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on it, and it shouldn't make any difference for this discussion. I understand the deletion rationale. Generally bias isn't considered a valid basis for deletion. There is a world of difference in this regard between bias and promotion, despite the fact that the two can sometimes be difficult to differentiate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some of the sources I brought up in the DRV. Thank you JzG for taking me to task on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for assuming good faith and doing what needs to be done. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above. It seems to be notable and improving. Still puffery to remove and cleanup. I will do some now. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bias and un-sourced are not reasons to delete an article if those problems can be solved. I believe they can be in this case. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Wexler[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that Wexler meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kearny Portuguese School[edit]

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

I've looked at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:ORG and WP:GNG and couldn't establish that this is notable Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources, nor any I could find from a quick Google search.  Liam987(talk) 20:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a maistream educational institution providing education up to university entrance standards. No claims of importance. Not a school where the precedent documented at OUTCOMES applies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Romania[edit]

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

There is no such thing as the "First Lady of Romania". The media sometimes use this term, but such a position is not formalized in any way in the Romanian political system. The Romanian President's wife has no public attributions and the claim that the "First Lady" is styled "Her Excellency" is original research by Wikipedia standards. While Băsescu's wife enjoyed some media attention, I doubt that most Romanians even know what Nadia Constantinescu or Nina Iliescu look like. Mihai (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per First Lady's first sentence of its lead, in which it is made clear that the term is invariably unofficial. There's nothing wrong with the subject per se (assuming RS exist), and problems should be solved through further editing. Pax 02:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Regarding the formality argument: I've compared the White House and the presidency.ro websites. It's dozens (maybe hundreds) to zero positive search results for "first lady"/"prima doamnă".
As I've mentioned above, the media sometimes use the term; usually just in order to refer to the wives of the two more recent Romanian presidents, when writing specifically about them, but never to talk about the position itself. There isn't a single article which significantly covers the AFD subject. So the General notability guideline isn't fulfilled.What's more, Wikipedia has a responsibility to base its terminology on solid sources; press articles aren't the most trustworthy ones.
As you've shown above, there are individual articles about some of the spouses of Romanian presidents. So in light of my previous arguments, what should this article contain if kept? You can bet that I'll delete that unreferenced style and residence information in the infobox. Should it be a list of spouses then? In this case, it could be placed under a more appropriate title, like List of spouses or partners of the President of France.--Mihai (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - before weighing in on the merits of this list, let's just note how this situation came to be. Late last year, after Klaus Iohannis was elected President of Romania, an editor took it upon himself to start an article on Carmen Iohannis. Objectively speaking, until her husband was elected, she was a nonentity: a high school English teacher. I still think she's basically a nonentity, and that all relevant content that can be mentioned about her from reliable sources easily fits into a couple of lines at Klaus_Iohannis#Personal_and_professional_life. Then, another user created not just this list, but articles on three other nonentities: Maria Băsescu, Nina Iliescu and Nadia Ileana Bogorin. Once again, all that can be said about these women fits easily into a few phrases, and there really is no standalone notability for any of them. (Obviously, the one other presidential spouse, Elena Ceaușescu, is notable in her own right.)
So we have a bit of a mess on our hands. What I would propose doing is merging those four articles into the ones on the subjects' husbands. As for this list, we could delete — aside from a short burst around the time of Iohannis' election, there really aren't sources discussing the concept. Or we could move to List of spouses of the President of Romania, and create an actual list, albeit one that doesn't link to articles on the ladies, Elena Ceaușescu excepted. - Biruitorul Talk 04:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really such a mess - if articles for the individuals were created when they shouldn't have been, the answer is to delete those articles, not this list. I wouldn't strongly object to move to List of spouses of the President of Romania (given the standard set elsewhere) but that's a matter for a different discussion. Does Romania have a President? Yes. Have some of those Presidents had spouses? Yes. Is "First Lady" the universally accepted term for such a Presidential spouse? Yes. What information the list contains and whether or not the list is linked to articles for notable or non-notable individuals has no impact on the decision to delete the list itself or not. Thus far, no cogent rationale for deletion has been provided. St★lwart111 05:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stalwart. It's referenced, and although it could be expanded and might eventually serve as a merge target for articles about the individuals on the list, there is nothing inherently wrong with this article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the references provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cave[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Vain[edit]

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

Should be a textbook WP:BLP1E situation, a minor flurry of press coverage for an otherwise non-notable individual, an investment banker who posted nude pictures, quit, and entered the porn business. WP:PORNBIO doesn't even enter the situation here, as she has no yet done anything noteworthy in her chosen new career field. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.  Liam987(talk) 20:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, it appears to be way too soon to create an article about the subject, especially as she has not even started her so much publicized (but currently non-existent) new career in the adult industry, and her former career as an investment banker looks certainly non-notable. The subject received reliable coverage, and while she has some high chances to become some sort of Belle Knox in the short future if she keeps on attracting coverage and media attention in the next months, this is a clear WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS situation for now. Cavarrone 20:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO (hasn't performed in anything yet, much less won an award). I recommend watching the contributions of user AdultUpdates, who, if truth-in-self-labeling applies, is clearly WP:HERE for WP:COI WP:PROMO purposes. Pax 02:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, it's a new editor who created a single article (this one) which incidentally (ignoring BLP1E) has some credible claims of notability per GNG, it seems a bit too soon to say "clearly WP:HERE for WP:COI WP:PROMO purposes", let's AGF. Cavarrone 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"New"? It's labeled an "alternative account" right on his user page. His first edit was to create a new article with a table, and his user page contains formatting gimmicks no wet-behind-the-ears editor would be aware of. (He's now "retired" after only a week's worth of "new" SPA activity; if I had to venture a solid guess, I would surmise his fellow COI industry cohorts advised him to pick a new name less likely to arouse suspicions leading to AfDs and SPIs.) Pax 15:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing that points to any notability. In time, she may became notable but not currently -- fdewaele, 11:47 AM, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unfortunately looks don't count towards notability .... and she fails PORNBIO, –Davey2010Talk 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Alam[edit]

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

A list that is basically a resume. Wgolf (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That's not the problem. The problem that he does not meet WP:PROF or the GNG. WP:PROF is interpreted by international standards--essentially all his work is in local journals. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG.  Liam987(talk) 20:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. He has published an article in PLOS One, so his work isn't all local, but I can't see anything to show he has done enough to satisfy the notability requirements for an academic. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF with a h-index of 7, and no other indications of notability. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Harmony[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, appears to be WP:PROMO ― Padenton |☎  19:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find any shred of notability anywhere!, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumi Pednekar[edit]

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

Too soon case here. Just one film so far for her. Wgolf (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Dum Laga Ke Haisha, it's too soon, a single film is not enough to become encyclopedic and the article has virtually no contents. Cavarrone 04:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poorva Neeraj[edit]

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

Unotable celebrity-so far she has had just one small role and not much else (Like assistant director) Now maybe someday-but not yet Wgolf (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vee (application)[edit]

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

Not notable: no substantial refs. 1 is PR, 2 is directory information, 3 is "not yet notable' along with 99 other companies, 4. & 5. are press releases about an investment, 6,7,8 mention it along with other products. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing more than badly disguised promotion. Unsurprisingly created by a SPA account. Cavarrone 04:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. BANKS[edit]

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

Prod was removed by the page creator (which it was a endorsed prod also) unotable singer with few links Wgolf (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:GNG. An article on a non-notable person with very few sources and countless issues. BenLinus1214talk 15:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article seems promotional in nature with no independent reliable sources indicating something notable about this person(who seems to have written the page); does not seem to meet WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marzah[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Without references, it is impossible to verify or correct this article. ubiquity (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no sources or potential sources for this article at all. I found a few facebook or twitter mentions of people with this last name, and some news articles about a witness with this last name in a criminal trial, but no sources to generate an article about the family, such as this article purports to be. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be currently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Bikeshare[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. It is a proposed program. Many government proposals die/end up going nowhere. ...William 12:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While such proposals, even if they are failures, can be notable, this article is sourced to a single article that is very speculative. I can find no other information about the topic, such as what has happened since the publication of that article, and thus this appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Kinu t/c 16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian terrorism[edit]

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

As WP:OR and WP:SYNTH disparate events are discussed.The incidents here have nothing to do with the religion Christianity but about a few contemporary groups engaged in regional conflicts. Valetta66 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep There is almost nil synthesis in the article. As Per MOS if a group calls itself Christian it will be called Christian on Wikipedia. I fail to see any synthesis, perhaps the nominator would be kind enough to point it out on the Talk page of the article and we can remove synthesisFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it were true that "if a group calls itself Christian it will be called Christian on Wikipedia", it would have to be true that "if a group calls itself Socialist it will be called Socialist on Wikipedia" And yet National Socialism is neither described as socialist not is it placed in category:Socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a NPOV mess involving synthesis and fringe views presented on a par with mainstream views, in contravention of WP:UNDUE and giving false balance. As an example, conflicts such as The Troubles were ethno-nationalist in nature, and are described as such by the vast majority of expert commentators. The existence of remarks by a tiny minority of commentators claiming it was partly religious in nature are used to justify the inclusion of a whole section on The Troubles in the article. "As Per MOS if a group calls itself Christian it will be called Christian on Wikipedia." - quite possibly. But none of the various IRAs, the INLA, or the vast majority of Loyalist terrorists identified themselves as "Christian". The Orange groups that apparently did call themselves Christian had so minor a role they barely featured. By the same token, Anders Breivik described himself as "not very religious", but gets included? Likewise, much of the Indian events and actors seem - on the evidence presented in the article - to be unsourced, only peripherally touching on Christianity, or terrorism for that matter. Ultimately, the article seems to be a collection of disjointed events that might, in some cases, involve some people who might be Christians, and/or might be terrorists, with not that many reliable sources to back up the assertions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Obviously, the article is an WP:NPOV mess. However, that's not really a reason for deletion of the entire article. Of course it needs cleanup and sections should be removed and added, but I think that it is necessary to keep this article. There are articles on Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Islamic terrorism, and Jewish terrorism. Deleting this article, in my opinion, would illustrate more bias. Perhaps it should be a Collaboration of the Week at some point? I think that would help this article, but deleting is not the best option. BenLinus1214talk 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the article is kind of a mess. but not a reason for deletion. someone needs to take a good look at it though and improve it. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and nail the lid shut. This article exists for exactly one reason: to serve as a WP:COATRACK. Do other religions have similar articles? WP:OTHERSTUFF. (And I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious, that Jesus was a pacifist, whereas the founders of some other religions were decidedly not, and hence any alleged "Christians" committing terrorism are bullshitting.) Pax 03:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm really not going to get into a debate over whether a possibly not-real figure was a possibly pacifist, since Jesus is nothing to do with whether or not we keep this article. It is a bit of a mess, but this term and concept does exist. See things such as [10] from ThinkProgress, this by Juan Cole, and this in Time Magazine and this in The EastAfrican. JTdaleTalk~ 07:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply wrong argument Article was created in 2004 that is 11 years ago and requests for more time is wrong argument as per WP:MERCY and other endless discussions and mediation for 6 months have come to nothing and only reinforce that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Valetta66 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No true Scotsman arguments about whether terrorists are actually Christian are irrelevant. The topic obviously has coverage in reliable sources; for example, [11] from Slate.com, and [12] from Salon.com. If the article is problematic, then it can be cleaned up through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slate and Salon? *snicker* We have a responsibility to reject WP:BULLSHIT. Pax 07:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those saying to work on the article/clean it up - yes, that'd be great, if people would actually work on it, or could work on it without every edit being subject to argument and even mediation. There are very few people who have ever bothered working on the article, except those pushing a POV agenda to claim some conflict or event is Christian terrorism, and the article is very definitely subject to ownership. Really - look at this section. A welter of sources (14 listed!) stating it's an ethno-nationalist conflict, but we get a significant chunk of the article included because an editor managed to find four people saying the opposite. A clear breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. If you're voting to keep the article, then please start work on it now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The Slate and Salon pieces are editorials and lack a neutral tone, and that's really the problem all around in this. Wikipedia's articles on religious terrorism (and the Christianity one is particularly bad on this) are heavily driven by a POV that views religion as a menace. It's particularly obvious in the lack of an atheist terrorism article, and my guess is that the other religious terrorism articles suffer to some degree or another from the same fault. There are endless arguments over specific cases and a determined ignorance of problems such as that in N. Ireland the religious parties were surrogates for the underlying political contest (our own articles on the matter say as much). Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter if the sources are biased. See WP:BIASED. It also doesn't matter whether anyone is currently working on the article. See WP:NEGLECT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, actually it does. There are both opinion pieces dedicated to political argument against the American right. Lots of the characterizations made in these articles are disputed or even largely rejected in more sober and academic works. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As per WP:NOTCENSORED, nothing should be censored in Wikipedia, just because it offends a few groups. Also, there are hundred references, most of them are researched books, which means, this article is highly sourced and referenced with reliable sources. So, deleting this will be a mockery of what wikipedia stands for. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Bastun's comment two above yours. Pax 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, Vatsan34, WP is not censored. As I'm not a Christian, I would not in in any way be "offended" by an article purporting to be about "Christian terrorism". This isn't such an article, though. It's a poorly sourced mish-mash of WP:COATRACK "facts" with really poor sourcing in many cases. Look at some of those sources. The IRA were/are "Christian terrorists"? For real? They were/are Marxists and socialists that fought in a nationalist conflict. Some (tiny few) people published articles that describe them as, apparently, "Christian terrorists", so we get a whole section on that? A nutcase explodes a bomb and shoots people in Norway - because his ranting "manifesto" mentions God, it's included in this article as an example of Christian terrorism? Seriously? We're not censoring anything - there's already a full article on Anders ("I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie") Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks, dozens of articles on The Troubles and their participants, and ones on the "Christian terrorists" in India such as the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (that manage to not mention the word "Christian" once in the whole article... draw your own conclusions). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun Anders was indirectly fighting for the Christian Europe and not for Buddhist Europe and hence he can be mentioned in the article in the current form. Fine with removal of Nagaland, but your removal of African section is not according to Wikipedia policy. 'A group of small muslims involving in violence is published as Islamic terrorism'. In the same scale, the small group of Christians involved in violence can be told as Christian terrorism. Why change of tone for one group and not for another group? But NLFT are a group of Christian terrorists and there is no doubt in that. I am fine with the current form of article as edited by you and is against deleting it. If this article can be deleted, then even Islamic terrorism article can be deleted because it involves a fraction of global muslims. - Vatsan34 (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"indirectly fighting for the Christian Europe and... hence he can be mentioned in the article in the current form" by that logic, in allying Britain and the US with the USSR, Winston Churchill and FDR were "indirectly fighting for the" Communist Party, and WWII can therefore be used to write an article about Communist wars. User:Vatsan34, this is simply not a coherent argument. It does reveal the problems inherent in this article, which as it stands, is more or less an article about Acts of terrorism committed by Christians, or by people of Christian ancestry, or by groups identifying Christianity as one of several aspects of their identity, culture and/or ideological commitments, plus a few dudes like Anders Breivik that nobody can quite figure out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vatsan34 I rechecked the Africa section. It refers to participant groups made up of Christians and animists working together, and their motivation seems to be revenge, so it really doesn't appear to be "Christian terrorism" (else the Christians would not be working with the animists?). In any case, it's included on the basis of a single citation from Time magazine. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clean it up. Stub it if you must but there is enough material out there to support and sustain this topic in an NPOV way. Jbh (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is certainly synthesis. It is a collection of disparate movements that have been labelled as Christian, but I see no ideaological or other coherence, except seeking freedom or independence. "One man's Freedom Fisher is another man's terrorist". Several of these are insurgencies by Christians; I do not know whether the tactics used amount to terrorism. Some may self-identify as Christian; others may be Christian by heritage. In Northern Ireland, IRA are (or were) Catholics; their tactics were certainly terrorist, but their opponents were another kind of Christian: IRA were Christian and terrorist, but I do not think they are Christian terrorists in the sense that their terrorism was motivated by Christian faith. It was a tribal conflict between two groups with religious labels. Similarly movements in NE India and Burma may be Christiasn v Hindus and Buddhists, but these are much more tribal independence movements than motivated by Christianity. Perhaps we should rename it Tribal conflicts involving Christians where terrorist tactics have been employed. This differs from Muslim terrorism which is motivated by the religious concept of jihad, though I understand many Muslims reject that interpretation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellert points by User:Peterkingiron.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"IRA were Christian and terrorist, but I do not think they are Christian terrorists in the sense that their terrorism was motivated by Christian faith." No, they were mostly (but not exclusively) from a Roman Catholic background, but were not fighting a religious was or for religious freedom in any way, shape or form. They want(ed) a united, and socialist, Ireland. Political/nationalist - not religious. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COATRACK, involving WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and some serious WP:CHERRYPICKING. To put this disgrace of an article together, editors roped together Guy Fawkes' failed participation in an international power struggle, the racism of the Ku Klux Klan, Lebanon's Maronite, Sunni, Shia power struggle, and even - Lord help us - Anders Behring Breivik. If that isn't enough unrelated material hung on this WP:COATRACK, the article wades into the intricate complexities of hill tribes, the Hindu expansion, colonization, identity and power in eastern India. Problem is that there is little beyond a couple of opinion columns and the fact that individuals and groups of of Christian background were involved in movements with little else connecting them. Certainly no body of theoretical work on the relationship between Christianity and the choice terrorism as a tactic is cited. Nor am I aware that such a literature exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Best post in thread. The salient point here is that there are no reputable RS supporting the tendentious premise inherent to the article's title. The closer should take this into account, as policy out-weighs the clamorous mass of 'keep' !votes. Pax 00:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In some incidents the perpetrators seem to be fighting each other about the identities that they hold about themselves and not about the religion in particular. ༆ (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is certainly against WP's neutrality policies. It also fails to substantiate how it's cited terrorist instances are consistent with historical Christianity. No element of that religion compels it's followers by instruction from their holy book to carry out heinous crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an organization calls itself Christian, it is Christian per the MOS. list of Islamic terrorist attacks does not represent Islam in general, just as this article does not represent Christianity as a whole. KonveyorBelt 22:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that List of Islamic terrorist attacks should be moved to List of Islamist terrorist attacks, to distinguish between Islamic civilization and Islamism. (come over to that page and discuss) Your iVote does not address policy issues pertinent to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again - none of the various IRAs, the INLA, or the vast majority of Loyalist terrorists identified themselves as "Christian". They are still included. Likewise our articles on some of the the Indian organisations also don't mention the word "Christian", once. Konveyor Belt, perhaps you'd work on the article to remove those entries? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support this proposed compromise. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jesus was a pacifist, but all Christians are not. NPOV is when we shown both the negative and the positive. Hafspajen (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are all aware that not all Christians are pacifists. However, this is a discussion about terrorism, not about pacifism or the ethics of war. If we are to get anywhere, iVotes need to address concerns including WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING, i.e., the fact that at present the argument for deletion is that this page is a WP:COATRACK on which diverse terror incidents perpetrated by individuals or groups of Christian heritage are strung although many have no ideological commitment to Christianity as justification for terrorism. Speak to this, or or speak to the proposal to delete this article and start a List of terrorist attacks motivated by Christian ideology. so that we can move this conversation forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the title of such a new article would then be in error, since no Christian tenet (unlike, say, many surahs) authorizes such activities, either explicitly or obliquely. The correct title of such an article would be List of terrorist attacks by idiots and liars who claim to be Christian but don't act like it. Pax 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. "NPOV is when we shown both the negative and the positive." Absolutely. But another of the five pillars is verifiability - Hafspajen, you seem to have missed the point that some of the people and/or organisations named on this article are not, and never claimed to be, acting out of any sort of Christian ideology. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't. Check here... God bless, my son. Hafspajen (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a long page? What am I supposed to be reading, there? A diff would be useful. (There is no God, but I'll take the blessing, thanks :-) ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nothing in special, nobody really has the patience to read that any more... but I know the difference between something called a thing but not being that what it is called. Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, Hafspajen's argument, like Pax's argument and over half of the iVotes on this page comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on your side. ;-) Scan back up for the word "Excellent". Pax 19:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, User:Раціональне анархіст It's obviously irrelevant what side you are on , what matters is that here: This article exists for exactly one reason: to serve as a WP:COATRACK. Do other religions have similar articles? WP:OTHERSTUFF and elsewhere you were making policy-based arguments. Arguments that have yet to be encountered by "keep" iVoters.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific sources demonstrate that "Christian Terrorism" is a coherent thing, as opposed to being a series of notable topics?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATTP to the side, let's not detract attention from the fact that this article is, as E.M.Gregory exhaustively details above, an unsalvageable piece of crap. Pax 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Раціональне анархіст. We can all ignore the SPAs. What I am not seeing are policy-based arguments for keep. And just asserting that the topic is important is not the same as showing that the topic exists (Christian terrorists exist, but where are the sources on Christian terrorism?) is not an argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The essential problem here (aside from Wikipedia policy problems, which should govern the course of this AfD) is that too many intellectually lazy people see a phrase like "Christian terrorism" and reflexively assume a valid concept just because the words are sitting there strung together despite representing a crashing contradiction. E.g., Jewish atheism -- but that example is explained by "Jew" also referring to Semitic ethnicity (in addition to Judaism). But there is no Christian ethnicity; it's entirely a state of mind. You can't be a "Christian atheist" and you can't be a Christian XYZ" if XYZ is explicitly contrary to gospel. You could claim to be, but it wouldn't be true, and it is the project's responsibility to reject articles whose inherent thrust is to promote the existence of a false narrative. Pax 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Раціональне анархіст, with all respect, I'm not sure that's a valid argument. For example, it would be impossible to find any avowed Christian today who would argue for the mass murder of a large population of heretic civilians, or for the burning of heretics. But back in the Church burned Jan Hus and sponsored the slaughter of Hussites, and Cathars. Everyone who sat in the Council of Constance was Christian; so was the Pope. I think that if a group puts together a coherent, Bible-based justification of terrorism, we have to call them Christianity-inspired terrorists (or some other phrase equivalent to Islamist). The problem here, as I see it, is that Islamist terrorism is a real theological approach, datable to a specific era, shared and upheld by Islamists with clerical credential who claim the Quran as their inspiration. I don't see anything of the sort in the motley groups roped together in this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I became involved after noticing the inclusion of the "Northern Ireland paramilitaries". The IRA were fighting for a united, socialist Ireland - not for a united, Catholic Ireland. That led me to look at some of the other entries. An African "Christian" group that's composed of animists who want to take revenge on Muslims who had previously attacked them? A Maoist group in India fighting for a nationalist cause? A solo nutcase who said himself that he wasn't very religious? Yet all get included because one or two people claim they were "Christian terrorists". The actual Christian terrorists (which can be sourced) are the Americans blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors. They get a mention near the start of the article, and at the end. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Bastun, that argument is an argument for keeping the article, since "actual Christian terrorists (which can be sourced)" do exist. It looks probable anyway that this will be closed as "no consensus" (the "result was keep" close was ridiculous). What is needed is for the editors who have argued strongly against the content of the article to be bold and remove all the content that does not belong. I for one would support the removal of all the things you talked about there. Scolaire (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will certainly look at doing either that if this AfD is unsuccessful, and/or listifying to just include items that would satisfy WP:LSC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire The point also raised by you there is no working definition or consensus even after mediation of what Christian Terrorism is and violent incidents are being randomly added this needs to be deleted.Do not think even a WP:TNT can be done.It is not an editing issue it becomes WP:OR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominating statement is flawed as it is the editor's opinion that Christianity had nothing to do with the acts. Also, it seems WP:BEFORE wasn't done. [13], [14], [15] --NeilN talk to me 13:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The POV of the Nom is old news, please respond to issues raised by User:Bastun and others so that we can attempt to reach consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pestering every !keep vote. I see no need to address the opinions of other editors who seemingly want to wish the concept out of existence (mirroring talk page discussions) when I have provided sources. --NeilN talk to me 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bastun and E.M.Gregory. As synthesis and and fringe views presented on a par with mainstream views and WP:UNDUE and giving false balance. Further the very basic definition or what is implied or what is Christian Terrorism is not yet defined despite over 3 months of mediation now suspended and this article has been there for ages almost a decade over 11 years.Further no Global view of Christian Terrorism is given the article a maze of local conflicts which are ethno-nationalist conflicts ,insurgencies which are clearly not Religious and in no way can the violence be justified by religion or any tenat of religion.All these local have standalone articles which is fine but to club all of them together as Christian Terrorism is original research .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominating statement is from a non-neutral POV. Though your opinion seems like an obvious truth to you, it may not be so obvious from another POV, and would need deeper explanation. As such, this topic should be addressed on Wikipedia. The content entirely depends on what consensus finds are reliable sources. I agree that it should be written from a more NPOV than it is presently. Mamyles (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issues raised by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards and others, so that we can move this conversation forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That it is hard to establish consensus does not mean a topic should be excluded from Wikipedia. In fact, it should have the opposite effect, since the level of contention proves significant interest in the topic. Sure, there are fewer reliable sources addressing the topic, but certainly there are some reliable sources. At least a fraction of the 96 currently on the page. There is no WP:DEADLINE here. Mamyles (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentThe difficulty that I perceive in the Keep votes is lies in the assertion that this article CAN be improved. The article on Islamic terrorism (which I have proposed moving to "Islamist terrorism" draws on a large body of scholarship by men and women of many faiths but notably inclusing avowed Islamists that describerd a discrete and coherent ideology that originates in a definable period of a few years and unites a large number of terrorist groups operating worldwide. Christian terrorism is a term applied in this article to terrorists who happen to be Christian, or who claim Christian justification as one among a list of motivations, although they are drawn from widely separated eras and the Christianities to which they adhere vary widely. There is no commonality to these ideologies, even excluding the ones who disavow religious motivation altogether. It is this very mix and disparity of type and motivation that appears to have prevented scholars from dealing with "Christian terrorism" as a coherent topic. It is one thing to assert that such an article can be improved, quite another to discover sources of any weight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I only needed to read a few sources to see how they were being misused and conflated for this article. With the massive amount of straws grasped for through them, I could easily make an Atheist terrorism or Daoist terrorism article, as well. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LJMU Fury american football[edit]

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

Non notable British University sports team. Sports teams at British Universities aren't usually notable. Often they are unheard of by the majority of students on campus. This team does not appear to be one of the small number of exceptions. No claim of notability. The team plays in the British Universities American Football League and no other team in that league is notable (and other teams' pages in that league were deleted circa 2009/2010 (e.g. Durham University AfD, Plymouth University AfD, Glasgow AfD, etc... ) Rehnn83 Talk 11:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum While searching through What Links Here for this article there are re-directs to this article at LJMU Fury and Liverpool Fury - I would suggest they are deleted as well Rehnn83 Talk 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - other than the Boat Race and the cricket teams of a handful of institutions, university sport in the UK is completely non-notable. As mentioned above, I doubt that the majority of students even know that the university has an American football team, and it certainly doesn't attract any coverage off campus -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is completely non-notable. Tavix |  Talk  23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable British university sports team. Subject does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It must be said that at UK schools and universities, sport is sport, and not big business. It's not the reason for being at university (with the exception, perhaps, of Loughborough which was originally there seemingly for the purpose of supplying the nation with PE teachers). Add to this the low profile of American football in general in the UK, and any university AF team is going to find it hard to get the coverage we require. Peridon (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mkdwtalk 08:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SKF Sport Kickboxing Federation[edit]

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

This is an apparent kickboxing federation. It looks like this was directly recreated after it was speedy deleted (A7). I don't see anything on Google to indicate notability. It may need to be salted if it's deleted again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No references provided and not even a claim that the subject meets WP:GNG on either this version or the previous one. --Finngall talk 18:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -A7 - Tagged as such - No sources, No article! - Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I regret adding the tags that I did - meant only to increase visibility. I still think an A7 is appropriate. No references, no claim for notability and basically a one location attempt at franchise. It was recreated immediately after the last A7 deletion so perhaps letting the AfD run will be more permanent.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Raya[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined. However, since he has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces (Motor Ace song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think songs should be able to fall under the A7 criteria, if someone can't bother to provide any indication of significance why should we bother looking for sources for them? They provide one "reference" which is a broken link. This song is about a band that is no longer together, I'm pretty sure their notable singles have already had a long-standing Wikipedia article. NOW, obviously everything I just said has no basis in policy for deletion, it's just my opinion. So to get some policy based justification I did a cursory Google search and could find nothing to indicate that this would pass WP:NALBUMS. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like the single was only released in the UK and could not find evidence it charted there. Found no other sources to indicate how this song is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow   talk 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would typically be a redirect to the album article, but this is hardly a plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaili Say[edit]

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

Article is about a child actress lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability in general or that specifically for actors. She has had three roles in her career according to IMDB. The Desparate Housewives role was a single episode appearance after which the role was recast. The sole source in the article is dead, but can be found at The Wayback Machine which shows it is a local TV station doing a local girl makes it type of story. Whpq (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if IMDB was a reliable source (which it isn't), there still wouldn't be enough to pass WP:GNG -War wizard90 (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though IMDb is a reliable source for credits, she doesn't have any significant ones, and thus fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-too soon. Now someday perhaps. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable at this time. BMK (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Way too soon, No objections to it being recreated providing there's adequate notability. –Davey2010Talk 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stab comics[edit]

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

Article does not highlight any significance, or cite any sources. Almost seems to reed as promotional content. Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 02:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This probably could've been CSD'ed under A7. That article itself almost tells you how un-notable this company is... "In 2007 STaB collaborated with other Australian publishers on several works, the biggest of which was Ozslaught which was a major crossover of independent comics characters. Created by Tony Newton, Ozslaught is a parody of major comic company crossovers such as Crisis on Infinite Earths." So in other words, they helped with "other" publishers to create a non-notable comic book that is nothing but a parody of another notable comic book...need we say more? -War wizard90 (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete no reliable sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Atomi University. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atomi Junior College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG... I am unable to find any Reliable Sources to Verify this. JMHamo (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appear to be plenty of sources on the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Please share the link JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look on the English article, bottom of the left-hand column. Not following interwiki links does rather fail WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: It is defunct, and should probably be merged into the Atomi University article, which is in need of attention. It does not seem appropriate just to delete it: the WP:ja article is quite extensive, and contains many references, even if some are just almanac type lists of all colleges in Japan in year X. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is being defunct in any way relevant? Wikipedia is not just about extant things. It's an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course being defunct is not a reason for deletion, but since this institution was merged into another, unless there are strong reasons for an independent article, it would be better to have a reasonable combined article, and there can be a redirect. (The Atomi University article is currently about 2 lines long.) It needs a significant effort to work out quite what schools merged into what, to make a coherent description. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in to Atomi University - Can't find any evidence of notability to warrant an own article, Seems Atomi University is in need of expansion so shove this there. –Davey2010Talk 23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgileJ StructureViews[edit]

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

Not notable. There is a lack of coverage AgileJ StructureViews in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a mix of PR, primary and listings. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The sources are brief and seem to be based on press releases. Former versions of the article had cites to a couple of blog posts by users who tried it out, but can't find any coverage in reliable 3rd-party sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's worth noting that it's rare for such tools to be covered in the media (though this doesn't exempt it). Any sources would likely be only in journals. [16] indicates it being mentioned in a few papers (14), all of which have few if any citations, so it does not seem that this is a widely used software. It's also not the only one of its kind. Other eclipse plugins with similar functionality include [17] [18]. To compare it to other Java tools that have wikipedia articles, FindBugs has had a much larger impact, with [19] nearly 2000 papers mentioning it, with more citations. ― Padenton |☎  22:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The String Quartet Tribute to Elliott Smith[edit]

The String Quartet Tribute to Elliott Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable enough to satisfy criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 04:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to DreamSpark. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DreamSpark Premium[edit]

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

Proposing delete/merge of this, in favor of DreamSpark article. ― Padenton |☎  04:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is mostly already included in DreamSpark, both refer to essentially the same product/service provided by Microsoft to students. DreamSpark Premium just provides a wider selection of software. In this, having the two articles is sort of akin to having a separate article for Windows 7 and Windows 7 Professional. ― Padenton |☎  06:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Merge Not exactly duplicate. DreamSpark Premium used to be a completely differently program (MSDNAA) only for educational institutions, later renamed under DreamSpark in 2012 [20]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge I agree with @Padenton: there was next to no real change to Dreamspark itself, it merely changed what it called itself. No notable changes happened to make it worth separating so I suggest merging. Andrdema (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge In case of merge the history section should clearly discuss its origins as MSDN-AA. Last time I checked (over a year ago) there was still quite a difference between the DreamSpark and MSDN-AA portals. —Ruud 13:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Aime (album)[edit]

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

A LONG time unreferenced album (and on another note-this is the first time it has been updated in 6 years!) anyway-not sure about notability so either delete or redirect. Wgolf (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Enough consensus to be closed as keep, my reason for relisting was to get just some more consenus due to the votes based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Tigraan has also added some more sources to the article. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eusko[edit]

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

Article about novelty currency used in a local area. It is not an official currency, article contains no reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE due diligence I have found one article about it at [21]. Which does not meet the requirements for WP:GNG. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rant about the use of sources in foreign languages

My personal view is that foreign-language sources should not be used in WP, except maybe to tip unclear decisions about notability towards 'keep', or for untranslated primary sources. An encyclopedia's objective is to give an overview of the subject but also references to consult for further reading, and it should not be assumed that readers of the English WP can understand anything else than English.

I do understand it would condemn to deletion many articles that are of significant local interest and make the delights of the random article page, like this one; and breaking cultural barriers is, after all, part of the encyclopedic project (understood in Diderot's way). Nonetheless, it seems to me creating the only source of knowledge on the subject in English constitutes a form of original research.

This being said, guidelines do allow for foreign language sources if I remember correctly, so I will reluctantly obey by them. - EDIT 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC): I did remember correctly, WP:NONENG.

The article could certainly be improved: sources are lacking, the 1.4% inflation figure seems dubious (remember, this currency is pegged to the euro - does the Basque area experience such inflation, well over the Eurozone's average? and who measured it?). I see no problem with notability though. Tigraan (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Plenty of other local currencies have their own page despite relatively limited use. Dtellett (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. You might have a point that a local currency is not automatically non-notable, but it is not automatically notable either. Tigraan (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: while it hard to asses the significance to the local area due to foreign language refs, I would interpret the need to prove notability less strictly than it were a theory or a fiction. For example, would a river have to prove notability? it is mentioned briefly in this English language artice An alternative solution could be merging with the regions article. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to a river is not a good one as they have a completely different standard for notability. Wikipedia is not about everything that exists it is about what reliable sources have written about whether it be in books, newspapers, magazines or even television programs. A better example to perhaps compare this to, would be Canadian Tire money.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is kind of my point, different subjects have different guidelines and ways of interpreting the guide lines. The question we need to answer what standard of notability should be applied to a currency? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my post, this passes GNG, so no specific guideline needs to be invoked... provided that we accept French-speaking sources (see rant). The Libération article alone could be enough for notability: Libération is a major national newspaper here, the article is devoted to eusko, and it is a reportage which means it needed some kind of investigation (of course, talking with old Basque ladies is easier that getting close to chemical weapons in Syria - my point is that the newspaper sent someone and took a financial risk, it is not press-release-into-article journalism). Tigraan (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an alternative currency like the Disney Dollar or Tumin, so I think there's no problem with notability. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clearly passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. This is bigger than the "Disney dollar" or run of the mill local trade scrip. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not come too harsh on nominator: I improved sourcing greatly since nomination, and you cannot do WP:BEFORE in a language you do not know. Tigraan (talk) 17:06, 16 March 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, Esquivalience t 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have relisted this discussion because quite a few of the votes are solely based on the fact that other alternative currencies have articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Esquivalience t 03:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG and since there are no special requirements of notability for currencies that is all we need. Also, I wouldn't say this is a "novelty" currency, it seems to be the real deal from what I've read. Here are some more sources to establish notability: [1] [2 (primary source)][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]-War wizard90 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to be WP:OR and not notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soteriological Traditionalism[edit]

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

Nominating because the entire article looks like a synthesis to me. Running a google search on the title pulls up very few results for the term, none of which look like they'd prove to be reliable sources. There are mentions of Soteriology and traditionalism in published sources. The selection of sources the creators have provided, additionally, seems odd. There are a couple of links to some rather dense articles published by a journal from the "Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry" but mostly they seem to rely on some rather smaller sites. That, combined with the overall structure of the article raises questions of possible promotion for me. Hopefully an AFD will at least bring more eyes to bear on this article. Dolescum (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to the southern baptist convention's official news portal (the sbc is the largest Protestant denomination in america). The formal theological viewpoint was consolodated in 2012 so searching google would not be the best way to determine it's legitimacy. All of the sources confirm the viewpoint's uniqueness to other views. The article even goes to great lengths to show it's distinctions with citations. Not only is soteriological traditionalism affrimed by the largest denomination in the world (SBC's journal), but it is also expounded upon in a scholarly sense in the other citations. This view is cleary taught in tens of thousands of southern Baptist churches, there is no reason an encyclopedic overview of the view should not be available on Wikipedia.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations from the Southern Baptists Conventions official news portal sbc today have been added to further substantiate the legitimacy of the wiki articles content.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations from other southern baptists resources have been provided including content describing multiple prestigious southern baptist proponents of soteriological traditionalism, along with sources.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term soteriological traditionalism means "the traditonal view of salvation" this term is derived from the "Traditonal understanding of the southern baptist view of soteriology." Perhaps this is why google struggles to find the phrase very often, it is a literary simplification of a longer phrase. This does not however invalidate that soteriological traditionalism is an appropriate term for the view, There is no other view that uses this title, and when the title is googled it shows results to the sbc view on Soteriology. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A section titled "notable endorsements and objections" has been added to the article giving clear detail on the formal nature of this theological view. Citations are included. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathankyle2188 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the synthesis charge. Wikipedia says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I would like to see specifics regarding this charge. It comes across as baseless. The article presents an informational review of the view and cites several majors sources to prove legitimacy. It is my opinion that the nominating user "Dolscum" has failed to qualify his charge properly.Nathankyle2188 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User "Dolsum's" comment "the article raises questions of possible promotion for me" I would like to point out that the article remains neutral providing citations from major sites that support Traditionalism such as connect316.net/ and major sites that support opposing views like Calvinism such as http://www.monergism.com/. It also contains a section that presents notable endorsements AND objections (that includes supporting citations), which can be expanded upon. Overall the article give ONLY an informational overview of the topic and does not make any claims of superiority, rather it clearly lines out distinctions and positions with no promotional commentary. I would like for the User Dolsum to indicate which part of the article is "promotional" because I would be glad to revise it accordingly. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A subsection was added in the "Traditional Statement" section covering the "Calvinist Response" to Soteriological Traditionalism. This furthers the neutrality of the article. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify -- The list of doctrines included appears to me to be contrived to fit a flower POINSETIA, no doubt to contrast with the Calvinist TULIP. This is still a very recent article with one (new to WP) main author. I am far from sure what to suggest, but since this is an agglomeration of doctrines, with no very clear statement of who adheres to them all, I suspect the answer is to ask the author to produce an article on each of the 10 or so doctrines and link them to this article. I presume this to be one of several possible statements of an Arminian soteriological position. It may be possible to provide an article worth uploading, but it needs a lot more work yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, thank you for the input. I have added two in depth references in the POINSETTA sub-section. Although I am a new user, I have taught seminary classes for three years and been a Bible teacher in various churches for 8 years. I am well qualified to write on this topic. Thanks again. Nathankyle2188 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - purely original research. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article presents an informational review of the view and cites several majors sources to prove legitimacy. This means the article does not qualify as " purely original research" as Bearian implied with no examples to support his assertion. The article also includes sources that specifically use the term "Soteriological Traditionalism." Nathankyle2188 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This non-denominational seminary in Florida has a news publication on Soteriological Traditionalism in their post titled "Calvinism, Arminianism, or Traditionalism?" It mentions the term "soteriological tradionalism" twice. http://www.covenantbiblecollegeirc.com/#!news-and-events/c24vq Furthermore, if you were to use a less technical term such a "A Traditional view of Baptist Soteriology" it would be similar to calling Calvinism "A Calvinist view of Protestant Soteriology". The reason the term "Soteriological Traditionalism" is used it for literary simplification (in the same way we use the term "Calvinism" to address it's view of soteriology), and because the term "traditionalism," when left alone, can apply to various topics. This form of traditionalism is specifically related to the topic of soteriology so the common phrase that people use to refer to it is "Soteriological Traditionalism."Nathankyle2188 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: My Last Year Of Middle School[edit]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: My Last Year Of Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: After doing a search, I can't find any source that says that this "planned" book is existent. Due to the lack of reliable sources saying that this book even is existent in the planning, merging into Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) isn't plausible. Esquivalience t 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. Was unable to find anything whatsoever about a 10th book in the series, and surely not with a title already. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I have nothing on it either. HullIntegrity\ talk / 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Blatant hoax although @Euryalus: declined the CSD G3 request I made yesterday. JMHamo (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, not because I think this is genuine ( it fails CRYSTAL if nothing else) but because an AFD allows wider input and is more enduring if passed. It is also possible that someone will come forward with verifiable evidence of this alleged book, and as the article is not offensive in any way there seemed no harm in allowing this couple of days for that to occur. But happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. While there probably will be a tenth book, there is absolutely nothing out there to substantiate that this will be the title. This is actually pretty par for the course for this series, as whenever a new book is announced there will be a rush to come to Wikipedia or the fan wikis to submit their fake titles. There have been no announcements on any of the official websites or in the news, which is pretty telling since there's usually a big production over the title reveal- more so than most other book series. So in other words, while book 10 is not a hoax in and of itself, this title is a hoax. It's also one that we should probably get off of Wikipedia fairly quickly since other sites have quoted Wikipedia titles in the past, usually in a fairly detrimental tone since we're fairly slow to pick up on and delete the titles. It's gotten to the point where a lot of people in the DoaWK community don't really see us as that reliable of a source for new info because the articles for the new books are so prone to vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing is that to my knowledge there has been no official plot summary for the book, nor is there really anything to truly back up that this is the last book. All we know so far is that there are plans for a tenth book in the series but we do not have any sort of teasers or other information to give any definitive information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this official source the book cover and title will not be revealed until some time in April. Until then any and all titles and synopses should be considered a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C824767[edit]

C824767 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD with rational: "No distinctive notability for this combination of letters and numbers." Seattle (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Number lacks notability; unable to find reliable sources for notability. APerson (talk!) 02:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This number appears to be special to the article's creator, but it's not a good subject for an encyclopedia article. The links provided could be used to get the same amount of information on any number. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Complete bullshit; tagged as nonsense (and quite likely hoax). Pax 09:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat 211 (Film)[edit]

Flat 211 (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upcoming and unfilmed as of now unotable film. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Sanjan Wgolf (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • -I should of moved the article to Flat 211 given that there is no page for that....well I'm going to make a redirect to here for that. Wgolf (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to the article on the director/producer of this film Sunil Sanjan which is also up for AfD, this reeks of a vanity article written for promotional purposes.

  • Ref 1-4, 11 is IMDb so not RS. Ref 5, 8, and 10 is by Ajha Global which is owned by the director and producer of this film so not independent or RS in this context. Ref 6, 7 are not RS (gossip/blog like sites). Ref 9 is from Punjab Kesari but this short piece on it is probably not enough to support notability.
  • Promotional tone: example "Ninety nine percent of cast and crew is Dubai based NRI's who are working selflessly just because of passion for acting and films, not for money. Whole cast and crew is selected based on their extreme passion towards films & acting keeping in mind required basic skills to do their respective roles and jobs."
  • In my own search, I was unable to find additional refs to support notability as per WP:GNG, or WP:NFF
  • In summary, vanity article written for the promotion of an upcoming non-notable film. Cowlibob (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ALT:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ALT:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ALT:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete per WP:NYF for now as the project, while filming is not yet released and, issues aside, does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion and return when or if notability can be established. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete-- I do not agree here with reason for deletion of Flat 211 (Film). Every film is not notable before release. Its only exceptions. For references there is Punjab Kesari and other articles available. Is it some how linked to director's page by the other user who recommended for deletion of that page ? Then this is not fair enough. Kumarsunils (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sorry, I understand your angst, but simply existing or being linked to other Wikipedia articles is not a reason to include. What is required, per our inclusion criteria is it being covered in reliable sources and I accept it has decent enough coverage in sources Bollywood Tadka and Odagam and Punjab Kesari, but the issue for an unreleased film or one still filming, is that we look to WP:NFF which instructs that a film not yet released needs a bit more coverage than what has been found. Don't worry, as more sources come forward, it can always be undeleted... and you can always ask that it be moved to draft space for continued work until then. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Kumarsunils (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Thanks Michael for your positive comments and approach. Really appreciate it. Yes we will continue work on with more additional references. Another reference of news on India TV, a national TV is added. India TV News No. 199 (After 16:22 minute). We will continue working on adding more references. Mean while request to let the page be there. @ User:MichaelQSchmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 March 2015‎‎ -- and sorry Kumarsunils I had to strike your extra vote. Schmidt, Michael Q.[reply]
  • Keep -- Also I just read WP:NFF guidelines, it suggests that "Film can have budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." So this applies to films for which filming is just announced or started. But Flat 211 (Film) is already 90% complete in terms of filming. Flat 211 at IMDb has this information that 90% of film is already complete. Thanks in advance & appreciate your comments on it @ User:MichaelQSchmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 March 2015‎‎ -- and sorry Kumarsunils I had to strike your extra vote. Schmidt, Michael Q.
  • Sorry Kumarsunils, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but IMDB is not considered a "reliable source", specially for films not yet released. Even accepting the film may be 90% completed, its release date is not until 2016. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is not met. And as an instruction, The proper term would be "Keep", not "Do not Delete"... and only one "keep to a customer. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks Michal for further clarification and for your kind help. Apologies for using wrong term as I was not aware of same, thanks for same. I have corrected it now. Reelable source can be only production company, do they accept this as reliable source ? If yes we may try to find info from production and add as reference. Thanks. Appreciate your kind help and support. -- Kumarsunils (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Michal. Give me some time. I will try to add references for facts and also other references ASAP. But till then request to keep the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsunils (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Good to see some positive people supporting the page. Thanks Michal for you honesty, we will look for more references and sources. But request you to please keep the page. Thanks. Natashasencute (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Natashasencute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Happy to find some support for this page. Appreciate Michal for his neutral and good intent. As mentioned by others additional information might come and also I can see some additional references have been provided. Request to keep the page. Alishasamuel (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Alishasamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep We need to appreciate Michal for his fairness and positive approach.Thanks Michal. Request to keep the page and we all will help in improving on points which are some how lacking info. But for sure we will come up with more info. Surekha Rao (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I see that votestacking on one side is occurring at this Afd as well. Please note that the outcome of this discussion will not be by number of votes but by the strength of arguments so it is a waste of time and can in fact lead your case to be damaged in the eyes of users. Cowlibob (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) To users Kumarsunils, Natashasencute, Alishasamuel, and Surekha Rao: It's not a count of votes that will result in a keep or a delete... it's guideline and policy based arguments and an evaluation and decision by an uninvolved party. As the arguments for deletion are based in policy and guideline, that makes them "stronger" than those for keep, and a deletion is the so far most likely outcome. What I suggest is that this can be moved to a userspace as a draft that can be worked on.
As you are all new accounts [23][24][25][26] and making the same type of arguments and all misspelling my name in the same manner, I do wish to caution all these accounts to read WP:Sockpuppet and WP:Meatpuppet, and Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. There are admins with the tools to determine if accounts are being operated by the same person and while I hope they are not, using multiple accounts to try to sway a discussion could result in a block of the master account and his puppets. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:34, 13 March 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, Esquivalience t 02:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had assumed that this was a WP:SNOWBALL case where an opinion was hardly needed. However, this is clearly not notable, and certainly not worth retaining at present.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rust Belt Derby[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given, initial concern still exists. Per WP:NRIVALRY - yes these teams have played each other a few times, but there is nothing to indicate that, even if a genuine rivalry exists, that there is sufficient significant, reliable coverage of a non-routine nature (i.e. not match reports, stat sites, team listings, etc) to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are major issues with all the sources you have presented as follows:
1 - this is just a match report, this does not discuss the notion of the derby. In fact it is only mentioned in passing twice in the whole article.
2 - This does kind of discuss the "rivalry" in the wider context of rivalries in the US, but doesn't really indicate notability as it is talkng about the rivalry before any games actually took place(!) essentially an opinion piece about what the rivalry might come to be once the teams actually play each other. The fact that this article explicitly states that this is an artificially created supporters' cup that only came into existence in 2012 significantly lessens its importance.
3 - This is a primary source and so doesn't count. Of course one of the clibs involved is going to promote this artificial rivalry too generate more interest / income for themselves.
4 - This is a primary source and so doesn't count. This is also just a routine match report. It doesn't even discuss the rivalry. The only mention of the Rust Belt Derby is as a tag at the bottom of the article.
5 - This is exactly the same link as 4.
6 - This is a primary source and so doesn't count. One sentence mentions the Derby, there is no significant coverage of it as a notion.
7 - This is a primary source and so doesn't count. This is also just a routine match report. It doesn't even discuss the rivalry. The only mention of the Rust Belt Derby is as a tag at the bottom of the article.
8 - This is a primary source and so doesn't count. This is also just a routine season summary, the Rust Belt Derby is mentioned once in passing, there is no significant coverage of the rivalry.
9 - This is just the rivalry's logo. This only confirms that it exists and in no way indicates notability of any form.
10 - This is an article about one of Detroit City's supporters groups, not the Derby. In fact the Derby is mentioned only in one sentence to explain what it is (and the fact this is necessary is kind of indicative that this is not a seperately notable rivalry).
So yes, there has been an attempt to artificially create a rivalry, yes the teams have played a few times since it was created three years ago and yes it might some day receive the level of coverage of similar derbies such as the Cascadia Cup, but at the moment, outside of references to the name and articles on the involved clubs' own websites, there is no significant reliable coverage of the Derby as a specific rivalry outside of match reporting that would exist whether this rivalry did or not. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 5 March 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, JodyB talk 22:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know much about soccer, but there do seem to be enough sources to establish the Rust Belt Derby as notable. Adding to the sources above are this and this.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naznin Akter Happy[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable WP:ACTORBIO and possible WP:VICTIM (or the instigator), falling under WP:TOOSOON. If kept would need major overhaul for English wiki. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional setting of Simoun[edit]

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

This does not appear to be Notable outside of the in universe series. I will also add that this goes against WP:NOTPLOT as nothing has been found reception-wise. I would have no problem if someone wanted to place this on wikia or userfy until or if some outside notability can be found. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: tagged for copy-violation Rambling fancruft and original research. Pax 09:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text here has almost certainly been copied from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Upon review, the article does precede the 2008 archive. I'll revert my speedy tag (...and it appears I won't have to do that, because I never got around to clicking "save" in that tab anyway. Well, carry on, then). Pax 11:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I have NO idea what I just read. And it does seem to be written to where you have no clue what this is either. Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even a merge (since it's too in-universe). Simply unsourced fancruft that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt to establish notability or establish any value to the content. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What ^they said. The page reads like something you would find in a wikia article. —KirtZMessage 21:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Antonio[edit]

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

Advert from shill for non notable musician. There is a lack of coverage Antonio in independent reliable sources. No reviews, charting, awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 March 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, Esquivalience t 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_19&oldid=1142223579"