Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 April	14 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-garde architecture

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

Article that I'm not sure what to make of it-its basically a list of articles saying see this-not a list really or a DAB either. Wgolf (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No doubt an article could be written on the subject, but this is just a disjointed grab bag of links and nothing else. Looks better now. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-looks like a COI as the creator also made Patrik Schumacher and Parametricism which the 2nd one of the contributors has the same name as Patrik Schumacher. wanted to point that out really quick. Wgolf (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems easy to develop and expand from sources such as the Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture. I have made a start per our editing policy. Deletion would disrupt such work. See also WP:CONCEPTDAB, which provides a sensible framework for a broad summary which is appropriate here. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrew Davidson.--Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has improved compared to the beginning. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 20 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Starr

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

No reliable, independent sources, and Google didn't turn up any. Fails the notability guideline for authors. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for non-notable author. Can't find any evidence of substantial coverage except social media/goodreads/Amazon, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took a shot at sourcing this article. I failed. She has written 3 childrens's chapter books, but I Can find no coverage more significant than a write-up at Campus Crusade for Christ, the org. she works for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hopes and prayers do not always get answered. This is a run of the mill writer. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per other comments —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete clearly not a notable author. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- unless expanded to show she has done something else. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, aside from that one link, she has not received any news or equivalent attention. Google News was not helpful at all and a browser search found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks independent sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:49, 20 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ogdin

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

There's no real indication of notability in the article as it stands (much abbreviated because of copyright problems). He seems to get some hits on G-books. Are they enough for this page to be kept? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete it appears he has a lot of official credits for being part of many a recording team; and may have quite a bit of "cred" in the business with people tossing of the compliment "session king", but what he doesnt have is significant coverage nor any evidence of meeting the WP:MUSICBIO which are the requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW -- many thanks to User:Bosstopher for rewriting the article so it's no longer just a rant. Closing without prejudice to a possible merge. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Discrimination On Wikipedia

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

This is a classic opinion essay, see WP:NOR. It's poorly written, and largely duplicative of Criticism of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article is still in its infant stages. I believe that once other contributions are made it will be a strong stand alone article in the same manner as Gender bias on Wikipedia which is linked to Criticism of Wikipedia CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with CrazyAces489. Remove sections that aren't written in the WP:NPOV, and it will be on its way to being a well written article. Also, a merge with Criticism of Wikipedia may be necessary. --ABCDEFAD (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia, most of this article is POV, and is therefore just a worse version of Criticism of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I've WP:TNTd the article and rewrote the whole thing from scratch, due to the previous version being chock full of irrelevant information and BLP violations. I'm fairly certain the article as it stands meets GNG, but it should probably be renamed something like "Racial bias in Wikipedia" Bosstopher (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Racial bias on Wikipedia. Seems to be enough coverage by RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both (racial bias and gender bias) to Criticism of Wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉ 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Padenton, these articles can be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia, there does not need to be a separate article for every issue on Wikipedia. (I can only imagine the number of ads the WMF would have to run to upgrade the servers to handle it). Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of wikipedia article is ridiculously long. The last thing we should do is bloat it with even more information. Articles on specific issues are necessary. Bosstopher (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia - Admittingly Criticism of Wikipedia is long but personally I don't think we need articles on every detail here so why not shove it there instead. –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia - this article is not so large that it can't be merged, and let's be honest; half of what's there right now doesn't actually belong there, or at the very least, would be inappropriate for the Criticism article. There aren't so many reliable sources saying that Wikipedia has a racial bias that a separate article must be had. Also, having only one source backing up some pretty hefty claims is not a good way to go about things. As a minimum, this article needs to be renamed to Racial bias on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the article Racial bias on Wikipedia as suggested by two users. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. I believe there were WP:POINTy motives in starting the article, but regardless, it's a topic better served on the criticism article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eh. The rewritten version is an improvement. If we're going to have a gender bias article, I guess we might as well have a racial bias article, too. They both seem to be well-sourced and notable enough to survive at AfD. If people want to start up merge discussions on the appropriate talk pages, maybe they could get consensus there. I don't think we need one monstrous Criticism article. These are valid spinoffs in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge Not only is Criticism of Wikipedia a far too bloated article, this article covers more than just criticism. It provides theories that explain racial discrepancies and ways of tackling racial discrepancies. This isnt just a straight forward criticism article and neither is the criticism article.Bosstopher (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia per Lukeno94 above. It was initially more or less a repost of Discrimination on Wikipedia, a rant about Wikipedia in general, which I nominated for speedy deletion A10, and User:NawlinWiki deleted. User:Bosstopher's complete re-write is vastly better than the first draft, but it now pretty much says all that need be said on the subject, in three paragraphs. Per User:Niteshift36 above, there seem to be WP:POINTy motives in starting the article: four days ago the article's creator nominated Crispus Attucks for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crispus Attucks. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am unsure of Pointy Motives. I actually think a lot of different articles are noteworthy. WP's guidelines were telling me he isn't as little is known about him and he is known for a single purpose. Possibly could have been merged into Boston Massacre. This article actually had a ton of sources including Forbes, Whitehouse.gov, and the NY Times. Which proved notability. There was also an article on Gender Bias on Wikipedia. This showed me that this was a possible good stand alone topic. I was surprised that such a huge site as wikipedia with so many editors didn't already have this article on it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neutrally written and well sourced article. I see no problem in having a separate article on every issue on Wikipedia, as long as those issues pass WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by FreeRangeFrog. –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Badmash

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

Non notable film with no refs or info. Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On its own, I don't know that this article necessarily qualifies for deletion. The article appears to have been created based on an exhaustive but non-informative database published by Pakistan Film Magazine (see [1]). Print media from the era might give more information. However, given the author's creation history, and inclusion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj, it might be better to wait until that case is settled and (as is likely) all socks' contributions are deleted en masse. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 13 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YUMee

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

Stub sourced only to the network (the first link doesn't even work). Tagged as unsourced for more than eight years. The person named is not notable. "YUMee Aoileann Garavaglia" returns nothing. Greykit (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep because this page makes me hungry ;) okay really-deleteper nom. Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Highly doubt it even exists. Even if it does exist, there are many other obscure TV shows. Also it is poorly sourced--ABCDEFAD (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage of any kind. ww2censor (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to even help improve the current state. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 20 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G M A G Osmani Hall

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

non notable student dormitory Rahat (Message) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all attempts to find notability of these dorms came up with information on the university. Not notable, information could be useful to someone maybe make a WIkia wiki about your school (every college could use a wikia why not) but not encyclopedic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--this isn't just not notable, it's also basically spam for the university. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for separate article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnremarkable building. No content worth merging into university article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, per above. I'm not sure why this article was even created! শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২^{Bengali new year} | nafSadh did say 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:11, 17 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Course Of Action

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

They don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have a article on Wikibands.Wikia which is more appropriate for the band given their current notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources about the subject exist, making establishing notability impossible. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent references and fails WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not enough to improve the article, Google News searches found a press release while a browser found an interview and another press release. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 20 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Payshares

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

No evidence that this open-source platform has received any substantial, independent coverage to support its notability. Current sources in the article appear to be documentation of its systems and explanations of its services. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, 100% pure unmitigated spam as admitted by the spammer on Talk:Stellar (payment network). –Be..anyone (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts and developer's pages, but no significant RS coverage of this software. As above, clear promotion/spam.Dialectric (talk) 17:13, 17 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Robot Army

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

Non-notable band, doesn't meet WP:BAND, tagged for notability since 2008. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-per nom. Though that name of the band, lol! Wgolf (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band misses the mark for notability but that doesn't mean this information has no where to go. I would recommend making a entry on Discogs.com, great website for bands. Best of luck to the group but as far as notability on an encyclapedic level? not today Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well like Wgolf I was expecting this .... Well I'm disappoint!, Anyway back on topic I can't find anything on the band unfortunately so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dang if that was what it was I say strong keep lol. But yep nothing to really say. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing of improvement aside from one of the links listed here. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 20 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner filmography

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

Another alleged kpop group filmography that is actually a list of individuals' activities. The three music videos and one TV show that the group starred in (the latter being the in which the band was created) can easily fit in the group's article. No need for a standalone filmography article for a music group, especially a new one like this. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed all content that doesn't belong in a group filmography, and you can see how much now remains. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete two credits hardly needs its own page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search comes up lacking for notability criteria. This could be some great content on Wikia for someone, but not encyclopedic.Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any group shows can easily fit on the band's article. Random86 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've restored the content as I find it utterly moronic to simply AFD something and then wipe it all after ..... Why bother wiping it ?, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant shows can easily be fit on the main page. Peachywink (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence of notability to have a separate page. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:29, 14 April 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beast filmography

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

This purports to be the filmography of the music group Beast, but is actually a set of filmographies of the group's members, all of whom have their own page and whose information belongs there. Additionally, the one-off reality show appearances have no place on Wikipedia, as per previous consensus. Also, all the references on this page come from unreliable sources and many are copyright violations. A music group really doesn't need a standalone filmography. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed all content that doesn't belong in a group filmography, and you can see how much now remains. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015‎(UTC)

Merge with Beast (South Korean band) 5 credits is hardly a reason to give a filmography it's own page. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list of the group's shows is short and will fit on the band article. Random86 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ Lady Lotus & Random86: To be fair, there WAS more content at the time of nomination. Others may click the link to determine if any belong elsewhere, or nowhere at all. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of that, but I agree with the removal. It was mostly non-group credits and reality/variety show guest appearances. Random86 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree or no, it is unfair to a reasonable discussion to declare content non-notable and then preemptively remove it BEFORE THE DISCUSSION CLOSES without allowing others to judge for themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what? I've already been reamed for it, even though the instructions are unclear so you can just freaking drop it now. I did it in good faith because I thought it was right, and you wanna keep harping on it? That shit just runs people off. Change the freaking wording of the AFD instructions to say "don't change a damn thing" if you don't want this to happen again because right now it says to improve pages after they're AFD'd. I will quit this place if I have to listen to one more asshat talk about what a piece of shit I am for doing what needed to be done. If I hadn't AFD'd the hideous mess, I would have removed the info anyway. What's the difference when it happens? You know what, forget this. I'm out. I'm sick of every single tiny thing being a huge battle, I'm sick of working tirelessly on articles I actually don't care about, I'm tired of spinning my wheels trying to fix what's broke just to have someone else create 20 new crap promo articles in the time it takes me to merge, fix, or AFD one. And I do it just to try to clean up the promotional monstrosity that is "kpop on Wikipedia". I've had hate pages made about me, I've been stalked on and off this site, I've been called a racist, I've been threatened, I've had to continually stick my neck out and take the hate because there aren't enough others willing to do it. So you can take your technicalities and your high-horse attitude and run them all over this place because I ain't gonna be around to see it. Have fun. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - MichaelQSchmidt, Shinyang-i's edits were made in good faith, and I hope you understand that. Shinyang-i, I hope you come back soon because you are needed here. Random86 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Shinyang-i - Sorry to be somewhat unhelpful here but being a WP:DIVA really doesn't help your case here, MQS was simply stating his opinion - You screwed up and you've admitted that so stop being a WP:DIVA and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 08:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've restored the content as I find it utterly moronic to simply AFD something and then wipe it all after ..... Why bother wiping it ?, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Davey2010, probably violates WP:IINFO as well. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for this to be a filmography for Beast, I'd expect to see items which had a majority of the members of Beast in them (i.e. 4 members); the most members in any of these films is 2, which is pushing it to be described as a 'Beast' film. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:55, 23 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T-ara filmography

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

Another group filmography which is actually mostly a filmography and reality show guest appearance listing for the group's members. Each member has her own article, and her acting roles belong there. The one-off reality show appearances belong nowhere, per repeated previous consensus. The only thing that belongs on this article is the little list of reality shows in which the group starred, and it can easily fit in a filmography section within the group's article. No need for a standalone filmography for a singing group. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed all content that doesn't belong in the article. It is now empty. The list of reality series was already present at T-ara videography. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No content. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The members all have articles and the group's shows are listed elsewhere. This article serves no purpose. Random86 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: removing all content to make something worthless is a dis-service to any who might wish to make a proper determination. @ Lady Lotus & Random86: HERE's what was removed AFTER nomination. Others may now decide if there is removed content that is not elsewhere. 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of that. To reiterate, the band's shows are listed elsewhere, and individual members' credits shouldn't be on a group filmography. Random86 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  - No reason to re-state your comment from above. It is unfair to a reasonable discussion for a nom to declare content non-notable and preemptively remove it BEFORE the discussion closes and without allowing others to judge it for themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've restored the content as I find it utterly moronic to simply AFD something and then wipe it all after ..... Why bother wiping it ?, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Pariente

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

I know there was a previous deletion discussion about this fighter and the result was to keep. However, I believe the reason why it was kept was based on wrong findings. In the previous debate comments the reason for the article to stay was that it had reliable sources talking about Ido Pariente, thus making him notable for an article. This does not seem the case on a deeper inspection of each reference. Gonnym (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 27 references in the article:

19 references are not relevant:

2 (#8 and #11) are QA with him which do not count as a reliable source.
3 (#5, #13 and #25) are broken links.
9 (#2, #9, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18 and #19) mention his name in the context of the fight between Jake Shields and him. Jake Shields being the reason the news article was even created. One reference (#9) is even this quote:

Question: You are fighting a guy, Ido Pariente. What do you know about him? Shields: I do not know too much. He is a brown belt in Jiu-Jitsu. He supposedly has got pretty good Muay Thai (skills). I have only gotten one fight of his, but he was pretty good. I think he is someone I should beat, but it is hard to tell. He is pretty much an unknown because of only having one fight and coming from Israel. It is hard to know too much about the guy.

3 (#22, #23, #24) mention his name in the context of the fight between Efrain Escudero and him. Efrain Escudero being the reason the news article was even created (they are just recaps of the fight).
#20 is a reference from The Jerusalem Post with no link so I can't verify.
#10 is about him giving a seminar and mentions his awards, however, the wording is very similar to the one used in Wikipedia (which itself is ONLY based on his answers in refs #8 and #11), the article seems more like a fluff/press article and not a news one.

4 seem relevant but aren't:

#1 is a reference from ynet which is this line: "Ido Pariente, 33, a fighter and trainer, says MMA demands "strength, athleticism, flexibility and more balance than in any other sport." - this reference is a joke.
#4 is a local newspaper reporting on a fight between a "Johnston City native" Josh Hewlett and Ido Pariente. The interview is with Hewlett and his trainer, with Pariente's name only mentioned once the whole article.
#6 is a list of of weekend fight results, most of the fighters here do not have an article as they aren't notable.
#27 is a record of his fights which include only 3 fights (and is used to reference a win not even mentioned in this list).

So after all these non-relevant references we end up with 3 references that are slightly about him:

#21 is about a local tournament in Israel with 6 matches which he won and kept his title (important to note: Wikipedia:MMANOT does not count this tournament notable)
#26 is about him winning against Joshua Hewletta.
#7 is about a match between him and Travis Adams with 3/4 of the paragraph talking about his previous fights vs Jake Shields and Efrain Escudero (which again, are the only reason it was mentioned).

Considering the reason Ido Pariente's article was created was based on his fighting accomplishments, which they them-self aren't notable as per Wikipedia:MMANOT, and most of the references on his article page have no value being on there, it seems this person is not notable enough for his own article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per the speedy keep in the prior AfD nomination. And the fact that links that worked at the time of the prior AfD are now broken is -- of course -- not reason to not count them now. And of course the fact that he attracted GNG coverage because of his fight with Shields counts towards GNG -- any other conclusion, which nom seems to have, is not based on how WP works.

Clearly meets GNG. Poor nomination, which doesn't even mention that the prior keep was a speedy.

He only has to meet GNG, which he does -- not MMA-specific supplementary criteria, which are secondary (and MMANOT is not even that! It is an essay. The view of one or more editors -- that's all -- just like any individual comment here ... as opposed to the guideline GNG). Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might not have mentioned the words "speedy keep" but i mentioned WHY it was kept. I went over each link (and can even post you the exact words from each web site if you really want to see what was said) and shown that the references used here for the speedy keep, have no "meat" in them. Its just a name drop in an news item about someone else. The fact that Jake Shields or Efrain Escudero are notable and reporting their fight is newsworthy, doesnt automatically make their opponent become notable. Addressing a guide without addressing this specific issue I'm raising about the relevance of such links is just missing the point. And again, regarding the meta issue, if he's titles aren't notable, then what is this article about? some fighter that has a few (very few) news item about him? I've seen articles about journalists and film crew get deleted with them being much more relevant--Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also, regarding WP:GNG:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material - there is not significant coverage, and most of the 27 references on his article are very trivial mentions.
Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - Some of the sources are Questions and Answers with him, not a reliable source. Also, the ONLY source for his titles comes from those 2 QA sources.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. - One of the sources linked seems very much as an advertising/press releases.

This does not seem like an article meeting a speedy keep at all, and in my opinion, not even a keep. --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, your analysis is flawed. Not just your over-emphasis of an essay.

But your failure to understand that it is GNG that is the key here. And your mistaken belief that significant independent RS coverage of his most notable fight does not count towards GNG, and has "no meat". And the other points I make above. And your continued misunderstanding that he has not meet non-GNG criteria of "famous titles". That's of course flatly incorrect -- at the core of your nomination.

He just has to meet GNG. If he has GNG coverage for winning his kindergarten titles, that would satisfy GNG. There's absolutely nothing in GNG to support your mistaken view. And just the opposite -- even when an athlete meets a sport-specific notability guideline criterion, it is only a presumption as a result that the person meets GNG. Because at the end of the day, it is GNG that is key.

I'm not sure why you are leaving such long posts about irrelevant aspects -- I would suggest that you stick to the relevant points. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.--the nom in the prior nomination, which was closed a speedy keep, was blocked indefinitely as a sock/puppet. Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NMMA LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentActually he does not meet WP:NMMA. The fights in his table in article page aren't the ones listed on the list you are referring to.--Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes WP:MMANOT is an essay but it reflects WP:NMMA which is a guideline and which he does not meet. Should also mention that fighting someone notable at some point does not confer notability either (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is important where they were fought. The question raised is does he meet WP:GNG - I will think about this a bit before I vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essays, though they confusingly (to some) start with WP just as guidelines do, are simply a view of one or more editors or collection of editors -- nothing more, and may not reflect the consensus of the project.

As to WP:NNMA, it has to be read in context. At the top of the page it states: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The entire purpose is -- as made clear -- to determine if the athlete meets GNG. That is the dog -- the sport-specific guideline is the tail, and does not wag the dog. Where an athlete meets GNG -- that is what is important. It matters not a whit whether he met it while he also would have met a sport-specific guideline. The nom has it backwards. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think these sources are enough to show he meets GNG. What I see are fight announcements and results, which any fighter would have but these are routine sports coverage. The short interview with the Eastern Europe BJJ might count as significant coverage, but otherwise I'm not seeing supporting evidence of notability. He has no top tier MMA fights so he definitely fails WP:NMMA and I could find no coverage of him winning a pankration world championship even though I searched news media and several major pankration organization websites.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Gonnym, Where do you find that that citations "(#8 and #11) are QA with him which do not count as a reliable source"? When publications give space and correspondent's time to interview an individual (Q & A), it certainly counts towards notability. In fact, published solo interviews constitute notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not check if the websites having the QA with him are notable, but what I meant, and sorry for not being clear on this, is that the ONLY source for him winning anything comes from answers he himself gave. There are no secondary sources to verify this, making it not a reliable source for this specific information. In addition, the ONLY reason he has an article is because he is a martial arts fighter who won some awards, and those awards are based on his words only with no outside sources.--Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is extensive,there are two interviews (sources 8 and 11) in fighting magazines, and the brief interview with Eastern Europe BJJ. There are descriptions of many of his fights in bluelinked publications, like this one [2] from Sherdog. Some coverage is driven by the fact taht there are not many Israeli professional fighters, it seems surprising to fight fans, so it gets covered. As in this 2014 article [3] that brings Pariente in to make the point that Israeli prizefighters are unusual. Coverage, however motivated, is ongoing and extensive, which is why this passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I pointed above, the only reason the two QA interviews are used is to verify the awards he has, which is only verified by him saying he has them. On a somewhat related note, both websites, bjjee.com and Fighters.com, do not have a Wikipedia article on them. Is that because they are not notable enough for an artilce or just because no one created one? I do not know, but if its because they aren't notable then as a source they have even less relevance.--Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be reliable and not have a WP article on it. That's not saying these sources are reliable, simply that having a WP page isn't a valid indicator one way or the other. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this [4] - this again fails WP:GNG as the article is about Noad Lahaht and his achievements are the main coverage of the article, and Ido Pariente being there is NOT a "Significant coverage" but a very much trivial mention of him "also being Israeli" and because he lost to notable fighter Efrain Escudero (which does not automatically make him notable WP:NOTINHERITED). --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. A topic being sourced per WP:V need never be the sole topic being discussed within the source. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to discount interviews from MMA websites that stem from him competing at TUF (where he lost his elimination fight and didn't even get to the team selection stage) because that's the UFC promotional machinery at work. I am surprised to see all those sources listed but such a dearth of clearly significant coverage. I'm not voting yet, I'm waiting to see if someone can point out several sources of significant coverage from reliable sources that aren't routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to some non-routine coverage from a general circulation, national daily [5] cite on page omits url. Links on page to YNET and Haaretz are also not routine sports coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these show significant, non-routine coverage. The first is a detailed description of the fights at an Israeli MMA event--much like you could find on any baseball game (routine sports reporting). The YNET source says Pariente is "a fighter and trainer" and quotes him as saying MMA "is a serious sport" (not significant) and the Haaretz article mentions him once "Ido Pariente won in just over two minutes" in an article covering an MMA event (routine sports reporting and not significant).Mdtemp (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read them differently. for example this one from the Jerusalem Post, that you characterize as: " a detailed description of the fights at an Israeli MMA event--much like you could find on any baseball game (routine sports reporting)" Is clearly an article introducing a new sport to the country/readership, subtitled "Mixed Martial Arts is doing a smashing job of becoming a new Israeli sport. We joined the fans in TA. " It does just that, here is the section where Pariente is introduced: "Ido Pariente, one of the brightest stars in Israeli MMA, has struggled to make his way in the sport. He takes as many fights as he can overseas, where purses are higher than they are here and where exposure at one event can lead to an invitation to another. "Every fight I get to do abroad is half conniving, half begging," Pariente says in Tel Aviv ahead of the Desert Combat 5 event. "It's a way of developing the sport here, too. The younger fighters who are coming up now and starting to get their chance, I opened the door for them." Pariente, 30, pays the bills by training some 70-80 students, overseeing a handful of clubs. Like the rest of the local mixed martial artists, he knows that if big money comes at all, it will come to the next generation of fighters."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Jerusalem Post article does provide an indicator of notability. He is mentioned enough in the article even though the main thrust is the introduction of MMA. Is it enough for WP:GNG maybe.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This interview [6] is also persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Less so IMHO - although not to be entirely discounted.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there's an attempt to pile on sources, they don't seem to show significant independent coverage. Passing mentions and routine sports reporting do not show he meets WP:GNG and he doesn't meet any other notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing, bad-mouthing evidently without reading recently added material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IPs can be ignored by a closer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - anon IPs comments are perfectly valid.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anon IPs may comment, but WP:AFD tells us "unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." So yes, anon IPs may be discounted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this IP has 700-800 edits going back several years so he's not new. Based on your quote, his vote can only be discounted if it's in "bad faith". Is that what you're claiming? I don't think his vote will make a difference, I'm just trying to clarify policy with an administrator. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP, editing not from their personal computer but rather from a college computer, certainly has what appears to me to be an unusual editing history, if you look through it. First - they are not editing from their home computer, but from a Howard College computer. Second - after not editing for months, they make 27 AfD !votes in rapid-fire sequence. I have no idea whether they are trying to "hide" the !vote they are really interested in, in a bevy of !votes. But they did the precise some thing with their prior edits --a bunch in one day in March, and a bunch in one day in February. Third - the IP sometimes took as little as 1 minute between !votes. Fourth - the nom in the previous AfD has been blocked indefinitely as a sock or puppet. Fifth - the MMA AfDs have had a history of troublesome sockpuppetry, with the socks !voting delete; some of the sock history in MMA AfDs is reflected here, but it goes further.Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any IP coming from Howard Community College in Maryland involved with AfD and MMA is almost certainly the same individual getting around a sock block and/or stacking !votes. There is a long history. -- GreenC 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly part of the difficulty in this discussion is that sporting editors are viewing this primarily according to WP:NMMA, while those of us who edit in other areas (I personally more often do academics, artists, writers) see the coverage generated in by the Israeli angle (hey - Israel has a MMA contender!) in places that don't usually cover MMA/Martial arts (Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz) see it as passing WP:GNG. I should point out that this sort of thing (a national press covering a pianist or tennis player who wins a few matches but makes a very slight ripple in international professional circles) often happens in the ethnic press and in small countries. But these articles combine to satisfy GNG. See, for example, Nasreen Qadri, who may, for all I know, be a fine singer, but who surely would not have enough to pass notability without the write-ups generated by the unusual juxtaposition of ethnicity and art form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See, also, RS GNG coverage in Hebrew. Such as here, here, here, and here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep my computer's security settings fairly high so I can't access all of these, but they appear to be from his club or a brief rundown of one of his fights--which I would say falls under routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might try changing your settings to look at the RS sourcing. I'm unclear how you can comment on what you do not see -- which of the four articles do you not see? All of them?

These are not from his club -- these are, rather, substantial RS reporting from independent sources of his athletic performances -- exactly the sort of substantial RS reporting of athletic performances that satisfy GNG. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. WP:NRVE is established and by meeting WP:GNG he meets WP:BASIC (which tells us that SNGs do not have to be met if the GNG is). Time to close as a sound keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. While editors are encouraged to look toward Subject-specific Notability Guideliness when the primary notability guideline is failed, when the primary notability guideline is NOT failed, we need not look to various SNGs to decide that the primary notability guideline can be ignored and decide, contrary to the instruction of the primary notability guideline, that established notability does not exist. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG. What was brought to AFD a decent article that is well-sourced, informative to readers, and which serves the project. Non-English coverage is perfectly fine. The nominator also failed to tell us he did not meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CREATIVE... other inappropriate SNGs that do not over-rule GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is just silly. Mentioning all SNGs that are unrelated to the subject serves no purpose. His main claim to fame is as a mixed martial artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but the point was that this whole repeat AFD for this Israeli personality is "silly". No matter a feeling "his main claim to fame" is MMA, his notability is found through meeting WP:GNG, and meeting the primary inclusion criteria is not diminished by an insistence he does not meet an SNG. The missed point is that multiple less-than-substantial sources are fine, and the SNGs do not over-rule the governing GNG. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if most of the claimed dubious rerferences are, the remain a sufficient number of valid refs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think E.M. Gregory nailed it when he commented on how people who edit sports articles may see things different. Nobody is disputing the GNG trumps all SNG. The issue appears to be what constitutes "significant coverage". Reports on his fights are no more indicative of notability than the usual write-ups of a minor league baseball game (chosen because he was competing in the MMA minor leagues). For example, pre and post-game interviews would not be considered significant coverage for a baseball minor leaguer nor would announcements that a player will be playing in an upcoming game. While I haven't voted in this discussion, I did want to point out why the decision might not be as clear cut as some are claiming. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even just looking solely at the four Hebrew RS refs above, we see substantial RS coverage of him that meets GNG. And, by the way, minor league baseball players that receive GNG coverage are notable as well -- as has been demonstrated in many AfDs. Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But not for appearing in boxscores or game write-ups. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For substantial RS coverage of their participation in their sport. At the below-major-league level. As with hundreds of minor league baseball players you can find in Category:Minor league baseball players. Similar to what we have in even just the four articles in Hebrew I mention above, which should have come up in nom's wp:before search. Plus -- Papa -- you say above you "can't access all of the Hebrew articles." Well, then how are you opining on what you can't access? Obtain access if you like, and comment on them. You can't dismiss RS articles, with multiple paragraphs discussing the subject, that you haven't even read, on a guess as to what the articles contain.

Plus look at the substantial 40-sentences coverage of him in this feature article in The Jerusalem Post - far more than a trivial passing mention, or one-sentence "Pariente won" result that counts as trivial mention. Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding is that there is no general statement about whether SNGs are in addition to the requirements of the GNG, or a possible alternative to it. WP:PRO, for example is explicitly an alternative. I was of the impression that the sports guidelines were specifically a limitation, but I work very little in this field and I see that the current wording at NSPORTS says exactly the opposite. Personally , I think we certainly have the ability to decide there should be additional requirements, and I think the reason we need to use this right is to limit the drastic overcoverage in fields where there is extensive publicity. Whether this is one of them needs to be left to the entire community: a subject group can suggest rules, but I think current practice is that the community as a whole has to decide whether to follow them. In any case,I think we cerrtainly have the right to decide by consensus whether this person is actually notable or not, if necessary under IAR, but this use of IAR shouldn't really be necessary because WP:N explictly says it does not apply to all situations, and leaves us to decide whether or not to use it .

One way we decide this has been to interpret the requirement for RSs more or less strictly, especially the key phrases substantial coverage, and independent . We have consistently held, for example, that local book reviews are not sufficiently discriminating to be reliable for notability purposes, nor --in any subject--articles in student newspapers. We would I think do much better better to have explicit requirements in many subjects , and I regret very much that this seems not to be the current trend here, and hope that trend changes. As this is not my field, I have no view on this particular article, and its sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I read the 4 articles form the Isreali (Hebrew) press mentioned above, they have a tone, similar to the Haaretz and Jerusalem Post articles also mentioned above, but easy to access (new sport comes to Israel, details of the matches in which the "Hebrew Hammer" Pariente fought, short discussions of Pariente's career, some have unremarkable quotes from him) I even clicked his name into a news search and read (on google translate) a few very similar articles in Romanian (new sport comes to Romania! Romanians fighters fight matches against famous international champions!, a Romanian matched against famous Israeli Fighter the Hebrew hammer Pariente) google translate is always good for chuckles, but easy to get the general drift of the brief ~~hype~~, er, coverage.

My point is that this is a glass is half empty/glass is half full kind of argument. We are unlikely to agree. maybe it will look differently in a year or two but for now, I suggest that an editor close it as no consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided needs more work to Improve Chunlinc (talk) 16:45, 25 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Lederman

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

Article makes some bold claims that aren't sourced. Googling only produced self-published material. I suspect it is an auto-biography because the user who wrote also uploaded the image, which the subject uses as a publicity shot. -- haminoon (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little more googling has revealed him to be much more notable than the article previously revealed. -- haminoon (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the jumble of deletion tags (the article had G7 and BLP-PROD tags in addition to AfD), and I've been working on this article for a while. I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC; his publications are few, old, and not widely cited. However, he may be WP:GNG notable, or rather notorious. Virtually all of his publicity is bad. He has gotten a ton of press coverage over legal issues, including a highly-publicized lawsuit from the widow of George Harrison, and a federal lawsuit alleging Medicare fraud. It appears that his treatment methods have been controversial, although I couldn't find significant Reliable Source criticism of his methods. And there are hints that he was forced out at SIUH, but again no confirmation. I could find almost no biographical information. Overall I would say Delete. I think there would be a BLP risk if we write an honest article, and a charge of whitewashing if we leave out all the bad stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep The legal issues and the privacy issues were very well publicized and it should be possible to find more references. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as a physician per the usual criteria (being a leader in the field). MelanieN's comments about whitewashing vs BLP risk seem important. BakerStMD T|C 18:53, 27 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 // 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Haminoon, have you found enough information for him to be notable according to the rules? Do you still think the entr should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its borderline. I'd rather leave it to more experienced editors than myself to decide. -- haminoon (talk) 12:32, 2 April 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, Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primarily negative information; tho it's more than one event, none of them are of encyclopedic importance. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 23 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minigames of Five Nights at Freddy's

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

The article does not meet general notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources. It is entirely composed of original research, and is written like a game guide. Wani (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be removed because I worked very hard on this article and I dedicated about 3 hours of my own life to this. I just want to help. I'll edit it and make it better, just please don't delete it.

There are other outlets to publish game guides, such as game wikis or wikias, your own website, etc. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a repository of all conceivable information. Articles must meet notability guidelines, and avoid what Wikipedia is not. Some content here might be incorporated into the main article, but effort does not count in discussions, policies and guidelines do. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and not meeting WP:LISTN. following up on my previous comment, very little, if any of this content belongs in the main article, and should simply be succinctly summarized. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gameguides are outside the scope of what we cover, but you can take it to another wiki. The minigames do not have independent coverage from outside sources. (?) Not worthwhile to redirect to the game. czar ⨹ 22:18, 14 April 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 close. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abduction (The Outer Limits)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. It's essentially just a plot summary and there's no sources that suggest that this episode of the show is particularly notable for any independent reason. Tagged for notability since 2008. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Given the recommendations in WP:Episode, it would be more appropriate to merge this article with the existing List of The Outer Limits (1995 TV series) episodes.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Košátko

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

This reads like an advertisement with not enough references to back up the claims. The notability is definately in question. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no supporting evidence that he has competed at any ITF world championships as an adult, much less won medals. I checked the records at taekowndodata.com, the ITF website, and the European federation website. I didn't check for junior events since they don't show notability. It's possible that he won some minor organization's titles, but there's no sources for that either. The article doesn't give any sources for any of the titles claimed and fails to show he meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – there are two sources which state he won international medals, one of which was at the article before this AfD was opened. C 679 20:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that but the article itself points out that it is not the WTF which holds the Taekwando World Championships or the Olympics - I don't think the ITF (whichever branch) has the same level of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Prague article talks about his winning a world championship in Australia in 2005, but the ITF's adult world championships that year were in Dortmund, Germany. I keep getting a 404 error when I clicked on the link to the pdf file for the 2007 ITF championships, but I don't see his name at the ITF's listing of results[7] for that year. I'm also confused by the fact that the ITF's world championships (junior and senior) were in Quebec that year[8] and the link says the results were from Bled. Papaursa (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be any evidence of him winning an adult ITF title. I also didn't find anything to show any notable accomplishments with the WTF, which is the major TKD organization since they run the major world championships and Olympic events. Any success at junior ITF events would be irrelevant for this discussion since junior martial arts events have never been considered sufficient to show notability. The coverage doesn't qualify as significant enough to meet WP:GNG since one of the article's sources gives him a one line mention and the other (which I can't access) apparently is just a list of results. Papaursa (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is complicated somewhat since, as I understand it, ITF has fragmented into three different versions with the same name.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case any ITF title has even less significance in showing notability and there's still a lack of significant coverage. It definitely makes the WTF the 800 pound gorilla among taekwando organizations and events. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's questionable that he meets the notability criteria for martial artists, but it's definite he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Appearing in a list of results and a passing mention is not enough to show significant coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 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:G10 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Khiabani

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

weak WP:RS to say the least. I have WP:BLP concerns about the low quality sourcing and the one unverified telegraph report that mentions him (apparently they stated they had no verification of the story). I searched the web and I found almost nothing about this person. The biography in my opinion is coming over as a weakly verified attack about a living person. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The telegraph article doesn't even appear to have a mention of him or his company - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542559/Iraqi-insurgents-using-Austrian-rifles-from-Iran.html - Also please note that one of the two creators and spa accounts that have created this biography is replacing unsupported personal claims about the subject of bio after I removed it as without a WP:RS. Looking over this users contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Remot_sam in my opinion there is an element of a competence issue or attack page creation in the contributions to this article. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G10. GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 15 April 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civic data science

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delte Nor I. Vague discussion of a vague concept. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a possible synonym for urban informatics, a notable field for which we have no article. The term itself does not seen to have wide use--no GScholar hits at all. But I don't think this article is of high enough quality that it would merit a move to urban informatics, nor does it merit a redirect to community informatics. I'm left with delete. --Mark viking (talk) 05:09, 16 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad science methods

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

This article is very unbalanced, and we don't really need an article with this title, given that we have other and better articles that cover essentially the same ground, notably scientific misconduct. This article as written cherry-picks every possible criticism of scientific methodology, mostly using primary sources, without any attempt at context. A redirect to bad science (a DAB page) would also be a viable solution. Note that the problems with this article have been discussed on its talk page and at WT:MED#Bad science methods. Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per OP. The article is rant that presents problems that are very real, but completely out of context. The most negative views that can be found in the literature are cherrypicked for inclusion in violation of WP:NPOV. While one could argue for attempting to edit this into some semblance of a reasonable article, I don't see it as salvagable, as "what is good is not new, and what is new is not good". Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Method of Science was an exhibition sometimes in 70s that gained lots of name, fame and controversy in India (described in this book). This article is nothing but reverse of that. Instead - an article named "Method in Science" or "Method of Science" could be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educationtemple (talk • contribs)
Delete This article is interesting and derives from at least one good secondary source, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. However, Goldacre's book, like this article, is advocacy. The articles deserves to be read on a website such as medium.com or quora.com (if they will have it). But I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia, as I don't think there is a neutral way to write an article with this title. It will always tackle such a range of diverse topics, essentially from one angle. Publication bias for example, is vastly different from say scientific misconduct, and each deserves the full article it has to attempt to give it honest and fair treatment. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unbalanced and malformed title: the article bad science is a DAB page and the term bad science methods is not used. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Better covered elsewhere already, poorly formed title, unbalanced. Most sources don't discuss "bad science methods" as a subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just not written like an encyclopedia article, it's more like a journalistic expose. I've copied the content into a word document because the basic idea is great and I think valid. I intend to search the encyclopedia to see if its content can be inserted into already existing articles with the same idea. I hate to see so much effort go to waste with all the research done to compile the references and other information.

Bfpage |leave a message 22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice effort, but I don't think it belongs here. It is almost like a how to, and I think WP:NOTGUIDE applies. The list is potentially endless, a better article would be about correct scientific technique. I am somewhat reminded of the barometer question, something that sounds bad could be good, and vice versa. Martin451 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average usage billing

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: Thingg, Victor Lopes. Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I worked on this article, like, so long ago... it is far from my areas of interest, but, well, it lacks sources and has never grown beyond a stub, an nobody ever worked on its issues, so I guess it hasn't got much future. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a sentence or two into Burstable billing and redirect there. You can source to [9], and the target article already mentions the concept. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks reliable sources, issue of WP:V. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 21 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V. Balakrishnan (physicist)

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

Reads like a personal advertisement brochure. Advertisement about youtube videos and faculty positions of the family members. Educationtemple (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. I think that being a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences gives sufficient notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There may be several hundred thousand such Fellows in India. Lets go by notability criteria set by WP (reliable secondary source citations to substantiate the notability), and then decide rather than simple assumptions! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overstating it. All Fellows are listed on their web site and there are 40 on the 'A' page. Nevertheless, the number is quite large. Have you looked for sources? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I humbly state that this is not over statement. India is a country of 125 million and there are dozens of similar societies in India. Please do not go with just one title and assess, even a nobel laureate here on WP require some secondary sources to establish the claim on notability. If I am wrong, you can please give a reference to appropriate WP rule, where this is the exception. Educationtemple (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobel laureate would clearly meet the second criteria in WP:NACADEMICS, subject only to a source that says he or she is a Nobel laureate. This professor may meet the 3rd criteria, but it depends on the nature of that Academy. He also has two major books published outside India. He appears to be retired as he is 72. I agree he currently appears marginal as a keep. Let us see whether someone in his field can find better sources than you can. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I have looked the sources for this article. Source 1 is breaking and dead, other three sources are going to youtube. Google search give zero results. He claims that he worked in the area of particle physics and many-body theory. A combination of his simple name plus these two terms (individually) also result in zero related results all time. We are only left with youtube links to establish the notability and WP:ACADEMIC. Though we are not supposed to do Original Research here but if you come across any reference to satisfy notability criteria, please let us know. Thanks Educationtemple (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misinterpreting the meaning of original research! See WP:OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : In India only Movie actors and Cricketers rise to stardom and find mention in secondary sources. 123.252.131.50 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - All right. It implies that WP should now have separate terms for actors/researchers and researchers from India/US/Ghana/Cuba and so on....?? Also this implies that there are no mentions in secondary sources. This disqualify the article on WP. Thanks for strengthening the afd nomination. Educationtemple (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure about the academy fellowship discussed above (fellowship in Indian National Science Academy would clearly pass WP:PROF but this is a different similarly-named academy) but Google scholar lists a stunning 15673 citations for his book "Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory", 1573 for his paper "Robust constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequalities", and many other highly-cited works. This is a very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, regardless of what country he happens to be from. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the same man. It is Venkataramanan Balakrishnan: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. The title too does not fit theoretical physics. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mat be right Bduke. As per amazon, the Venkataramanan Balakrishnan of the above famous book has published three books - and non of them match with the name of the books cited on the article of the subject (i.e. Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics). This infers that these two VBs are different. Educationtemple (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, striking my comment since it appears to be based on faulty data. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would appear that fellowship of the IAS probably does satisfy WP:NACADEMICS #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and query from all Editors here and Admins: All right. IAS was established in 1934. Since than tii date there are approx 5000 Fellows of this society. National Academy of Science, India has approx 2500 fellows. NASI has equal number probably. Indian Science Congress may have even more. All together, it comes to apprx 10 thousand Fellows. Will it be OK if I create the article about all these 10 thousand fellows on WP, since they all automatically meet the criteria of notability on WP as per above discussions. And I will only provide a single citation on all the articles, the link to the websites or the directory where its is stated that the person is a Fellow. Some times, I will not provide even that (as in this article), which has got several Keeps in ongoing afd, without a single reference whatsoever in place for any of the claim. My question is: Will all the editors here support me to do this. If any of these 10 thousand articles are sent in afd in future, I will give reference to this afd discussion Please let me know (specially the one who has given a keep here). Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Royal Society has had far more fellows. We wouldn't dream of deleting articles on any of them! Not honestly sure what your problem is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will appreciate a direct reply of my question above. We are not talking about Royal Society here. We are talking about IAS, NAS, NASI, ISCA, NAAS and other similar societies and academies of India. More than 10 thousand Fellows and I dream to create article for all of them, just a single line article and one reference (May be nice Photo too). I am going to use this reply as a reference in future afds. I would consider your indirect reply or 'Silence' on this as your disagreement and then your 'keep' on this article will not have any meaning, I am humble. Educationtemple (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not the way to go about it. We need to look at each of these societies separately and certainly not have "other similar societies and academies of India". I consider that we have far too few articles on academics. We probably do not have all Fellows of the Royal Society. The List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science has many redlinks. We do not even have articles for all the Foundation Members and all the Presidents. I suspect the situation for Indian academics is worse. So indeed go ahead and write articles but make them good stubs and start with the most important scientists. On this article, I said "Keep but improve". I was hoping that someone would add some references while the AfD was on, but this has not happened and we have confusion with another scientist. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Great! I must work on this! IAS, NAS, NAAS, ISCA and INSA - these are major societies and academies in India. I shall systematically enlist all Fellows of them, and create articles. Please dont complain later and please help when they go in afd. This is a good news for Women empowerment advocates too, they just need to find a Fellow women and nothing else to be her on WP. This statues will clarify lots of doubts of Indian editors, who find it difficult to give a secondary source (as reasoned that Indian media cover only cricketers and film stars, not scientists). Any admin, senior admin, please feel free to comment, this is very important discussion going on here...we should not change our minds later. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: Re: I think you have also given a keep based on that the subject is a Fellow of Indian Academy of Science. Now you yourself are thinking back whether these academies are equal to Royal Society or not! I have nominated the article in afd, since I know the difference between IAS and Royal Society. I know that these two are not equal. I nominated afd, but you and other editors given a keep. I humbly state that it was you and other editors (who given a keep here), who should have thought all the above before giving a keep whether a Fellow of IAS should be comparable to FRS. If this subject could be a keep based on that he is a Fellow of IAS, all the Fellows of IAS deserve to be here on WP. This is my point, and I think I am honest and fare in this. Let the statues pass, and if this article is a keep finally, I am going to refer to these discussions when I myself create articles for all the Fellows of IAS on WP. Thanks. Educationtemple (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! A user just posted me this article. She is also FNAS. A notability tag was added on this last month. I will selectively remove such tags from this, and all such articles if this article sustain in this afd. I am sure users such as @Anasuyas: would well receive this! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you need to be careful before rushing headlong into creating thousands of stubs based only on the subject's membership of a particular body. Per WP:NACADEMICS as regards memberships of such associations: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." The general notability guideline requires that any article topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, a single reference showing membership of the IAS or similar is not sufficient for an article to be retained. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I respectfully honor your views @Philg88:. In fact, my argument too on this and other similar afd nominations such as (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) is the same that - though these subjects are Fellows of one of the above mentioned societies of India, but not covered in any reliable sources, hence not meet general notability guideline. Still I see lots of "keep" with argument that notability is met simply because the subject is a Fellow. I honor these views, but it leave me in a situation to believe that this statute/rule that merely a reference to confirm that a person is a Fellow is sufficient to "keep" the article (as evident from above keeps), then why the rule should be different for other fellows, and then there is no harm if all those 10 thousand people are here on WP. I am humble and just want to understand why - for example One FNA is tagged for not notability, however, another FNA is given a 'keep' since he is a FNA. In Law, the judgements on some cases become Case Law and enact statues and precedents to help other cases. If these afds are "keep" finally, it will open the ways for editors to create articles about "ALL the Fellows" of these societies on WP. I add that none or most of the afd nominations by me recently, are covered in any reliable sources as per WP guidelines. If these were, I could have worked hard to improve them rather than nominating in afd Educationtemple (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're interpreting things a little too rigidly here. Just because people are saying we should keep this article and others because the subjects are fellows of a national academy of sciences doesn't mean we then need to run out and create stubs on every other person who is a member of a similar academy. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. It's a work in progress. People write articles as and when they feel like doing it. Yes, every member of these academies is probably deserving of an article. If they weren't eminent in their fields then they wouldn't be members. That doesn't mean they all have to have an article immediately. As to reliable sources, in what way are these people not covered in reliable sources? What do you think is unreliable? There's absolutely nothing unreliable about an academic's profile on his university's website or the website of a learned society of which he is a member. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have humbly put forward my points very clearly, and I give myself a rest at this point - let all of YOU and other honorable editors and administrators decide upon this and other afds collectively. And just to clarify at last that the link to institutes profile in this specific article is dead and profile at the page of the society has nothing more than telephone number and email address. Other references are youtube video links. other great publication (discovered during this afd discussion) are suspected to be of some other author as discussed above. OM Peace... Educationtemple (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - any other reliance sources that is in Hindi? - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are aa good sources for this as for any academic: Notability under WP PROF is based upon the extent to which the person is an authority, and is normally proven in science by the citations to their peer-reviewed contributions to scientific journals. The criteria of society membership is a shortcut (among other possible short-cuts, such as prizes), on the assumption that people who meet the shortcuts always have such recognition, or they would not have been elected, given the prize, etc.-- and that the committees involved in such honours are better judges of this than we are. It is generally considered here that scientific notability is international. and the standard is international.

In this case the question is whether the standards of this particular national society are sufficiently high to prove this. I am undecided on this. I certainly think that it is not as high as the Royal society or the NAS US, and that this non-equivalence is recognized in India as elsewhere-- particular in India, in fact, where major foreign awards are considered more prestigious than national ones. That does not prove that the standard might not be sufficient nonetheless. We are left with two very unfortunate choices: either recognizing the lack of merit of certain national societies, or admitting people to a recognized international standard depending on what countries they come from. I would very much like to avoid making such a general determination here, or at any of the individual AfDs. Perhaps we shouldctry to look at whether it meets the basic WP:PROF standard. If it does, that would be sufficient. that will take some further analysis. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but will need rewriting, because it is too promotional. Articles emphasising the popularity as a teacher & the notability of the children give a promotional impression for any scientist. Looking beyond this , Citation analysis is on Google Scholar but some of the items are by someone else. Analysis needs to take into account both the number of citations and the journal. The most cited paper with 120 cites is in Physica A, a good but not top level journal. The second, with 88 cites ins in Physical Review A, a first-rate journal. third, with 88 cites, likewise a first rate journal. Others areabout half in first rate journals, which is a good but not really outstanding record. Notability also has to take into account the books. Looking at WorldCat, they are published by very respectable scientific publishers ~~and are in 100s of libraries.~~ DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DGG's Comment Please be careful, there are other authors with similar name. Professor David Eppstein (Editor above) already has stricken his keep and comment (please see discussion below his comment). It is so irresponsible of the editor who create such articles (with out source)! As per WP policy (if I remember correctly) it is upon the creating editor to cite appropriate references to support the claims, and in case of this article, most of the editors who contributed to this article so far, failed to do so. One reason for this is real lack of sources appropraite citing here Educationtemple (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the crystalline state : an emerging perspective[10] is in 257 libraries. He's one of three co-authors. To be sure, it's part of a major review series than many libraries get as a series, but it is significant for being even published in that series. Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics is in 82 libraries. The other books I looked at are indeed by other people. {{[User|Educationtemple}}, I appreciate the correction. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 25 April 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) Esquivalience ^t 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T. N. Krishnamurti

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

Not notable. Article not sourced. Educationtemple (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some sources; it is clear from the ease of finding them and the poor selection of deletion candidates in this string of nominations that the nominator has not carried out WP:BEFORE. With many highly-cited publications, a distinguished professorship, notable awards, etc., the subject clearly passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for adding the references. Educationtemple (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a Distinguished Professor, which clearly meets WP:NACADEMICS #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Distinguished Professor, award-winner. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:27, 17 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flame of Peace

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

Self-promotional article on a non-notable society whose apparent sole aim is the self-aggrandizing sale of "awards" to the ambitious and wealthy under pretexts of philanthropism and under the aura of phony "nobility". Founded by a couple of people self-styled with an (apparently fake) title of "prince" and "archduke". No coverage except from the organisation's own website, a small number of links from a walled garden of similarly obscure societies and would-be members of "nobility", and a few mentions in local papers reporting on some of the award "ceremonies" and social events. No independent reliable coverage that I can find. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly serious allegations. The genealogy seems valid, for what it is worth.[11][12] Have you checked the German-language sources? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, the guy seems to be a fifth-generation descendant of Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany and as such an eighth-generation descendant of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. However, according to the very genealogy website you cited [13], the only confirmation that website found for his claimed titles of "archduke" and "prince" was a private e-mail from himself. According to our own article about his grandfather, Archduke Anton of Austria, his father was considered "fallen for marriage not equal" (meaning that according to the self-defined rules of their noble house, their princely titles would be void in the following generations). Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage 2008 lists Sandor only as "Count of Habsburg". Plus, of course, in Austria itself (where he apparently now lives), using these titles has been illegal since 1919. Another interesting factbite is that the couple are also self-styled "royal protectors" [14] of the "Sovereign Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem – Knights of Malta" – not, of course, of the highly notable actual Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but one of innumerable obscure, phony spin-off organizations with little or no actual pedigree that claim the same heritage (this thesis makes for some entertaining reading). This is ironic, since the same phony organization also claims [15] that in order to qualify as a "true" hospitallers order one needs to have the "royal protection" of "the head of a surviving and recognized royal family" - and whatever Mr Sandor H. is, he is most definitely not the "head" of anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the German sources? There appear to be quite a lot of news items of the ribbon-cutting ceremony variety that discuss the organization. Again, it is best not to make assertions that may be considered defamatory, and could involve Wikipedia in legal costs. You may want to tone down your remarks above. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What German sources? Most of the ones listed in the article are just the society's own website (and yes, of course I checked that). Beyond that, all I can see is minor local news outlets mentioning this or that individual "award" – as you rightly say, "ribbon-cutting ceremony variety" articles, but never anything that discusses the award or the organization behind it in depth and from an independent perspective, beyond simply copying what is evidently its own publicity blurb from its own press releases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Independent sources in German include [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. This is just a sample – I got bored plugging through the search results. Other languages would presumably throw up even more. The organization gets substantial attention from the press, governments and so on. Whether it achieves all that much is irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's precisely the kind of low-quality sources I was speaking about. Let's go through a few, in the order you cited them: [37]: minor local-area newspaper, text (under "zur Sache") clearly based on organisation's own press release, no sign of independent journalistic work; [38] not independent journalistic coverage at all, but a self-published website of an organization that evidently co-sponsored the event; [39]: the closest so far to "reliable" coverage, but still only five sentences in passing (in a notorious right-wing weekly), and still no signs of independent journalistic work beyond summarizing a press release; [40] not a journalistic source, but a press release by a local village volunteer-firefighters' club, again itself the organization co-sponsoring the event (and, unsurprisingly, the coverage of the "Flame of Peace" is almost literally identical with that found in other sources, proving again that it's just copying their own press release blurb); [41]: similar situation; self-published and self-advertising website by the venue hosting the event; [42]: again, same situation (self-published website of the school receiving the "award"). Do I have to go on? I, too, am getting bored plugging through your citations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a sample of sources that seem reliable and independent from the search results, without restricting them to newspapers. The first ones are: Polish Embassy in Bern, Bezirksblätter Niederösterreich (newspaper), Katholische Militärseelsorge (military chaplaincy), Die Weltwoche (news magazine), Marktgemeinde Ernstbrunn (municipality), Kunstgalerie Bachlechner (art gallery), DaVinci Schule am Gut (school), Salz TV (TV station), Vienna Online (city government portal), Salzkammergut Rundblick (news site). Again, there are many more. The organization and its activities get plenty of attention, as one would expect. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you missed is that with the exception of the Weltwoche, all the other serious-sounding ones are themselves participants (co-sponsors or hosts of the events in question and/or recipients of the "awards"), and as such disqualified as "independent coverage". This goes for the embassy, the military chaplaincy, the municipality, the art gallery and so on. All the remaining "news sites" are utterly obscure local outlets with no independent journalistic work, as can be seen, for example, from the fact that this and this site are reporting not only on the same event but with the exact same text. Are you seriously suggesting that these kinds of rubbish sources bestow notability? This is no more than the kind of coverage you'd get for any local rabbit-breeding club. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call the non-newspaper sources "rubbish sources". The organization is notable for what it does, and they are reliable sources for those activities. There are of course many news sources that describe the same events and activities of Flamme des Friedens. Some are affiliated and will carry the same story. I would not call Bezirksblätter "utterly obscure". Regionalmedien Austria is the highest circulation newspaper chain in Austria. Do we need another twenty sources? Forty? They are available. I do not understand this frantic attempt to discredit this well-known and very visible Austrian non-profit organization. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, All of the references provided in the article are primary sources from the organization itself and a news search turns up some routine coverage of events which adds to venerability somewhat but doesn't suggest notability per WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend listing this organization a directory wiki like Wikicompany but not notable int he encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryce Carmony: Still think that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the nominator insists on removing the lists of recipients and removing sources, People please take this into consideration when reviewing this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable and well-supported. I think Wikipedia should do all it can to support peace, worldwide. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:N and is well supported through various sources ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination appears to be a valid criticism of the organisation, but that's not at all the same thing as a criticism of its validity for a WP article reporting on that organisation. I have yet to see a valid reason to delete the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jaguar. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N. Andy Dingley has hit the nail on the head with what is going on here. MarnetteD|Talk 04:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jaguar & Andy Dingley. Lots of reliable sources cover the organisation, so it passes WP:N and meets GNG for me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could I aso suggest a snow close on this - it's only going to end one way, given the number and strength of sources used... - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to purge the derogatory remarks from the front of this proposal? I see absolutely no justification for them, no mention in the press of anything dubious about the organization, which seems to be dull but worthy. We normally purge attack articles... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Wholly unjustified derogatory remarks and bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the article is unstable, it's best to ignore it and focus on its potential state to be improved. I typed "flamme des friedens" into Google News and got a ton of hits in German sources. In my view, the major players in the debate need to go to WP:DRN and calm down a notch - I do not see the existence (or not) of this article as being of life-or-death importance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "A ton of hits"? There are 16 links in that list, of which the large majority are completely unrelated to the topic of this article; one is a mere press release mirrored on a news site with an explicit disclaimer that it's merely that; one is yet another copy of the same report in a local news outlet we've already mentioned; one is a portrait of one of the people involved (in another local outlet) that mentions the "flame of peace" only in passing. I count two links in that list that just might be useable. "A ton", indeed. Irresponsibly sloppy work, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are upset or angry over editors disagreeing with you, you may wish to consider a short wikibreak, then taking the issue to WP:DRN. It's a lovely sunny day around here - enjoy the spring weather outside. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spare us your condescending rubbish. I just showed how utterly sloppy and irresponsible your own reasoning here has been; if you have nothing to say in your defense, just go away and be ashamed of yourself rather than belittling the work of people who are trying to uphold encyclopedic quality here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)s[reply]

I'm sure we're all grateful, Fut.Perf., for your efforts to "uphold encyclopedic quality". But I'm not sure that justifies such a vile and ill-mannered retort. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Albert Wiggins. Davewild (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Wiggins

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

This article should be redirected because it duplicates the subject and content of the older, pre-existing Albert Wiggins article. It is not necessary to merge because there is no content that it is not already covered in the older, more extensive, pre-existing article. This page should be preserved as a Redirect because the "Al Wiggins" article title is a plausible search term for "Albert Wiggins". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and speedy close. It's the same guy. No need to Afd this at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems like a no-brainer. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nihilumbra. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeautiFun Games

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

Unremarkable games manufacturer. Seems to have only created 1 game, and no independent coverage or reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nihilumbra, the company's (as yet) sole creation. In the future, if they publish more notable titles, the redirect can be re-expanded into a full article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the company has only released one game and News searches show many results but basically all for the game. I can continue searching but I think I know what I'll find, not much. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 20 April 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. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Stone

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

This woman is clearly successful, academically, in her marketing role and on stage. I wasn't convinced that it all adds up to WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully, we can now establish it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my search came up inconclusive for notability. lot of the refs in the article come up 404 so it was difficult to find. Wikibios yes, wikipedia no.Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no substance to the many references, or to anything else I can find on her. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:15, 20 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Rodrigues

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

Fails Notability criteria as well as WP: ACADEMIC criteria. The award mentioned is not a significant award of India. Reference cited are just few primary sources. Educationtemple (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and her obituary in Science seals the deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a number of online obituaries on respectable websites. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 20 April 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. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sivakumar Veerasamy

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

The subject is claimed as "Best Breeder in Tree Species (Eucalyptus) and reference to support this is a youtube video!! User Balablitz, who originally created and significantly contributed to this and (other article, currently in afd), has a clear, undeclared COI with subject(s), as inferred from these links - Link 1 (see 'This user has a website' within I am tab); (Link2 - user's website as provided in Link 1 - citing that user worked as JRF with subject). Quick deletion recommended. Educationtemple (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. The claim to be the best breeder in tree species is backed up by an unreliable source and therefore invalid unless it can be confirmed by an acceptable source. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Agriculture-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This case seems very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicodemus Abel, for which I had the same reasons for deleting: employer profiles are ok for verifying factual claims in the article but are not evidence of notability; the best breeder award most likely falls short of WP:PROF#C2; only a single publication with few citations found in Google scholar. Veerasamy's publication has more citations than Abel's (12 vs 1) but that isn't enough to make a difference in the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and the similar articles pass my duck test for COI editing; I'll advise their creator of our policies. Miniapolis 21:19, 17 April 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. Davewild (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plamondon Companies

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

A group that operates 4 Marriott hotels. Marriott is of course notable, but not individual franchised hotels, and not a company that operates a small number of th�ese franchises. No significant references. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. CorporateM (Talk) 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After multiple searches, there isn't anything to improve the article. It seems the company is best known for the Roy Rogers restaurants. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 20 April 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. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodemus Abel

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

Could not find any notable contribution of the subject. The Reference cited are either primary sources (article written by the subject himself) or a press release about a conference where the subject given a lecture. Other references are from a private university website. Fails all WP:ACADEMIC criteria Educationtemple (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. No evidence from reliable sources that the subject is in any way notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The employer profile (reference 2) is adequate for verifying the factual information in the article, but is not evidence of notability. I don't think the "best breeder" award is notable enough to count for WP:PROF#C2. This is likely a low-citation subject but even so Google scholar can only find one publication, with one citation, clearly not enough for #C1. And there seems to be no evidence of passing any of the other academic notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC, and is quite similar to Sivakumar Veerasamy (also at AfD). Miniapolis 21:08, 17 April 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. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Gaming

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

small gaming company . almost all the references seem about their attempts to acquire property DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable sources in the references. Not sure that the topic of covered in those sources can make some thing not notable. Clearly WP:GNG is meet. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article with more references that should make it clear that WP:GNG is satisfied. Though I'm not sure why this AfD was opened without even an argument for deletion from the nom. Neither the fact that the company is small, nor the fact that most of the refs were "about their attempts to acquire property" are reasons for deletion. Toohool (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishun Khare

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

Sorry, does not meet notability criteria! Article not sourced appropriately. I understand the subject is no more - but the Bio does not sustain on WP as per standards Educationtemple (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I would like to vote against my own nomination, since the person is covered in a News on national Geographic. Let other editors decide, any way. Educationtemple (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 April 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. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVXQ filmography

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

This is supposed to be a filmography for the group TVXQ, but also contains a lot of projects of the individual members of TVXQ. Solo materials belong (and are in) the individuals' articles. The only group activities are Vacation, Dating on Earth, and the banjun dramas, all of which are already mentioned in TVXQ. If it's really necessary to list out all the individual banjuns by name (they all link to the same article), that could be squeezed into the main article's filmography (room could be made by removing the individual acting roles of Yunho and Changmin that currently occupy space there). I just can't see any need for a standalone filmography for such a small body of work of a music group. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed all the content that should not be on a group filmography, and you can see what's now left. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HERE'S the content removed by the nom AFTER he brought it to AFD. Please review it before opinining, to consider for yourself what content belongs elsewhere or nowhere. 23:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I've restored the content as I find it utterly moronic to simply AFD something and then wipe it all after ..... Why bother wiping it ?, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individual roles belong on the members' articles, not on a group filmography. Shows starring the group can be listed on the band's article. Random86 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close - Way too soon to start renominating, I suggest waiting 5 months. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape jihad

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

I am nominating this article because it is a neologism, instead of being an article by itself. It is in reality 2 sentences of genuine text coat racked with information copy pasted from other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore this article contains a large amount of original research and is based solely on questionable sources which have been ruled to be "unreliable" as a source for factual information at RS/N on multiple occasions through concensus . Even worse is that the article is clearly a synthesis instead of being an article. Allow me to explain these concerns in detail.

First let us get speedy keep out of the way. "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion." as this requires me to post valid concerns I will present and explain them below. I apologize for the wall of text(however this is not a wall of text pre se as it does not contain arguments unrelated to the matter at hand, neither does it contain any arguments already discussed at length, the paragraphs are kept short, there are no personal attacks and there is no sarcasm directed at the creator of the article) but to put this to rest I will have to show all shortcomings of the article one by one, even though only two or three of these are enough to put it up for deletion.

The first thing wrong with this article is that it is a neologism. According to policy in order to support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. If we look closely at the article it does not contain any sources which even describe the so called rape jihad.

Then the article falls foul of is general notability. If we just click the sources we see that it is not mentioned in any notable book except "Perfect Enemy: The Law Enforcement Manual of Islamist Terrorism". However this book only gives an offhand description of what the author terms as rape Jihad instead of telling us what the thing really means. If we look at the newspapers we see that many search results in news are not newspapers but only the comment section where the word has been mentioned, cutting down its mention even more.

The third shortcoming which makes this article a candidate for deletion is the lack of sources. Whereas when we look at the article just quickly it appears to have a lot of references which make it look like a proper article, but this is a clear example of bombardment and over citation in order to prevent an AFD from deleting the article based on lack of sources. However when we click those references we see that 90% have been copied from main articles to form a coatrack and there are actually only 4/5 real references which mention the term. These sources are, however, not reliable as all of them are questionable. According to Wikipedia a questionable source is a website of publishing house “expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinionsـ”. This fits exactly on the sources given in the article such as the FrontPage mag and the gate stone institute.

The fourth problem with this article is that it fits the definition of point of view forking. According to policy “The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.” If we take a look at the articles from which this article is forking like the Bedlam siege, the Darfur Massacre or even the ISIS atrocities we see no mention of the word “rape jihad”. This is exactly why this article was created because rape jihad could not be added in those articles without being reverted and therefore this article was created to cater to a POV.

Number five on the shortcomings list of this article is synthesis and original research. If we look at the article we see that it mentioned separate incidents of rape and then joins the dots to make it look like a part of a mosaic which it titles rape jihad. We see that no news story surfaced which labelled these incidents as part of an ongoing rape jihad. There exists no publication which connects these incidents as part of a larger phenomenon but the article has been synthesized with original research in order to further the point of view that such a phenomena exists. In the words of Jimmy wales “If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research”. The people mentioning rape jihad in opinion pieces are so small in number that creating an article on Wikipedia based on their views and synthesized content should not be allowed.

Now we come to the neutrality of the article. According to Wikipedia policy there is no harm in sourcing from biased sources as sometimes they are the sole source of a view. However it is not allowed to simply use biased sources in the entire article. However if we look at the article we see that the entire article has been taken from opinion pieces written by far right, ultra conservative, islamophobic, sources which makes this article highly POV and makes it a candidate for deletion.

As there is a chance of canvassing, I am pinging all editors who previously participated in an AFD debate about this article. This includes the ones who voted for keeping and the ones who voted for delete. Darkness Shines,Dougweller,Squeamish Ossifrage Gobōnobō ,Jason from nyc ,MezzoMezzo ...William, Mar4d IRWolfie- Benfold,Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡), indopug Davey2010, Pax ,CircleAdrian, Ibrahim Husain Meraj ,BengaliHindu, --Fauzan,Hut 8.5,Bryce Carmony , DawnDusk, --Esprit15d • talk • , WalkingOnTheB, Blue Rasberry , Pharaoh of the Wizards, §FreeRangeFrog, -- $AHLM13$ , Carrite, Lankiveil FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy keep (per speedy keep applicability criteria 2.d). A massive wall of text rationale covering a frivolous, disruptive nomination. The last AfD concluded only a few days ago, the nom presented all of his arguments above during that discussion, and was unsuccessful in securing deletion. Pax 06:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admin request: The list of prior AfDs in the upper-right is out of correct time sequence; the 2nd (i.e., the one which just concluded) is actually the most recent. This needs to be fixed to avoid erroneous appearances of shifting sentiment. Pax 06:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to fix that myself. --DawnDusk (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, previous AfD was closed just 2 days ago. Use deletion review if you feel that the previous close was incorrect, yet I can hardly imagine a different outcome from no consensus. Cavarrone 07:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close I request FreeatlastChitchat to either wait two to three months or file a DRV. If the arguments are solid, I support a DRV.--Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 08:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per WP:IAR (because my following rationale is not a speedy keep criteria, although it should still be speedily kept) because contacting the closing admin to try to come up with a solution, then (if unsuccessful) opening a deletion review is the appropriate venue for challenging the close. Esquivalience ^t 11:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep indeed, your agenda shines through despite trying to hide it behind a wall of text. Three out of four of your arguments were throttled in the last AfD. Furthermore, it's been said time and time again: the title of an article is not grounds for deletion. The phenomenon this article describes is well sourced in it. If you're truly so enraged by a supposed neologism that is used by five different sources and probably doesn't have a better alternative, then try to find a better alternative title. --DawnDusk (talk) 13:01, 13 April 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. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manjula Anwar

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

Perhaps the individual is indeed a famous linguist, but the material here does to show it. I hope interested parties with access to sources will find enough to keep & improve the article. It would be a shame if we had to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ping me if any reliable sources with in-depth coverage are added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think she will pass GNG. শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২^{Bengali new year} | nafSadh did say 18:54, 14 April 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. There seems to be consensus that the page is unnecessary and duplicative DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SS501 filmography

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

Once again, this is supposed to be a filmography of the group SS501, but is actually primarily a filmography of its individual members. That information belongs on (and is already on) the individuals' articles. The exception are a few group cameos on TV dramas and films and some group documentaries/reality series circa 2005-2006. It might be worth chopping all the individual (and excessive one-off variety show) appearances out and seeing how much content is left; it's possible there'd be enough left to merit a standalone article, but my guess is it could fit easily into the filmography section of SS501. Generally, music groups don't need standalone filmography articles. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed everything that shouldn't be on a group filmography, and you can see what's left. The separation into different years makes it look longer than it actually is (I just didn't have the energy to combine them). Shinyang-i (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HERE's the content removed by the nom AFTER bringing to AFD. Others may better determine for themselves if any or none of it belongs elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've restored the content as I find it utterly moronic to simply AFD something and then wipe it all after ..... Why bother wiping it ?, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I warned the main page about this happening a few months ago and was told to give them time, my response being it was fine with me but another editor would more than likely be dropping bye to deal with it. It is one of the worst formatted, lest helpful k-pop massive info dump list I have seen. With all the excess removed they might have enough for a page if they could provide any amount of useful detail but with currently zero references and zero prose, and knowing how the age of most of these shows will make sourcing statements difficult, I feel it is best to merge the groups shows back onto the groups main page.Peachywink (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: Well, I was the one who told @Peachywink to not delete the page since I thought that I can at least revamp the page. I just finished school so I didn't have time to fix the page beforehand. I then saw the deletion notice yesterday and observed (saw the mass deletion of other kpop filmographies, surveyed and compared each other's, read most of the comments, and so on) Since it came to this point, I contemplated and considered the pros and cons of deleting this page. I believe that even after deleting individual works and guestings, there are still some notable works here. (ex. SS501 M!Pick -> filmed before their debut; Thanks For Waking Me Up was popular that it had a sequel; SS501 in USA placed 55 in Oricon; The Mission placed 44 in Oricon; S.O.S documentary was a talk of town at some point; and so on). I can definitely add enough prose into those sections, but just like @Peachywink said, it would be difficult to have more references since it's already been more than 5 years old and it's more difficult for me to look for korean-language references.... so.. even though I am saddened by this resolution, after seeing other filmographies and being deleted in the same, fair way and if you all think that it's better to just delete and merge, then I'm fine with it. :) 001Jrm (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue about the works you mention is not their notability but the fact that an entire standalone article is not needed to list them. They are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, but can go on the SS501 article in a filmography section. The need for encyclopedic information such as discographies, filmographies, awards, whatever, to go in standalone articles is determined by size of the articles in question. Also, there is no need to add prose in those sections - that isn't the norm in lists. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 001Jrm as shinyang-i said, The notable group work can be moved into a filmography section on the groups main pages. So it's not all going! Member stuff will just be on members' pages, group stuff on the group's, and irrelevant stuff was going away anyways. Now, for prose, what I meant is a short explanation of just the important facts about the work listed. Stuff that helps the readers but isn't fluffy, there wasn't anything like that on this page so it was even more confusing, I felt. But the group clearly has work that can be included on the main page. As for the difficult references...it appears to me that once put within the article editors tend to leave filmography sections alone (this is for all wikipedia not just k-pop). Instead editors generally will focus on more egregious issues on other pages. Not saying it's a good thing to leave no sources but just that there is a lot more time to work on finding the references once they are merged into the main.Peachywink (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, this is becoming an indiscriminate list and is not helped by the fact it is by a large part incomplete (that makes it hard to tell if the works are individual or as a group, as the nominator has argued is an issue). Secondly, the list is very flimsy against WP:V. About half of the sources are from official websites and that is simply not good enough. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 21 April 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. Nakon 04:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JYJ filmography

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

This article is supposed to be a filmography for the group JYJ, but is actually a filmography of its individual members. All of the information should (and already is) in the individuals' articles instead. There is no purpose for a JYJ group filmography. In contrast to other articles of this kind, this one contains entirely appropriate types of materials in the lists and is well-sourced. So the content itself isn't the problem, simply the location of the material. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Individual roles belong on the members' articles, not on a group filmography. Films or TV shows starring the group can be listed on the JYJ page. Random86 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 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. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Murray

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

Non-notable college swimmer. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). FYI, there is no specific notability guideline for swimmers, but they often qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS, but the subject does not, having never competed in any senior international swimming event. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bafflingly non-notable entry, apparent COI/autobio. Doesn't pass the relevant notability guidelines for athletes. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both GNG and the relevant notability guidelines. APerson (talk!) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Judging by the creators username it looks like it was made by a company ..... , Anyway IMHO promotional and also fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 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. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

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

WP:PROMOTION article about a song by a non-notable hip-hop duo. Fails WP:NSONG. ― Padenton|✉ 23:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first line of WP:NSONG says "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". The parts about songs topping charts and being covered is basically an addendum to that proposition. A quick scan of Google Books shows that this song clearly meets that test, with discussion of the song still being made ten years after its debut. bd2412 T 00:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: All the sources I can find are about the quote by Kanye West, not about the song. Can you provide a few specific examples? ― Padenton|✉ 00:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference to two at Talk:George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People: Mary Ruth Marotte, ‎Glenn Jellenik, Ten Years after Katrina: Critical Perspectives of the Storm's Effect on American Culture and Identity (2014), p. 102-103; and David Caplan, Rhyme's Challenge: Hip Hop, Poetry, and Contemporary Rhyming Culture (2014), p. 51-52. bd2412 T 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found another ref in another book, [43] The Poetics of American Song Lyrics by Charlotte Pence, also found an article at the denver post about the song itself, [44] --Compn (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to a New York Times article, "Cultural Politics Art Born of Outrage in the Internet Age", New York Times (September 26, 2005), which is almost entirely about the song, and establishes coverage as a notable work. bd2412 T 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most the notability is about the quote not the song but I still think the single hits notability by itself. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:30, 6 April 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADMASQ for non-notable song serving as a WP:COATRACK for bitchin' 'bout dubbya. Pax 07:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to article on quote itself. Enough sources to show it's notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regardless about my opinion on the quote made by Kayne West, I must evaluate this AfD based on its merits. Based on the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources found by BD2412 subject appears to meet requirements set forth in WP:GNG. While it maybe promotional, deletion is not a substitute for further neutralization, see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether the content can be merged into a larger subject, is a matter of opinion that can be discussed on teh subject's talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a coatrack and attack article that should have no place in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Coatrack for what? For criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina? It's not as though that is a secret that this article reveals to the surprised reader. It is more likely that this article will inform the reader about details of a song that was significant enough to get a few paragraphs of discussion in several books and reliable newspapers. bd2412 T 02:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @BD2412: None of those books have more than brief coverage of the song. As you quoted above, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". The song isn't the subject of these works. The Glenn Jellenik book relegates the song to a single paragraph. The Caplan book also covers it for no more than a few paragraphs, as does the Pence book. The song is not the subject of any of these, and the sources are listed in these books, and they're all sourcing the information from websites made by the 'artist'.― Padenton|✉ 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times piece, however, is entirely about the song. With respect to the books, you are misreading what it means to be "the subject of" something; it does not mean that the entire book has to be about the one song, but merely that it must be addressed in the book in a non-trivial way (i.e., discussed, not merely named on a list of songs or the like). It is unusual for even a highly notable song to have a substantive book written entirely about that one song. bd2412 T 03:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Birchmore

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

Actor who falls under WAY too soon, though I'm sure someday he will deserve his own page. Wgolf (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, Way too soon to assume notability and no notability now. Young child actor maybe someday but not today. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:39, 6 April 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in notable reliable independent sources. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR --Surturz (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Tate Birchmore is a rising star in the entertainment industry" .... Created by a company to promote the BLP. Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 13 April 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. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InBloom

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

Reads like an advertisement for a relatively little used program. That will not grow any further ([45]) The Banner talk 16:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 22 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 20:12, 29 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, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:49, 5 April 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some low-level coverage of this failed IT project[46][47][48]. Looks like it was a student database that failed due to privacy concerns. I don't think a worthwhile article can be made on this topic - it would be just a re-hash of one of the news articles. --Surturz (talk) 12:06, 13 April 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Welch

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

Longtime autobio tagged for notability. Upon searching for him I only got a couple sources-outside of the newsday link I couldn't find any notable sources (after that I got stuff like white pages search, a sports person, a actor...) Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass notability. A clear autobio (see article creator's username) of no notability. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misses the mark for notability when I do a search. Wikia yes, Wikipedia no. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 April 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.