Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 February	17 February >

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The result was withdrawn. Wgolf has withdrawn his nomination. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuri Kino

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

~~DANG-I don't think I've seen so many tags for one article before. Not sure how notable and how accurate this is now. Wgolf (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Comment - apart from the excessive tagging, this is an odd article - with the wide array of uncited claims, many of which were tagged in 2011 or earlier, verifiability problems raised several times on talk, and the terrible refs that are provided, this almost seems like a hoax. The subject does appear to exist though, having written at least this Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nuri-kino/genocide-100-years-ago-st_b_6511212.html Dialectric (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise it has taken this long to get a afd to be honest though-it almost seems like it would of been a red flag with all those tags. Wgolf (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person exists, so I removed some excessive tags. Notable? Unsure. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe this person is notable. The article has way too many uncited claims, some dating back four years! I vote for the deletion of the article. 3BluePenguins 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3BluePenguins (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but he has indeed won several major journalism awards: I was able to add references from the Swedish Wikipedia article plus one I found for a missing year. I believe that makes him notable. Searching for articles about him is hampered by all the articles online with his byline, but here is one in English, and I'll search again because I suspect there's at least one in Swedish. I intend to cut the article way down and create a brief referenced biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well not sure about withdrawing yet-but the AFD probably did help this article, instead of it falling further into oblivion. Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--who said AfD is not for article improvement? Keep: easily passes GNG. Somebody please drop a barnstar on Yngvadottir's talk page; she deserves one. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and Drmies, you are right afds can help articles so they don't get deleted. But I am withdrawing this now.Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wgolf. Yeah, I hear "not for improvement" all the time, but as an admin, whenever I close an AfD and I see the article is still in the same sad state, I cry a puppy's worth. I always think that AfD participation is an excellent opportunity to improve the article and say "hey! Look! Notable!". At any rate, we can't close this since there's still a nay-sayer: if 3BluePenguins were to look at it and change their mind, we could file the paperwork. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been lacking citations for a few years. In my opinion when that happens it means the claims can not be verified by a neutral source. I have tried doing the research and what I found were mostly self promotional claims and I truly don't beleive this is a notable person. Could not verify his education as listed. Read a couple online pieces written by him that were a clear indication how elementary the writing is. According to one source he apparently gave up writing for the past three years and was running a nursing home in Sweden. Nuri Kino has in one source claimed to have won a Pulitzer! Absolutely not true. This article is very unreliable. 3BluePenguins 01:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3BluePenguins (talk • contribs)

@3BluePenguins: You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm glad you looked again, but I wonder whether you can read Swedish or were using an online translator of some kind? One source says he went on hiatus as a journalist and worked as a caregiver while writing a book or making a film (I forget which); it doesn't say he ran the nursing home, and the source dates to a few years back; it's one of the ones I added to the article. There are various sources mentioning his receiving a big Swedish journalism prize (I documented that with the help of the Swedish Wikipedia article and the Wayback Machine); it's possible a translation program rendered that as "Pulitzer Prize", check the original. When I rewrote the article I cut out a fair bit of hagiography and repetition, and I left "citation needed" on several things that I wasn't able to document, or for which I could only find unreliable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: The reference to "Pulitzer" was not a translation but rather from a published English source. There's no room for misinterpretation here. As for running a nursing home, that is public information in Sweden. So who is he? A journalist or caregiver? Or pizza maker (his own claim). Clearly we have a difference of opinion on the subject of this article. 3BluePenguins 09:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. J 1982 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Awarded.[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J Galea (Artist)

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:NMUSIC. This article has undisclosed paid editing recruited on an external website (f****r.com). There appears to be a link to a blocked sockmaster as well [1]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete sources needed for this BLP - a high standard. Fails NMUSIC per nom. Widefox; talk 23:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea also. Wgolf (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably could even be speedy deleted A7 (and any of his music as A9). Not notable. Fails WP:BAND --Jersey92 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - suggest speedy close and salt due to repeated recreation of NN article deleted by discussion, now under different title (by group of SOCK/MEAT/spammers). Widefox; talk 10:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom also falis WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable musician - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Yovchev

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

Lack of notability, no other articles link to it and has no English language sources. Actel (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCO awarded what appears to be his country's second highest medal for gallantry, so fails WP:SOLDIER. No other reason for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not appear to have received significant coverage or in-depth coverage in multiple non primary reliable sources, therefore subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Furthermore, subject appears to fail WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Henderson

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

Also pinging Giraffedata. Despite the editor's recent acclaim in the media, this appears to be a cut and dry, classic case of WP:BLP1E ... reliable sources only cover Henderson in the context of a single event (or in this case group of thousands of events, but same idea), Henderson remains and is likely to remain a low-profile individual - defined here as one who "who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event" and who do not seek media attention (this certainly applies to Henderson), and the event or individual's role was either not substantial or, in this case, not well documented. We certainly do not have an article about Wikipedia's systematic eradication of "comprised of", nor should we, so there is no indication that clause three will ever be met. Consequently, absent another compelling argument that he meets or will meet WP:GNG, this article should be deleted. All the best. Go Phightins! 21:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. The news coverage is singular in time and not sustained (persistence of coverage, clause #3). Henderson is a low profile individual (clause #2). Henderson is only known in regards to this event (clause #1). BLP1E is meant to protect low profile individuals from being saddled for life with a public article anyone can edit due to a singular news event they never sought out. -- GreenC 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have to disagree with your last statement. ...due to a singular event they never sought out. Henderson gave a phone interview to Backchannel published here, in which he even shared large amounts of personal information. (See the four paragraphs starting with "Henderson was born in Olympia, ...") News outlets don't take interviews just for fun, they do it so they can prepare and publish an article on the subject. Henderson would have known in all consciousness what he was up to. (Article creator), SD0001 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The journalist in question sought this editor out; the attention was unsolicited. Yes, Henderson granted an interview. That does not constitute "seeking attention", only complying with a request for information. If we begin to define that behaviour as "seeking out attention", literally everyone we've ever heard of that we haven't met will fit that description, up to and including new babies on the local Vital Stats page. Laodah 06:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laodah (talk • contribs)
Delete - have to agree with WP:BLP1E --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as well as agreeing with the comments by Green Cardamom above, I note that there is a section describing Henderson in the "comprised of" article. I think that is sufficent coverage and a separate article is unnecessary. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seem to be a very large number of articles on WP that violate WP:BLP1E. For example, in this article, there is just one WP:RS that covers the subject prominently. (Without any doubt, this is singular and non-persisting type of coverage) All other cited refs are either statistical pages or information pages from primary sources. SD0001 (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's an elected politician. See WP:NPOL. He would almost surely pass an AfD. Obviously anything is debatable but we shouldn't debate WP:OTHERSTUFF here. FYI, BLP1E is one of most common rationales for AfD. Please don't take it personal you did nothing wrong. The guidelines are complex and takes some experience with AfD to understand the nuances. No one is picking on Henderson. Do a search on "BLP1E" at this page to see how often it comes up in currently open AfD discussions. -- GreenC 13:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. I'm a fan of Mr. Henderson's efforts to improve the grammar of this site, and appreciate that the author(s) of the page mean well, but WP:BLP1E most definitely applies here. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:BLP1E is obvious. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Sweeney

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. I declined a CSD A7, and I'm now wishing I hadn't, because having removed the atrocious POV in the article, I'm left with somebody who was consulted by a government department once, wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph once and .... that's it. There are a few other passing mentions, but ultimately I think even the most sympathetic or hardened equal rights activist would conclude this person is non-notable and an article about her is a puffery magnet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - fails to demonstrate any notability. reddogsix (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think you were right to decline A7, but nevertheless the claims to importance or significance do not stand up to scrutiny and there is no way this meets the requirements for BLP. Korruski^Talk 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Blue Book

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

Completely non-notable directory-style book. If it generates some reviews, or makes it to the NYT bestseller list, we can revisit this. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The relevant notability criterion is WP:NBOOK. Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the Oregon Bluebook is not notable, then neither is the The World Factbook or Old Farmer's Almanac. While there might be little coverage of the publication itself, all are widely cited in other publications. —EncMstr (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an odd comparison. The Farmers Almanac is a cultural institution which is itself the subject of academic studies (Loomis, C. Grant (1956). "Proverbs in "The Farmer's Almanac(k)"". Western Folklore. 15 (3): 172–78. JSTOR 1497311.), the World Factbook is of a slightly different scale ("World") and is cited as a reliable source all over the place including in Wikipedia. That the World Factbook is widely cited is evident through the 1261 hits for the phrase in JSTOR (which includes reviews of the work, Grefrath, Richard W. (2000). "Rev. of The World Factbook 1999, Central Intelligence Agency". Reference & User Services Quarterly. 39 (4): 421–22. JSTOR 20863884.); I see a couple of hits for "Oregon Blue Book", where it's cited for an Oregon fact here and there--but this is not a valid comparison. Now, and this applies to the yay-sayers below as well, can we get some secondary references that actually discuss this book? I have not found any. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Widely cited reference guide. The article may have some CoI/POV issues to clean up, but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't have any COI or POV issues. As far as I know no one with a COI has edited the article. I'm a fan of the SoS office and a state worker but I've never worked for the SoS or Archives. Valfontis (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be -- I haven't looked through the article in any real detail, but I know there were some CoI edits on Kate Brown made previously. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOKS: "Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about... [As one would expect, it has been widely cited] , the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted... [It's had numerous editions and been reprinted many times since its creation in ~~1953~~ 1911]" TJRC (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note it was first published in 1911. Valfontis (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I had 1953 on the brain from the amendment date in ORE § 177.120, but of course it was around before that amendment. TJRC (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long running, seminal, official publication produced by the Oregon state government. A "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes, I actually found this deletion debate by searching for the subject and seeing the notice at the top. The release of these books used to be announced in the press biannually, they used to be a very big deal as an official state almanac. Per TJRC's citation of NBOOK: "Common sense should prevail." Carrite (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear I'm not bullshitting (and counting towards GNG): "Oregon Blue Book Makes Biennial Reappearance" (Bend Bulletin, April 27, 1981)........... "Oregon Blue Book Being Distributed" (Eugene Register-Guard, Sept. 21, 1937).......... "Oregon Blue Book Cover Photo Contest" (Hells Canyon Journal, May 3, 2006)......... "New Oregon Blue Book Published," (Eugene Register-Guard, April 10, 1983)......... These sort of announcements and mini-reviews appeared in many newspapers around the state every two years for decades (including those not part of the Google newspaper project, just as The Oregonian and the Salem Statesman-Journal. Clear GNG pass if the Use Common Sense argument doesn't appeal... Carrite (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trout to the nominator for the flippant and somewhat insulting suggestion that a reference book like this would ever "make the New York Times best-seller list" so that this deletion might be "revisited." Carrite (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the book for hurting its feelings. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Anhedonia

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

Non notable puppet show DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps it's just me but it seems rather promotional, Anyway can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be not notable. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OnsideGoal.com

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

Fails WP:WEB, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the site JMHamo (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely primary sourced article about a site that fails WP:NWEB --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of nationality. Giant Snowman 18:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NWEB. A bit too promotional in my opinion as well. Fenix down (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Renouf

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

Not notable, fails WP:BASIC because I could only find two sources that mention him, one is only a trivial mention and the other (here) is a questionable source (blog on an news website, not sure if the writer is a professional journalist). Esquivalience ^t 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find another source here, but it is a self-published blog and fails WP:UGC Esquivalience ^t 20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of this entry, I'd like to add the fact that it was written maliciously and with inaccurate information. Yes, I did appear on Sun News talking about the train accident, but at no point did I say it was terrorism. We discussed the fact that the CEO of the train company declared it may be terrorism- I was very clear throughout that there was no evidence it was. Here's the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNNrI0egH9g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.113.240 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is about a non-notable conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goof Repellant (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable online pundit and occasional guest on a (now-shut down) TV talk show without in-depth coverage in reliable sources does not require a standalone biography. Also may have been created as a tool of his opponents. Canuckle (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable blogger with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the 5 sources listed in the article, 4 are not at all about him, and are instead about the Lac-Mégantic disaster. The one source that does include him only has him as a passing mention. As for the potential source noted by the nominator, it is a blog post. Anybody can join and post stories per this registration page. Note that at the top of the blog post, it does state that the post has been reviewed by editors, and has been copyeditted, and fact checked. However, we base notability in reliable sources by the editorial decisions in selecting stories to publish and I do not see that happening here. The editorial oversight provide for verifiability but it appears anybody can write about anything they are interested in. -- Whpq (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. T. Canens (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015

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

Speculative article for an event that did not eventuate. (Failed PROD) --Surturz (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. The article was originally Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015; this was wrong because the spill did not happen. It was then moved to the current title, which is wrong because the motion happened, failed and is now in the past and no longer "possible". But the controversy and the motion did happen and are well-sourced and notable, and can happily live under a new title that reflects the content. Relentlessly (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article would fail WP:EVENT. I'm supportive of including the event in Tony Abbott, and even maybe userfying it in case there are ramifications down the road, but at this instant in time the event does not warrant a separate article. Actually, even if there was a subsequent successful spill, this event should be a subsection of that article, not an article in its own right. (If half the cabinet resign as a result of this failed motion I'll revoke the AfD nom though) --Surturz (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:EVENT: it was a significant event on its own, a historical rarity, and as per the equivalent example of Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013, its failure doesn't render it insignificant. This has received even more attention than that spill (an incredible amount of coverage, really) and appears likely, on all currently available coverage, to carry more historical weight and be the subject of more historical analysis. The mere assertion that an article fails WP:EVENT does not make it so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you argue it is not of historical significance, but I'm not convinced. I don't see why deletion is necessary even so. I'm still in favour of keeping it, but merging it into Tony Abbott with a redirect would be acceptable. Relentlessly (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consigned to history, this has little ongoing notability and can be covered in Abbott Government or Tony Abbott. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was created too early. Material should be merged into other articles. Mattlore (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename (see indented comments below) ~~Delete~~. I believe that this article fails WP:EVENT as a standalone event, and is better described as a section in Abbott Government. I would like to note for the benefit of non-Australian Wikipedians that history tells us this is clearly just the beginning, as summarised in this article. So this current event is just a prelude to more significant events that appear likely to occur in the near future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Athomeinkobe: doesn't that mean that the article passes WP:EFFECT? Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nick-D:, you've made a very convincing argument below. This event will be seen as significant if it causes Abbott to turn things around, or as a significant step in his downfall. So it will satisy WP:EFFECT either way. I also would like to say you've done a great job on expanding the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should not have been created until it was shown to meet the WP:EVENT requirements. 1.136.97.54 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attempted leadership spills targeting sitting Australian Prime Ministers are extremely rare, and are of lasting notability. This is especially the case when the attempt comes fairly close to succeeding, as happened today. They are routinely covered in detail in political histories, memoirs, and the like. The events of today are directly comparable to what the Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013 article covers (a leadership contest with no challenger), and the Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 1991 article is also relevant given the widespread commentary that it's inflicted a fatal wound on PM Abbott. Given that the events of today have been the dominant story in the Australian media for the last week, have been covered in detail in the international media (examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) have been widely reported as likely to lead to future political dramas by prominent Australian journalists (examples: [9], [10], [11], [12] (paywalled), [13]) and, based on past events, will be the subject of lasting coverage and analysis by political scientists and journalists, WP:EVENT is easily met. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not comparing like for like, in both examples you list (Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013 and Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 1991) there existed either a vacancy in leadership or a vote on the actual leadership, in this case it was a vote to see if there should be a vote on the leadership. If there had been a resultant leadership vote then it would have warranted a stand-alone article but this just warrants a mention in Abbots page. 1.136.97.54 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the ALP and Liberal Parties have different processes and conventions for handling leadership matters, that's not the case. The ALP doesn't vote on whether to spill, it just goes straight for it as happened in March 2013. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same situation as the ALP March 2013 spill, except that it's a different party with a slightly different process. They're both accordingly deserving of articles for obvious reasons. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 147.194.16.123 (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick-D's remarks. Also agree with others that the article needs renaming. I agree with Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As further evidence that WP:EVENT is met, the vote has lead to non-trivial changes to Australian Government policies, and Abbott has made commitments to change the way he and his office operate: [14] Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT. Should see if some content can be salvaged for other articles however. Jmount (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Extremely significant political event, a rarity in Australian political history, massive, detailed and widespread coverage in reliable sources, ongoing political ramifications and a fundamental part of the history of this government. The deletion arguments are weak and just haphazarly refer to a policy that doesn't support the deletion of this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an internationally notable event in Australian politicsUK, USA, Gnan garra 07:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Nick-D's rationale. Liberal / Labor parties have differing processes and conventions handling leadership matters – this is just as significant as any previous leadership spill. The vote has resulted in Abbott winning by a slight majority, and give it time before another spill is motioned. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Rename --> Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. While it did not immediately meet its proponents' aims, many commentators on both pro- and anti- sides of the argument now concede it has inflicted a level of damage that will probably prove terminal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. It is a significant and notable event, which was covered extensively in Australian media and reported by international media, and was a real threat of effectively ending a Prime Ministership and changing the leader of the country. It doesn't matter that the motion failed, it was a serious and significant development in Australian politics, can be thoroughally referenced, and follows on from several recent leadership spills in Australia recently. Outcomes of the spill motion, such as Abbott's promises to consult more and renegotiations to the Australian Submarine Corporation deal, are additionally notable. Whats new? (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by others. This was clearly a large political event in Australia, with a large build up and potentially ongoing consequences. I have no view one way or the other on the name. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I'd like to throw in an idea; maybe we can rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership crisis, 2015 instead? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a bit more vague and less-defined: this article can focus on the build-up to, events of and aftermath of events on a specific day, whereas that article would be more likely (in my opinion) to turn into sprawling and ill-defined coverage of federal Liberal leadership tensions this year. I'm not ardently opposed to it if there is a consensus otherwise, just think it's the second-best option. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is questionable if there was a "crisis", they didn't even decide to test the leadership with a spill. It probably only warrants some description in Abbott Government. Screech1616 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, it does not meet wp:event as the precedent of a leadership spill motion was set prior, nor does the effect likely seem to be one of ongoing prominence. Media reported the damage to be terminal prior to the spill motion, so I do not think it meets the criteria through that argument. The fact that it was widely covered is because it was wp:recentism and because coverage about politics is w:routine, so I don't consider those to be the best arguments for keeping it either.

Having said that, it appears that there is an article for every leadership spill motion in the both parties, so in light of that I think it should probably stay for the sake of consistency (even though I disagree with several of the spill motions having their own article) Hollth (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This will certainly be discussed for years to come, regardless of what happens to Abbott. As pointed out above, things like this are unusual and significant. I notice that now Philip Ruddock is a casualty from the fallout. I also support the rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015, although there may well be another spill motion before the year is out. St Anselm (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick-D's incontrovertible rationale. I also agree that Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 is the best possible title for the article. If there's another spill motion or leadership contest before the year is out, we can figure out what to do then. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above (esp Nick-D), and because this is an ongoing situation that incorporates many separate incidents (i.e. not WP:EVENT). It's of paramount importance to most Australians, and will not be forgotten any time soon. Furthermore, it is developing and will certainly become more rather than less notable until the motion is successful, or until the next election. -- samj _in ^out 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WWGB. We shouldn't have an article for a failed vote to attempt a spill. It should mentioned on the Abbott Government and party pages only. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all of reasons outlined above. My suggestion to article name is Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 (motion defeated) --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC) This way it fits neatly with sister articles: Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2007, Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2008 & Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2009 --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. The article isn't speculative, the event happened and was highly notable, it just wasn't a spill as the title suggests. Further, we shouldn't presume that the event will not have relevance in the future as some commenters have suggested, we have to deal in the facts as we know them now. <Karlww_{(contribs|talk)} 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: It is an important matter of record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollytinker (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as suggested above. Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 would be my preferred title, given that it didn't actually come to a spill in a technical sense. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 16 February 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how 18 keeps/renames and 5 deletes makes it worthy of a relist...? I've seen articles kept on a much closer margin than this. And in tight situations the default decision has been keep due to no consensus to delete article. I notice on your userpage it says you're a deletionist, could this have had a thought in to your decision? If you're looking for a snowball keep/delete, it's not going to happen. Timeshift (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye:: Can we add my name to those confused as to why this required a relist? There are plenty of arguments to work with above, and no indication that kicking the can down the road is going to result in a consensus materialising. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Incredible relist, especially by a non-admin. User:Mr. Guye, please explain your reasons for relisting. St Anselm (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 as suggested by others. The topic of Abbott's leadership was not "resolved" and has remained in the media since the meeting last week - it is part of an ongoing issue. -- Chuq (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 - subject of intense media speculation and significant development in Australian politics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015, per my previous rationale above. Whats new? (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposer commment AFAIK you should not vote a second time in a relist, Whats new?. I agree with others, I think the relist is unnecessary, and would be happy for an admin to make a determination and close. --Surturz (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, given the fact this article is getting a fair bit of attention (presumably due to this being a running issue in Australian politics), and given the surprising relist above, I have raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AFD_close.2Freview_requested for review by an uninvolved editor, to see if we can at least get that tag off of the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, include as part of Abbott Government. Screech1616 (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vax

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

Appears to be self-sourced autobiography. Unreferenced, notability not established. Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete (non-notable as indicated) TEDickey (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search for news articles only turned up passing mentions of this person in the press, not as the subject. Other sources were not independent press releases. The subject of this article is not notable per the relevant guideline, WP:MUSIC. - tucoxn\^talk 02:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Durgadas S Kamat

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

Unotable politician, the only ref (that I got rid of) was to Facebook. Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level party funtuionary with no reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Durgadas S Kamat is a notable politician in Goa. There are many sources to prove this. Some of the sources have been mentioned now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belleshenoy (talk • contribs) 06:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Also written promotionally but that's besides the point. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability presented. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan S. Hill

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

non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, no independent refs given, non found, possible COI/PR creator Deunanknute (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I was unsure of this but he did look notable at the time but now I'm unsure what to say. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-He is more notable than the Australian director of same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment notability is not determined by other articles, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Also, see WP:RS and WP:IS for information on reliable and independent sources, respectively. Deunanknute (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a film historian and feel this Nathan Hill has made a couple notable films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:09, February 10, 2015‎

Comment Please explain why a filmmaker of home videos is listed as "Nathan Hill" the filmmaker not the real Nathan Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:12, February 10, 2015‎

Comment Is Rotten Tomatoes an Independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRose88 (talk • contribs) 00:14, February 10, 2015‎

Comment PRose88 is the author of the article, and has made no edits other than those concerning the director and his film. Meters (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - rotten tomatoes does not establish notability, neither does imdb. I'm not sure what you mean by the "home videoes...not the real" comment, but I think your answer might be in WP:WHATABOUTX. If not, please clarify. Also, please sign comments with 4 "~"'s Deunanknute (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify this a little. What Deunanknute means is that profiles on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb cannot show notability since all it shows is that the person exists as a director, actor, or in some position. Now if there were reviews for Hill's work on Rotten Tomatoes by verified critics (the ones that make up the Tomatometer) then those could show notability for him, but it'd have to be for works where he served in an extremely major position like a lead actor or director. From what I can see on RT, none of Hill's work has gained any critical reviews. Now as far as IMDb goes, that's considered to be a routine database listing and at most it can be used to back up small, trivial details but even then that's sometimes questionable because of how easy it is for people to create profiles and alter them with little to no oversight. Notability can only be established through coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. Sites like Search my Trash are not considered to be reliable and Gadget Advisor could be, but I can't seem to verify what type of editorial oversight it has (if any) so I can't see where that'd be usable either. Something like a review of one of his films on Film Threat or an article through Variety about him would be the type of thing that you'd need to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:48, 16 February 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, Biblioworm 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge Matters

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

Non-notable, unreleased, film - appears to be a "home-movie". Only citations were links to the same authors "website under construction" which did not even contain the cited material Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably could be deleted for several reasons, but I think WP:TOOSOON works well enough. Earflaps (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is not the same film that was previously AfD'd at Dhoom 4, in case anyone was wondering. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 365

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

too early per WP:BALL, only hard fact is that it is a trademark and has been registered, anything else is speculation at this point Deunanknute (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Snowager (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a trademark, I can't remember the last Wikipedia article I came across about nothing but a trademark, if it would become a product then it should be a page, we can't see into the future so this page has no reason to exist until that time. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and no one other than the nominator recommended that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (entrepreneur)

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

Sources used are brief mentions, quotes or do not mention the subject of the article. Searches reveal quite a few "David Maddens" but no sources on this one. It is always difficult however to verify whether sources exist for someone that has a common name. CorporateM (Talk) 17:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Co-founding both GetUp and Avaaz are two extremely large claims to notability. He isn't the easiest person to search for due to his name, but I found three book sources referring to his history and the significance of his roles within the first two pages of a search for "David Madden" "Avaaz". I think this one passes WP:GNG by a mile, even if the current article isn't stellar. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific book sources are you referring to? The only ones that I can find from that search say no more about him than that he is a co-founder of Avaaz and a Harvard graduate. If that's all we know about him from reliable sources then it can be included in the Avaaz article with a redirect from his name, rather than in a separate article. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just sourced every statement in the article without any trouble. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep plenty of refs if you add "getup" to google search queries. Mentioned, among other places, in criticism by current senior Federal cabinet minister Abetz - indicating a strong impact on Australian federal politics, as well as smh the age advertiser 7.30 book the monthly the Aus opinion quadrant. Better to PRESERVE articles with few refs/issues that later get edited to satisfactory quality. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Per these two sources[15][16] and the "weaving a new type of web" source, which makes at least two substantial pieces where Madden is the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK to remove AFD tag from the page? -- Aronzak (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sprout

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

Article is constructed exclusively out of original research, broken links and junk sources for a BLP. Appears to be a fairly successful musician, but with no particular claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's true that most of his press coverage is non-notable announcements - typically that he is appearing at this or that elementary school. However, one of his albums was nominated for a Grammy;[17] I'm not sure if that means he meets WP:MUSIC. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being nominated for a Grammy satisfies criterion #8 at WP:MUSICBIO. I'll add the link to the article so that it is verified. The article still needs a lot of work, but AfD is not for cleanup. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per MelanieN's Grammy nom point --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability satisfied by Grammy nomination (WP:MUSICBIO). Not extremely notable and not something a huge amount people would be interested in but that is far besides the point. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nazz. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Stewkey" Antoni

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSBIO notability criteria. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuse (band). Squinge (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazz, a notable band for which he was lead vocalist. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page needs work, but he's been involved in too many bands to be easily redirected to just one. I'd say keep per WP:MUSBIO #6, which reads "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Earflaps (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazz. I've tried several Google searches but I can't seem to find any coverage that might justify a separate article. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nazz. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 16:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Mooney

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

I don't seen sufficient independent notability for an individual article - the article is all about the band Nazz and not about the individual, and there are no independent sources at all. Please see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuse (band). Squinge (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazz, of which he was a founding member. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page needs work, but he's been involved in too many bands to be easily redirected to just one (which band would we even pick?). I'd say keep per WP:MUSBIO #6, which reads "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Earflaps (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazz - same situation as the Stewkey AfD. Just not sufficient coverage to justify a separate article but the topic is notable by virtue of being in a notable, acclaimed band. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stickman & Elemento

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

Article has no sources, and I was unable to find any significant coverage from reliable independent sources (just blogs, forums, and listings on download sites). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable secondary source coverage either. PianoDan (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even though it's not an community-endorsed guideline, WP:NSOFT is a pretty good bar to set. This article fails that bar. In terms of real policy, it also fails WP:PRODUCT. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghosts of Christmas

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

I can only find two supporting articles - one by NME.com and one by Uncut.co.uk - and I don't think that is enough to support this as an article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no minimum requirements for the number of sources to establish notability, so the deletion argument is invalid. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Help!: A Day in the Life. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan (song)

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

This does not appear to be notable enough to be deserving of its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Help!: A Day in the Life, the album on which the song was released. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even find enough coverage to justify a merge and redirect. But WP:NSONG says: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. so redirect (forget merge) to Help!: A Day in the Life. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Strategic planning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial planning

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

Personal essay, original research Bhny (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Strategic planning. Not enough coverage to justify a separate article IMO. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Strategic planning, which covers almost all of the same material. This article is an essay that summarizes a number of standard MBA textbooks on strategic planning in business. Strategic management is not as good a redirect as it is rather broader, covering game theory in business as well as strategic planning. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Roberts

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

Probably does not exist. Needs better sourcing. Fails WP:GNG Nohomersryan (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:BLP of a person that's probably impossible to identify satisfactorily, much less to establish their notability. The Hollywood Reporter link is broken and I couldn't repair it in Wayback Machine. The WGA awards cited refer to a "J Roberts" but have no further information to satisfactorily identify the person. Two other "sources" refer you back to Wikipedia. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primary sources do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Study Bible

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

No notability, sources or ~~verifiability~~ Basileias (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many study Bibles entries on Wikipedia are stubs, this one is no less notable than those . It links to the publisher's page on it so it is verifiable Skippypeanuts (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Other stuff exists" argument above is inadequate. No evidence this particular edition of the Bible satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia does not have to have an article about everything which verifiably exists. Edison (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think my afd proposition counts as a vote? Or do I get a vote? The publishers link is a sales link to buy. I do no believe there is anything notable about this article. There are no souces to indicate anything about this article is notable. There are also multiple editions. None of which, again, are notable. Basileias (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The publisher's page gives all the info that is in the article so the information is verifiable. Article has existed since 2009. I just wonder why certain pages get attention for deletion when others don't that is all. see Wesley Bible for example.Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should go too. Unless there's something particularly notable about a book, any book, it is not encyclopedic. However, I am open to be convinced per wiki policy. Merging the information into specific translations might be a better option. Basileias (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but I would prefer to see this article and The Lutheran Study Bible merged, so that both study bibles were covered by a single article. The two are far too similar for us to need them both, even if one has the prefix "The" and the other does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: they started out as one article I separated them because they are two different books only with a similar name. Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NB, unable to find any reliable sources, could incorporate info from this article into the publishers Augsburg Fortress Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note re above discussion have just nominated Wesley Bible for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Bible :) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Danielson (disambiguation)

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

This is a completely unnecessary disambiguation page, and has been superseded by a hatnote. Nothing links here and is thus unhelpful as a navigational tool. See WP:2DABS for a better explanation: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Tavix | Talk 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prod was declined by User:Dweller with the reason given that it is harmless. Tavix | Talk 17:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:2DAB reads: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless." --Dweller (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: useless page, and its existence can only encourage misguided editors to create more similar pages, instead of using a simple hatnote to guide readers in one click to the non-primary-topic article they seek. PamD 09:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DAB, hatnote will get the reader there faster and with less confusion. Dweller, you've left off the rest of the guideline: The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per 2D, Widefox; talk 22:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kerr (loyalist)

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

Reason Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this page should be deleted as 'Alex Kerr' is not a notable person as defined by Wikipedia standards. Secondly, there is no such person as 'Alex Kerr' from Northern Ireland during this period involved in the UDA, there is a person of a very similar name who was involved in the UDA until the organisation was proscribed which resulted in him resigning from said organisation. Thirdly, there is a Right to be Forgotten as established in the Google Spain case the material on this site is no longer relevant, it contains significant inaccuracies, and it is outdated, it relates to events in the early 1990's and before.Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoidberg262 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Zoidberg262 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentI don't think Right to be Forgotten applies to Wikipedia. @Zoidberg262: Who is the "person of a very similar name..."? Deunanknute (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in question is well-sourced and well-written. The subject's notability has been established by the reliable sources provided by the page's creator. I speak as an editor who has created numerous articles on Northern Irish loyalists. Frankly the reasons given by the nominator for the article's deletion are nonsensical and I suggest the AfD tag is removed from the page ASAP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jeanne. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment - the new European Proposal for General Data Protection Regulation applies to international companies who are active in the EU, and penalties can be applied to them for their actions in the EU, making this directive of global importance, therefore I respectfully disagree with Deunanknute, the right to be forgotten does apply here. The right has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past."

Jeanne Boleyn- there should be a proper discussion, irregardless of your editorials of Northern Irish Loyalists. The sources consist of 2 books by the same author, neither of which are primarily about Mr Kerr.Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Please sign your name after your comments. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the subjects 'notability' has not been established. 'Alex Kerr' is the incorrect person.Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- According to...you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was an 'Alec Kerr' in the UDA prior to 1992, when it was not a proscribed organisation. There was no 'Alex Kerr'. Also how is the legal principle of the right to be forgotten nonsensical? Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant about "Right to be Forgotten" is that I believe it applies to search engine results, not website content. Deunanknute (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The right to be forgotten principle is not confined to search engines, but to all data controllers. The right to be forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time and not allowing third parties to access the information. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources all say Alex. I am waiting for you to provide a source to back up your claims Zoidberg262.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - For "Right to be Forgotten", doesn't the affected entity need to request the removal? Deunanknute (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Boleyn in response to your comments regarding the article being well-sourced and well-referenced I would have to disagree with you. The article was claiming that Mr Kerr was a 'founder' of the LVF, this is just nonsense. The LVF Wikipedia page itself does not mention Mr Kerr, it only refers to Billy Wright establishing it after the McGoldrick murder. As a consequence of this unfounded association between Mr Kerr and the LVF Mr Kerr's Article 8 rights and Article 2 are being violated and has put his life at risk. I think your sources leave a lot to be desired. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point Deunanknute, where shall I send a signed form of authority? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all the sources say 'Alex' this supports my position, they are clearly inaccurate. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are YOUR sources to disprove that his name was Alex?!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain, but [18] is probably the place to look.

Also, as you are indicating that you are, or are acting on behalf of Alex Kerr, I suggest you read WP:COI for information regarding conflict of interest, and not make any further edits to Alex Kerr, or other articles to which you are connected. Discussion/talk pages, and other non article pages are fine. Deunanknute (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current EU implementation of the Right to be forgotten applies only to links from search engines, not to the underlying text in news organization databases. Thus, the order in the original case required removal of links by Google but the newspaper was not required to remove the story from its online database. There is also the unresolved question of jurisdiction. For the Wikimedia Foundation's take, see [19]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if people wish to continue to repost defamatory and libellous material, which does not even meet wikipedia criteria (i.e. being unsourced) so be it. Where are the sources which state that Kerr co-founded the LVF? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, nor have not, claimed to be representing, or being, Alex Kerr. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article about a 'notable' person? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete The article does use only 1 source primarily, and within that only 3 or 4 pages are cited at most, a second source is also used but it is by the same authors, also are they not specifically about Alex Kerr. The sources are also primarily in relation to other events or people. It does not appear that Alex Kerr has sufficient source material. Bonylad111 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Bonylad111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Zoidberg262:I only cautioned you about COI because you asked where you could send a signed form of authority. IF the article is true, I believe it is probably notable enough based on the events/contributions described. I will seek more references if necessary. As it stands the article (and the original version) appears to primarily cite the books "UVF" and "UVA". Are you claming these works to be false, or incorrectly cited? Are there problems with other sources? Or is your primary concern the overall notability of Alex/Alec Kerr? Deunanknute (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The parts about the founding the LVF are completely untrue - Billy Wright was the sole founder of the LVF, in any books/newspaper articles there is 0 mention of Kerr. Which leads on to how can he be described as notable for being a member of a legal organisation (the UDA) up until 1992? The question of articles 2 and 8 violations remains unanswered by anyone. Zoidberg262 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example - "In early 1994 the UDA's Inner Council was made up of its six brigadiers - Kerr for South Belfast, Adair for West Belfast, Tom Reid for North Belfast, Gary Matthews for East Belfast, Billy McFarland for County Londonderry and north County Antrim and Joe English for Southeast Antrim. At the time English was attempting to build support for a ceasefire declaration by the Combined Loyalist Military Command. In this endeavour he was supported by Reid and Matthews but opposed vehemently by Adair." From Alex Kerr article. There is absolutely no sources for this section. And if it were true he would have been convicted for being a member of a proscribed organisation. The page is wide open for libel action. Zoidberg262 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm assuming that by "articles 2 and 8" you are referring to the "European Convention on Human Rights" treaty? I don't see how article 2 applies. As far as article 8 (and the entire treaty), from what I can tell applies only to governments, and even then, only to those that are members. Wikipedia being neither a government, nor European. Deunanknute (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of the ECHR - article 2 applies because this article is alleging that Kerr co-founded an illegal terrorist organisation which murdered people, clearly such association puts his life in danger... The convention rights have been codified into domestic UK law, and the courts have to read it in anyway. There is a horizontal effect so it applies to individuals/businesses as well as governments. It does not matter if Wikipedia is European or not. It is publishing material within EU jurisdiction. Zoidberg262 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - only for reasons of questionable notability. Deunanknute (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I do not have access to the books cited in the article so I cannot comment on them. Doing some research into this person and the UDA/LVF I can find no mention of Alex Kerr founding the LVF, so there are issues of fact in this article. Also, while he does appear to have been a member of the UDA I can find no articles in relation to any convictions, I could understand the articles inclusion if he had been involved in a terrorist event (bombing/ shooting etc) but I can find no source (reliable or not) linking him to anything. There appears to be many tens of thousands of people being members of the UDA during its peak should every member get a page? The UDA link has some mileage but in my humble opinion the current article appears to focus more on other people and events and I struggle to see it as a bibliography on this man. There are large parts which are unsourced, and the LVF sections are dubious at best. From my research the LVF was a breakaway faction of the UVF in the mid ulster area (20/30 miles south of Belfast) I can not find any concrete sources, in fact any sources linking Alex Kerr to LVF activities. The article in its current form should be removed as it does appear to contain libellous material and the subject is of very questionable notability. Jeanclaudarnie1779 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Jeanclaudarnie1779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Interesting that user Jeanclaudarnie1779 has only one edit to his credit and that being to add a comment supporting the deletion of this article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

°°°And the same goes for Bonylad111...I smell a pair of socks...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Big time. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I'm arriving late to this one for several reasons, most notably that the nominator didn't inform me as the creator of the article that they had nominated it for deletion. However given their relative lack of other activity on Wikipedia I'll assume good faith on that one and take it that they didn't know about the rule.

The suggestion that this might be deleted for notability issues is a nice one that could sidestep setting a precedent but Kerr has clearly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so easily passes WP:GNG. These are included in the article and everything is sourced so I'm not seeing what the issue is on that score. Were there unsourced material I would have been amongst the first to remove it, as my involvement in the battle to keep the article on Billy McFarland properly sourced over the summer attests.

It is argued that the nominator does not have direct access to the sources and that is unfortunate but WP:V states that information must be able to be verified i.e. the sources need to accessible at some level. It doesn't say that subjects of articles have to have direct and immediate access to the sources and those used are readily available. They could be ordered through local libraries, purchased from second-hand bookshops or the internet and so if the nominator is keen to access them go right ahead.

That Kerr was both a leading member of the UDA and the LVF is attested by the sources included. If more are required then here we go: [20], [21], [22] and [23]. WP:V means that we must reflect what is written in the WP:RS. If the nominator feels Kerr is being misrepresented by those sources then it is the authors of those sources who are at fault, not Wikipedia. A good place to start would be Henry McDonald, who is on twitter (@henry_mcdonald) and could probably be reached through the Guardian's website ([24]).

Basically this is a notable person with a well sourced article that obeys the rules and spriti of Wikipedia. What this then comes down to is whether the recent ECJ ruling against Google with regards to the Right to be forgotten also applies to Wikipedia articles. Given that it is controlled by an American institution in the Wikimedia Foundation and it is not a search engine I fail to see how it could. However I'm no expert in internet regulation so that is for the closing admin to judge. However I would suggest if we do accept the primacy of a judgement that never once mentioned Wikipedia we are setting a dangerous precedent for the future.

That's all I have to say on the matter and I won't be revisiting this Afd, so thanks for your attention. I also will not be available on Wikipedia for a while so will not be entering into any further correspondence on this issue. Real life beckons. Keresaspa (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think there is enough depth of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He is mentioned in articles about the UDA and the LVF, maybe this article should be merged to Loyalist Volunteer Force? Deunanknute (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is not enough depth of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO, it does not list any achievements or notable events, it really only states that he was in the UDA, it does not give dates of when he joined, it does not give dates when he left. It does not state the legality of the UDA until its proscription. It does not state what involvement he had within the UDA really. In relation to the LVF, I note the press articles mentioning Kerr in 2 of them, but the fact remains that there is unsourced material - where does it state he co-founded the LVF? There are no concrete facts, when did he join, did he join, if he did join that was a criminal offence as it was an illegal organisation, when did he leave, what is he supposed to have done? I agree the article could possibly be merged but it should be into the UDA page and LVF page. There simply is not enough material to satisfy the notability criteria. The sources cited on the page mention him rather than are about him - therefore would WP:BLP1E apply? Noteable for only one event (being in the UDA)? Also, WP:BLPCRIME? I can find no sources about paramilitary related convictions. Zoidberg262 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me tackle each of your worries, one by one, Zoidberg. Regarding dates, I daresay you will find few paramilitaries who take out an ad in the paper announcing having joined or left the UDA, UVF, PIRA, whatever. Secondly, it does state that he took over as South Belfast UDA brigadier when Jackie McDonald was imprisoned. A UDA brigadier carried considerable power as writer Peter Taylor himself affirmed in his book Loyalists with Andy Tyrie allowing each brigadier to run his area like a personal fiefdom. Thirdly there are plenty of sources as cited by Keresaspa that Kerr helped Wright found the LVF; which is further underpinned by the UVF Brigade Staff having ordered him out of NI. To say that there is not enough coverage and that Kerr was a minor member of the UDA is absurd and if Zoidberg is worried that the article fails to mention that the UDA was legal until 1992 well that is easiòy rememdied. I will go add that fact straight away to the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zoidberg, are you going to deny that following McDonald's arrest Alex Kerr was brigadier for South Belfast UDA and a member of its Inner Council? And as such is clearly notable considering the amount of power he would have wielded as can be confirmed in Taylor's book re UDA brigadiers. Will you insist that alongside Billy Wright and Mark Fulton, Kerr did not help found the LVF? And will you refuse to admit that Kerr was prominent at Drumcree? These facts are all backed up in the sources which Keresasapa has provided.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* But it is not notable, I see articles have been deleted where people have been Mayors of towns/citites, and/or politicians but have been deleted because it is not notable enough. I argue the same here, so what if he was in the UDA, many tens of thousands were allegedly members as well. There are no significant or specific events (in fact no events), attributed to him and all the sources are not specifically about him. If it is biographical in nature then surely simply things such as joined/left dates are relevant. I still do not see sources stating he co-founded the LVF, he was not in the UVF to be expelled from it. I also note Wikipedia's policy to remove anything which is controversial, especially about living people in relation to Biographies. I reiterate my earlier points that - WP:BLP1E apply. Noteable for only one event (being in the UDA). Also, WP:BLPCRIME. The sources provided are subscription based. Stating that he would have had a 'considerable amount of power' does not correlate to notability, it lacks depth of coverage, what exactly does this 'power' entail and over whom? Zoidberg262 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - There are plenty of sources attesting his senior role within the UDA and LVF. I have just added another reference, one which links to the source itself. As South Belfast brigadier he was more notable than an ordinary UDA foot solder, and as co-founder of the LVF, that only adds to not detracts from his notability. I am waiting for your source that refutes what Keresaspa's and my sources say.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit, the article only states: "It is believed Wright and Kerr then formed the LVF." Hardly concrete source material, your edits do not reflect the ambiguity of the source. As Mayors are more notable than ordinary citizens yet not all can be described as notable your argument lacks weight. I still do not see any reliable source stating he co-founded the LVF. Zoidberg262 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether he founded the LVF or not the article does not contain sufficient depth of the subject, with relevant secondary sources. Zoidberg262 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the article contains only 2 mentions of Kerr. Both very, very brief. Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After your changes the article reads more like a narrative of the UDA rather than a biography of a living person. There are no notable events. Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All we are hearing from you is your personal opinion without a single counter-source. It seems you have a definite COI on this article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal opinion, it is fact. Your sources are irrelevant, one mentions Kerr only twice (and only one of those mentions is vaguely relevant to the allegation, the content in the wikipedia page does not adequately reflect what is in the article), therefore it does not meet Wikipedia standards for secondary sources. What sort of counter-sources would I need to prove the person is not notable? Surely, by virtue of a lack of sources he is not notable. There is 0 sources linking him to any events legal or otherwise during his alleged time in the UDA or LVF, the article at best states he was a member of the UDA and very possibly the LVF, that is not personal opinion it is fact. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peripheral material about other people should be removed. There is no relevance to the subject of a living persons profile. Is this forum not for discussion rather than personal attacks? It is your personal opinion that he is notable, how do you feel your opinions are more valid than mine? Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Burden of evidence rests with the editor, I don't have to prove a dot. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Sources are not reliable. Also, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Whether or not you are using sources, if it is defamatory it is still actionable against on this site. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am only following Wikipedia's own policies. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hor someone supposedly so familiar with Wikipedia's policies, I marvel that you failed to inform the page's creator Keresaspa of the deletion...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) nomination.[reply]

What is your problem Keresaspa? Are you saying one cannot make mistakes, and one is not allowed to research Wikipedia's policies to use it in support of their arguments? Resorting to personal attacks yet again. I could allege a conflict of interest with yourself because you are arguing in favour, just because somebody disagrees with you, don't resort to personal and underhand attacks, it goes completely against the ethos of the site. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I see you have moved to attack the stable and well-sourced Robin Jackson article. Are you a troll, Zoildberg262?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get side tracked here. How is it 'trolling' when I only want to remove unsourced parts? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I note in 2013 somebody seriously questions the sources reliability on the Jackson article as they are mostly gutter press articles. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the argument that this biographical article about a living person does not meet the high standards for notability:
- The majority of the article refers to other individuals and organisations, there is a distinct lack of material specifically in relation to Kerr
- The height of notability of Kerr in this article would be - 1) He was in the UDA; 2) He was in the LVF - clearly in line with Wikipedia policy membership to an organisation does not automatically confer notability on a subject, the membership should have relevance to a notable event or events, which this article lacks as discussed below.
- There is a complete lack of material in relation to any major event(s) or occurrence(s) (the height of notability would be the allegation that Kerr ordered graffiti to be written on walls being present at Drumcree where many thousands also attended).
- The sources cited could not be described as 'noteworthy' due to the overriding fact that the sources merely mention Kerr in several pages, there are no reliable, verifiable and noteworthy secondary sources about Kerr. In line with Wikipedia policy such sources should not be used (i.e. that merely mention a subject).
- Wikipedia policy of the utmost relevance - "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Any contentious material about a living person should be removed immediately, I have been censored from making any edits, especially when attempting to bring articles in line with Wikipedia policy. I presume it would be unanimous to state that Kerr was not a public figure.
- "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." As mentioned before Kerr's Article 2 and 8 rights under the ECHR apply, the rights are enforceable on private individuals and businesses (see Max Mosley case where he successfully argued tabloids breached his article 8 rights).
- This article has been sensationalised by included copious amounts of material which have zero relevance on the subjects notability (they are either about other people, or events which the subject has had no involvement in).
- There remains many unsourced (and by default not referenced) allegations within the article such as stating the Inner Council members of the UDA. Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with you on these counts. The article is well-written and focuses on Kerr, using reliable sources. And as he was (which is backed up by more than one source) the South Belfast UDA brigadier and an Inner Council member, that makes him "slightly" more powerful than an anonymous UDA foot soldier; that he was one of the leading figures at Drumcree and not just a casual face in the crowd, has also been referenced. The author of this page has used multiple sources backing the fact that he was a co-founder of the LVF which is why he and Wright were threatened with execution from the UVF Brigade Staff. No other people receieved such threats. Finally you have offered no evidence showing that Mr.Kerr's life would be put in jeopardy by the existance of this biographical article, bearing in mind that all the dogs in the streets of Belfast and Portadown know the history of Alex Kerr and a Wikipedia biographical article is no more hazardous to his health than the numerous books and articles which have been written about his life as a high-ranking UDA member and LVF co-founder.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he was a brigadier does not necessarily in itself make him notable enough. It would be highly wrong to describe him as a 'leading figure at Drumcree' as there is no mention of him either being in the Orange Order or attending meetings with senior politicians or attending Downing Street in relation to Drumcree. The only mention is an allegation that he drove a digger, which is only supported by one source, hardly a noteworthy event in any case. It would also be wrong to maintain that he 'co-founded' the LVF when the source quite clearly mentioning Kerr only twice and not categorically stating he co-founded the LVF. It is a tabloid article and does not meet Wikipedia criteria. As stated in Wikipedia policy I do not have to prove anything it is for the editors who added the content to support their position and provide evidence. Regardless of 'dogs on the street' libellous material is still libellous material. It is hazardous to his life and wellbeing if it is factually incorrect, supported by unreliable sources (if even supported by any sources). And Wikipedia policy is to remove immediately anything that is contentious in relation to living people biographies. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established with coverage in reliable sources Mo ainm~Talk 19:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

As previously stated the coverage in these 'reliable sources' merely mention the subject as opposed to being primarily written in relation to him. Also, what notable events are there in relation to the subject? Mayors and the like are widely mentioned and covered in reliable sources but does not necessarily or automatically lead to notability. Wikipedia policies need to be followed. Wikipedia policy is to remove immediately anything that is contentious in relation to living people biographies. Repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. I do not understand why these issues are not being adequately addressed, just ignored. Zoidberg262 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of note or notice; remarkable" Zoidberg262 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

The 'reliable sources' fundamentally lack a Depth of Coverage - example: The co-founder issue of the LVF he is mentioned only twice, I am intrigued how it could be argued this is sufficient depth of coverage. Zoidberg262 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This article clearly accuses the subject of crimes. No reference to any convictions is mentioned. Zoidberg262 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability - This AFD deserves nuking too! - Zoidberg262 knock it off with the constant comments, You've said Delete and your reason you don't need to carry on down that path!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a key leader of the UDA and apparently figures in the book by Henry McDonald and Jim Cusack, UDA – Inside the Heart of Loyalist Terror. (Penguin Ireland. ISBN 978-1844880201), based upon THIS web source derived from that work, which indicates that he was for a time the leader of the largest fraction of that group. GNG pass, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the WP:BOLD move and collapsed most of the stuff up above - I appreciate everyone's entitled to there opinions but Zoidberg262 had addressed every single comment here and it's taking up alot of this page, and it's not really needed nor helpful, He nominated the article then proceeded to !vote Delete anyway - That's more than enough Delete-wise. –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Liverpool F.C.. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. Player of the Season

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

Unnecessary content fork from Liverpool F.C., does not warrant its own article JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query - does anyone know if this article is woefully incomplete, or if Liverpool genuinely didn't make a player of the year award until 2009? Most English clubs have had such an award since at least the 70s (eg York City F.C. Clubman of the Year), which would be more than sufficient entries to merit a standalone list. With a list this short, though, it's hard to see why it shouldn't just be merged into the club article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough awards to date to justify a standalone article. Disagree with the idea of merging as to stat-y, especially if it can be expanded. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liverpool F.C.. Consider the article on Blackburn, where there is a similar section of their club's player of the year. A table in the Liverpool article will do, as the award lacks notability to warrant its own article. Aerospeed (Talk) 17:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to parent article, doesn't justify a separate article. Giant Snowman 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kan Ma

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

Non-notable BLP. Sources listed are trivial coverages. Article looks like an advertisement for his firm. Wcam (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable figure. Coverage is trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to verify, due to poor sourcing or sources only in calligraphy. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Most of the sources in the article don't even exist.--Antigng (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPDEL.--Whaterss (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Gwen Stefani studio album

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

Sources say that Gwen Stefani and Pharrell Williams have been recording together, and that the collaboration may yield an album, but the notional album is not the subject of in-depth, significant coverage. Instead, the sources talk about a couple of singles that have been released on their own. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. There's also a violation of WP:CRYSTAL in the conjecture about what songs might be on the album. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba Pioneer Camp

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

Non-notable summer camp. No independent references provided, only a link to Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Canada, which is itself of dubious notability. Was deleted per WP:PROD in April 2014 and was recently undeleted at WP:REFUND per a request from an IP. --Finngall ^talk 15:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain why you think it is not notable, see WP:JNN --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks the coverage necessary for WP:ORG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 21:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually appears in quite a few books with a paragraph or two. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently important in the history of Canadian canoeing programs. The article is actually cited to a university press book with non-trivial coverage already and there are other references available (and I'm sure if we dig there are plenty of periodical references. Not "just a summer camp"... nom appears to me part of a trend of nominating "thing in category x" just because it's assumed that thing in category x would be inherently unnotable without looking to see if thing is notable or not. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per significant coverage in many books such as [25] and [26] --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Canada is anything like Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (formerly Inter-Varsity Fellowship) in UK - its UK equivalent, it is certainly notable. Accordingly the nom's logic is defective. If there is a problem with artcile under discussion, the solution should be to merge a summary to the IVCF of Canada article, not to delete the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riptide Communications

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

Does not appear to meet our notability standards. Lacks reliable sources about the topic to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article about a company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluative diversity

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

This is a horror. It is a) WP:OR that b) relies almost fully on a WP:PRIMARY source written by the article's creator and is therefore c) self-promo and d) is a jumble of several ideas, with no clear focus. I couldn't even classify it. WP:DEL-REASONs 6, 7, 8, and 14. Creator writes elsewhere that "It might take years before the value of these fields (machine ethics and evaluative diversity) can be assessed" and is using Wikipedia for WP:SOAPBOXing Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on my Talk page, here if you have the patience. I had deleted all the WP:OR and had created a redirect of what was left, and the author objected. Hence this AfD. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Langchri (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the objecting author mentioned above. Evaluative diversity is a start-class article, and I wanted to improve it (and I appreciated feedback), but Jytdog thought the topic isn't even WP:N(which yields WP:DEL-REASONs 6, 7, 8). I guess AFD is the right place to determine that. If #14 does not refer to WP:SOAPBOXing (which can be resolved with balanced content, rather than deletion), please clarify.

You can use the links above to research "Evaluative diversity" and investigate its WP:N. ~~Jytdog said~~ (striking per below langchri) the following citations (which I would like to add to the article) help to clarify the term, so I am copying them here:

The term "evaluative diversity" is attributed to P. F. Strawson (1961) as referring to the range of "certainly incompatible, and possibly practically conflicting ideal images or pictures of a human life, or of human life".

Nelson, Paul. Narrative and Morality: A Theological Inquiry. Penn State Press, 2010. pg 40-41
Tierney, Nathan L. Imagination and ethical ideals: Prospects for a unified philosophical and psychological understanding. SUNY Press, 1994. pg 18-19

As an example, Brandt observed that the Hopi people have no moral qualms about tying birds to strings and playing rough with them (which kills them), and could not explain his disagreement with them about this in terms of disagreement about nonmoral facts.

Doris, John M., and Alexandra Plakias. "How to argue about disagreement: Evaluative diversity and moral realism." (2008). p314

As another example, evaluatively diverse individuals may agree on the measures of a product's qualities (e.g. its novelty or ease of use), but disagree about whether the product is good (because they disagree about the relative importance of different qualities).

Karapanos, Evangelos, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Marc Hassenzahl. "Accounting for diversity in subjective judgments." In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 639-648. ACM, 2009. pg 640

As a third example, evaluative diversity creates a challenge for the possibility of a social contract to ground political philosophy.

Gaus, Gerald 2010, “Evaluative Diversity and the Problem of Indeterminacy”, in The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107668058, page 42

As a fourth example, decision-making machines my also be evaluatively diverse, since they make evaluations (but perhaps not "morally diverse").

Santos-Lang, Christopher 2015, "Moral Ecology Approaches to Machine Ethics." In van Rysewyk, Simon Peter, and Matthijs Pontier (eds.) Machine Medical Ethics, Springer International Publishing, pp. 112.

The original article noted that various other terms, including "moral diversity," have been used to refer to evaluative diversity. The following study uses the term "moral diversity" instead of "evaluative diversity", but seems to mean the same thing, and found that segregation on this basis is comparable or greater than segregation on the basis of demographics (e.g., race and socioeconomic class) (I am giving you the primary source, but secondary sources can be found):

Haidt, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Evan; Hom, Holly (2003). "Differentiating Diversities: Moral Diversity Is Not Like Other Kinds". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02071.x.

Wikipedia may seem to lack WP:NPOV if it has articles for demographic forms of diversity (e.g., race and gender), but has no article that can be cited in the Discrimination article for the kind of diversity Haidt compared to them. Thus far, no one has suggested a different title for that article.

Although I have no sources regarding the evaluative diversity of Wikipedia editors, the default view would seem to be that evaluative diversity among Wikipedia editors is a potential source of internal conflict, so I hope we could find many editors interested in researching this topic and improving this article (I have tried to represent every perspective I can find, but would feel more comfortable if other editors were involved). I do believe that this article is challenging to write and improve because it is interdisciplinary and because sources use inconsistent terms to refer to the same thing (or subsets and supersets of the same thing), and there seems to be a paucity of editors adding content, but I don't think deletion is the solution. Langchri (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that those sources help clarify the term. So frustrating. What I said was that your long explanation - your WP:SYN - helped me understand what you mean by the term. Unbelievable. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struck that part above. Langchri (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it still says "Jytdog said the following citations (which I would like to add to the article) help to clarify" which is NOT TRUE. The only thing that was helpful was YOUR EXPLANATION. That is the problem with this WP article. It is all in your head, and not out there in the world. I understand you want it to be out there but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research.Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article; it is an extended essay, WP:Original research. Setting aside the arguments above about explanation and sourcing, there is a much more basic question that needs to be answered for inclusion here: Is this a notable subject, an established concept? I went to Google Scholar to evaluate (no pun intended) this question and my conclusion is: no, it isn't. I found only a single paper that uses this term. Until this becomes an established scholarly concept, we cannot have an article here. Wikipedia is not a thought leader; it is an encyclopedia, a compiler of what is already known. To User:Langchri, I hope you have kept a copy of this because it shows an enormous amount of work. I would suggest putting it on a blog or webpage, or possibly submitting it for publication somewhere. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you found only one article on Scholar, then you may have a typo in your search query. I get the following results for the six links at the top of this section (which I take to be standard search queries): Web: 3,870 results, News: 2 results, Newspapers: no results, Books: 584 results, Scholar: 129 results, JSTOR: no results. Langchri (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is readily apparent that this concept is original research by Mr. Santos-Lang, a.k.a. the article's author User:Langchri, which has not found coverage in academic or indeed other sources and is now being promoted via Wikipedia. Sandstein 22:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Based on the above, there are at least three independent reliable sources with the phrase "evaluative diversity" or "moral diversity" even in the title (or the title of a section). What additional coverage would be required? Langchri (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 14
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I closed this debate as delete on 6th February. The above-mentioned deletion review noted that there had never been an AFD warning tag on the article, so with my agreement the discussion was relisted. As far as I am concerned the above arguments stand; it would be appropriate to allow a further seven days of listing in line with usual process. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See full background of this article at ANI and User talk Jytdog, and DRV.
If anyone is able to extract a merge target from the paucity of literature about this subject, reducing the extensive COI original research to one or two sentences, I would lean that direction. Unless someone can determine an appropriate merge target, delete (based on the arguments presented elsewhere about the poor quality of the sources that do mention the topic, which does not seem to have gained credence beyond what Wikipedia's original research article gave it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further information at Talk:Neurodiversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an additional matter that: a) the equivalence of the terms moral diversity and evaluative diversity needs to be established by independent (not Christopher Santos-Lang) sources, and b) moral diversity gets numerous hits on google scholar, while evaluative diversity does not, suggesting that the article may be at evaluative diversity because that is the term preferred by Langchri. Yet Christopher Santos-Lang argues they are not the same, while Langchri's most recent version of the article says they are. [27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, irredeemably violates WP:NOR. This is not a question of "needing additional coverage", it is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm that my opinion is unchanged after the significant changes to the article. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly somebody's personal essay on a topic - irreparably so. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have dramatically reduced the article and cited additional sources to address concerns that WP:OR is too pervasive to work through. If there are additional concerns about OR in this version, it should be easier to specify the particular issues to fix, and perhaps we can Userfy the article and address them there. If people think this topic should appear under a different title (e.g., "Moral diversity") that is another option (currently, "Moral diversity" redirects to this article). Langchri (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good thing to do in the midst of a deletion discussion. Editing is one thing, gutting is another. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He addressed the concerns raised at AfD. That's just about the best thing you can do. The idea of gutting in the sense that you're talking about it is about those articles where gutting it makes it appear less notable or less well cited. Here removing most of the content just seems like a sensible reaction to the OR criticism. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that, in the past, Langchri has engaged in such extreme original research that a quote should be provided on talk to back up every use of the term he cites from an offline source. Past occurrences showed that his sources never even used the term. And he's citing a blog now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view changing the article this radically in the midst of an AfD is not reasonable. It requires a whole new analysis. i will yield if consensus is that making changes this dramatic is reasonable and OK in PAG. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy Move to draft~~ - OR was glaring, but if Langchri shows an intention to avoid OR, as demonstrated by the heavy revisions above, userfy seems like an acceptable option to see where it goes. What needs to be reinforced, however, is a clear understanding of Wikipedia's WP:COI policy (in addition to WP:NOR, of course). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, this is the version that seems like it may be worth userfying. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up (and a response to Jytdog and SandyGeorgia's comments above: It sounds like Langchri needs a trip to COIN/ANI. His zeal in protecting this article and his own clear COI are huge problems. No arguments from me on that matter. But as a general principle I think his rewrite is an entirely reasonable action if it's undertaken specifically to address the concerns/feedback of other editors. If the objection is OR, and OR is removed, the article problem is solved and I think Wikipedia is better for it. That doesn't automatically mean it should be kept, of course, but it merits reconsideration just as it would if the problem were notability and he dug up a dozen good sources mid-way through the AfD. To me this looks like Langchri carried out a WP:TNT on his own. Now, that said, I've modified my !vote to move to draft or delete rather than userfy. The problem with userfy is that this editor's behavior and COI is problematic enough that moving it to his userspace would effectively be a dead end as he really shouldn't be working on it. Moving to draftspace seems like a better option. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes to all of that. But again, because of past behaviors, a talk page quote from every offline source should be given; until that is done, I'm not sure we have anything. Sources given in the past have not even used the term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up follow-up: It looks there's a pretty strong consensus that there are still serious OR issues. I struck my !vote. It's clear the article and sources merit closer attention, so will leave it struck until I have time to do so (although it looks like a blizzard is coming). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmm. In situations like this I've found it is counterproductive to try and improve the article, as Langchri has done. People only focus on the original and a rewrite makes a subsequent WP:CSD#G4 deletion much more likely (because the comparison can be made against either version). Its tactically much better to let the deletion take place and then start over. Maybe none of this matters too much in the broad sweep of things. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jytdog and I have both put many many many hours into exploring "evaluative diversity" and "moral diversity" and so forth, and we dispute its WP:NOTABILITY. We expect this consensus to settle that question. Please respect our work and answer that question. I have even made it easy for anyone who has a delete reason other than WP:NOTABILITY to resolve that concern through small edits. If the topic is not notable, then no one should start over unless the world changes so as to make the topic notable. If anyone disputes the consensus, please reform the process, rather than try to game it. Langchri (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even after revisions. I've seen this topic pop up at other boards on occasion, but it I haven't ever seen a case that really establishes its WP:NOTABILITY. In addition to the original research, self promotion, and other concerns that came along with it, it seems best to just delete it and let someone else write it up if something does become notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, tending move to draft I can certainly see the article originally submitted to AFD was highly unsuitable but it looks likely to me that the greatly reduced version now on view is viable. At least it could be allowed in user or draft space. As sometimes occurs here with concepts that are not widely understood it is difficult to be sure whether a phrase used in secondary sources is describing a well-defined concept and, if it is, whether this concept is the same as the topic of an article. My background knowledge is inadequate for me to give an opinion in this case. On a technical matter substantial content from this article has been copied to other articles (by the AFD nominator). Unless some other means can be found, attribution is depending on keeping the history of this article. This has been copied here, this here, this here and, probably to an insignificant extent, this here. Thincat (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks like even removing 94% of the article hasn't resolved the OR problems, as reference 10 doesn't seem to mention "evaluative diversity" or "moral diversity" at all. The removed content was even more inappropriate. Perhaps we could extract a paragraph along the lines of SandyGeorgia's suggestion, as the revised article does little more than note that various people have used the phrase. Hut 8.5 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, even after revisions. Langchi's current edits, even under all our gazes, shows that he doesn't understand PAG and isn't much interested in learning them; his COI/advocacy on this topic is driving him to get whatever he can about the topic into WP. Moving this to draft is just an invitation for more trouble. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- wow, what a mess. Even after taking out all the blatant OR and essayish stuff, there's no article left. Reyk _YO! 17:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is inappropriate for the Afd nominator (Jytdog) to be removing sources while the Afd is still open, please fix that. I have already raised this concern with Jytdog and reverted two such edits in an effort to protect this Afd from going back to DRV, but he keeps deleting the sources I add. If you are concerned that there is not enough in the article, it may be because I am not being given a chance to construct the article (I will need time). Langchri (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more WP:OR and unverified content is not helping your case, Chris. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned that there is not enough in the article, it may be because I am not being given a chance to construct the article (I will need time). Langchri 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Langchri, it is curious to me that you are saying you need more time to produce secondary sources that support the content you are adding. For well over a month, on multiple user and article talk pages and at ANI (since at least January 6), multiple editors have attempted to help you understand the issues of COI, original research, notability, and how to correctly use primary and secondary sources. You have had more than a month to produce secondary sources that establish notability, yet what you have done is add content to the article that is a) not supported by the sources, b) misrepresents the sources, or c) uses non-reliable sources. I requested quotes-- you added quotes that don't support the text you've added or are irrelevant to the topic. Engaging in discussion seems to lead only to WP:IDHT.
Jytdog, I suggest you simply tag the article with {{request quote}} or {{failed verification}} or other warranted templates, which will direct others to the description of the problems on article talk. Getting tangled up in trying to correct the article isn't a productive use of time.
I am more and more convinced to DELETE and SALT the heck outta this mess. If there were secondary sources, they should have appeared by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I think it would be appropriate to confess that this whole dispute started with me making an unwelcome edit to an article you were protecting. You are as biased as I am. However, I do like your suggestion of leaving tags. That's constructive, and allows readers to form their own opinions about whether sources are inappropriate. Tags allow multiple sides of the dispute to be expressed. If a tag produces consensus that a source is inappropriate, then I am happy to remove it. It just feels really strange mid-Afd to trust the editing advice of people who are trying to get the article deleted. You are right that I do have quite a collection of sources by now, but I don't hear people here complaining about lack of sources, so I'm focusing on learning to eliminate OR, and that is easier with a smaller article. Also, I think concerns about COI may be addressed through more co-authorship, but enlisting help takes time (and may be more appropriate after the Afd is closed). Langchri (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add improvement tags to articles to allow readers to form their own opinion about disputed content or to express multiple sides of a dispute, we add them to alert editors to the fact that there is a problem which needs to be fixed. Hut 8.5 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be appropriate to confess that this whole dispute started with me making an unwelcome edit to an article you were protecting. You are as biased as I am. Langchri 21:49, 17 February 2015 This is the content you added to neurodiversity; the problems with that content are well discussed on article talk and at the linked ANI. Personalizing a content dispute will not advance your cause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My cause? We all have the same cause here. Disclosing our history and bias allows people to make informed judgments, and informed judgments do advance our cause. Langchri (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a section for role in philosophical debate. Langchri (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That "section" and indeed most of the article, struggles to attain what we need to show there is WP:DUE weight to be mentioned. A brief mention in one book by an established philosopher, and another in your article, hardly constitutes evidence that "evaluative diversity" is discussed enough as "evidence" in debates about moral realism, to be worthy of being discussed in Wikipedia; and those two brief mentions don't really even constitute "some philossophers". And again I am thrown by your use of the term here - now "evaluative diversity" seems to not be a degree of something (per the definition you have created) but now seems to be something like a description of how the world is. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two sources are used not as examples, but as two independent secondary sources each of which claim that a notable set of philosophers use evaluative diversity as evidence in arguments. Mentions of the terms "evaluative diversity" and "moral diversity" in other encyclopedias likewise seem to emphasize the importance of the concept they name in arguments about realism/relativism (and in moral psychology). For examples [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and [33]. In short, Wikipedia will not have complete coverage of metaethics nor of cognition nor of discrimination if it does not in some way cover the thing called "evaluative diversity" (although Wikipedia could call it "moral diversity" or something else). Langchri (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - none of those encyclopedias have an article on "evaluative diversity". it's not a ripe topic for an encyclopedia article.Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...but the other encyclopedias do contain information about evaluative diversity that would be lacking from Wikipedia if we do not find a home for the content of this article. Langchri (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

even with all our work and under the AfD you have found almost nothing in independent secondary sources on this topic. There is little to nothing to be said at this time. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was condensed because I wanted to help people who have concerns with WP:OR to be able to point to specific passages. The finding that moral diversity is heritable and more socially divisive than race is not "little to nothing". It is a really big deal, and has been verified with independent secondary sources. Yes, newspapers do publish articles about political polarization and the heritability of political orientations (which everyone agrees extends to values exercised beyond the voting booth). It seems like you think the criteria specified in WP:GNG to establish notability are too low for this topic, that the mark of notability for this topic ought to be that mainstream philosophers (especially you) are familiar with it. The closest I can get to measuring what meets that criteria is to look at what appears in the textbooks currently used to teach undergraduates. Here's an except from The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics which is currently used to teach intro to ethics: "We have focused on diversity in this culture for a couple of decades now... But some of us tend to forget that diversity is not just a matter of race, ethnicity, and gender but also a matter of convictions. An environment that welcomes diversity must also include political and moral diversity" (pg 579). Your argument that the topic is not notable seems to hang on the idea that "evaluative diversity" might not include "moral diversity" and "political diversity", but I have repeatedly offered to switch the title to "moral diversity" (which currently redirects to this article anyway) or another term, and that should address that concern. It seems like you are waiting for independent secondary sources to rewrite all of the existing sources in standardized terms (e.g., "diversity" instead of "differences", "evaluative" instead of "values" or "moral or "political"), but that isn't a valid basis for deletion. See Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not explanation. Langchri (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

again, with these sloppy leaps. you are claiming it is all one thing, moral diversity, political diversity and it doesn't matter what we call it.... But in current thought, those are not the same thing. I get it, that you want to bring them all under an umbrella of "evaluative diversity" - this synthesis that you want to achieve is a lovely ideal but for about the billionth time, wikipedia is not a place to forge novel syntheses or to communicate original research Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please judge the article by what it says, not by what Jytdog claims I want it to say. Langchri (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like even after extensive effort, it has not been possible to resolve the WP:SYN/OR issues. Wikipedia just isn't the right venue to present or promote neologisms or new concepts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh my. This is classic WP:SYNTH. This is not what Wikipedia articles are for. Sorry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David McCabe (photographer)

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

Seems to have been successful, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, so time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added several sources to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two reviews of his book of Warhol photographs, not quite enough (to my mind) to reach notability by themselves under WP:AUTHOR 3, but more than enough when taken in addition to the additions MelanieN has made. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Lawrence

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

Some mentions, but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Successful artist, but I couldn't establish notability. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, so time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:56, 16 February 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, Biblioworm 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little verified information is available about this person - just a brief entry at the Lambiek Comiclopedia. That's not enough for notability; according to Lambiek that pedia contains entries for more than 11,000 comic artists. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gearóid Ó hEára

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

I don't think he meets WP:POLITICIAN as a councillor, and the title 'Mayor of Derry' is an honorary one-year title bestowed on a councillor, so isn't the equivalent to the title 'mayor' used elsewhere - and mayors are not automatically notable. He is an activist and councillor, who like many, many others has given evidence in the long-running enquiries into Bloody Sunday. Has been tagged for notability for other six years, so time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holders of honorary positions arealmsot never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wehkamp

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

BLP. No sources provided, content does not rise to a significant notability level. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk. This page now references sources. Thus deletion is a moot point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskerchamp (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page now references sources. Thus deletion is a moot point.Whiskerchamp (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the continued lack of any thorough discussion signal a lack of support for deletion? This article shouldn't be considered for deletion after sources were provided 15 days ago.Whiskerchamp (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madelaine Jones

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

The sources do not support notability under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:COMPOSER Walkabout14 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would debate that of course they don't show notability under these sections, as they are listed as neither: stating that Madelaine Jones is a 'writer' is not the same as an author, and as referenced, there is proof of win in a national competition and previous reviewing for an international review site. The composer section, similarly: it says that she studied composition, not that she is a composer (more for background colour than anything). If having these details is an issue, I'm sure there's a way the article can be amended, given that she's given premieres etc. and I don't think there's any debate about her article being here as a pianist? larkinsonpublic (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - just another working writer, reviewing for an obscure website and once winning an obscure minor prize. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole point is that she's not a writer: the whole point is that she's actually a pianist- the writing stuff is to give background. If you think it's irrelevant or pointless, fair enough, it can be changed, but she's given the UK premiere of Emile Naoumoff's Passacaglia, a piece which is published by Schott, and he is a noteable composer. So I don't think it's fair to delete the article. It may need changing, fair enough, but deletion I think is not taking into account the rest of the content. (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I still don't see that she meets the General Notability Guideline, WP:GNG or more specifically any of the criteria listed in for musicians under WP:MUSBIO. Walkabout14 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to section 1, the subject must have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". There are two newspapers on the list of references, which are trustworthy, independent and non-trivial sources. While, granted, it means the notability is not necessarily that of super-stardom, it still fulfils the criterion and so the article is relevant, if only worthy of a stub. larkinsonpublic (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I put on my 'talk' page, but thought it applicable to mention here, that I amended to article so that it does not include comments on Madelaine's writing activities, given the relevance/notability of this was disputed by Orange Mike and I took this into account. larkinsonpublic (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (I'm closing as "nom's withdrawn" per her comment below) - per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Live Week

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

Half-finished/abandoned article; no substance to the article and should be edited in a sandbox before being added — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article (in)completion isn't a deletion criterion. If it were a deletion criterion, then all stubs would be eligible for deletion. Esquivalience ^t 13:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How is it Half finished/abandoned when the event is to take place. By this logic should we delete all sport article because they have not happened yet? 88.105.154.139 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Now shut it and get outta my pub! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the feedback. I've changed it around to make it look a bit more like an article. Sometimes my OCD gets ahead of me! — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of the Eastenders family. It's all about faaaaam-leeey! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie La Rose

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

No evidence of notability. Debut single in January 2015. ErikvanB (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Natalie la Rose may have been about the same topic. ErikvanB (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – She isn't a well-established artist yet, but there are some recent non-trivial publications about her in Dutch: [34] [35] [36]. – Editør (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Her debut single ("Somebody" featuring Jeremih) was recently released (January 6, 2015). If this wasn't a recent debut, I would vote for delete. She also has news articles in English: [37] [38] [39]. Also she has charted on the Billboard charts [40]. Abstrakt (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A charting single and some coverage [41][42][43]; new artist but there's sufficient material to warrant an article. Gongshow talk 15:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Kumaran

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

Doesn't appear to be notable Haminoon (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Kumaran is clearly a notable person in the Sri Lankan community in the UK.Rathfelder (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that? Because the only reference I've seen (this one) suggests otherwise. Haminoon (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ILG are clearly her opponents. Their blog is not a terribly independent source. But she has appeared in the Tamil Guardian and the Columbo Telegraph. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The fact that she could become the first Tamil MP in the UK seems quite significant. The policy does not suggest that candidates should be excluded from the encyclopedia because they are candidates. Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered the ILG opposed her. The problem is we don't have evidence of the reverse. I don't see how the articles referenced from the Tamil Guardian and the Colombo Telegraph can be considered "significant coverage" - one is announcing her candidacy and appears to be a re-published press release; the other says nothing but she turned up to an event along with some other people. Being the first Tamil MP in the UK would be significant, but we don't even have a reliable reference to say she is likely to win. I doubt she is the first Tamil to stand for the UK parliament. As for your last sentence; its true but beside the point. Haminoon (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've discussed this and related cases with Rathfelder before: see User_talk:Rathfelder#Notability_of_Labour_Party_candidates for details. Kumaran's main claim to fame is as an election candidate, but merely being a candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the citations given in the article are to local newspapers describing that candidacy or related activities. Other citations feature only passing mentions of Kumaran and do not satisfy general notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 12:49, 1 February 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harrow East (UK Parliament constituency) if consensus determines she does not meet GNG. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references where this person is the subject of the article, suggesting she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage presented in the article is very week. We either have local media reporting trivia - like she was campaining against independence of Scotland - dozens thousands of people campaigned, and this does not make them notable. Or we have Daily Mail reporting that her photo was shown on a TV show - this is WP:ONEEVENT.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 01:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almajd TV Network

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

Ran into it in another Wikipedia language. The sources are not reliable. As a matter of fact, one of them is the website of the TV itself. Kazemita1 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's better to add the {{ref improve}} or {{unreferenced}} tags rather than nominating it for deletion. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found these two English language sources [44] [45], so it may be notable.- Mr X 03:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per argumentation by ToonLucas22 and also analysis of additional sources by MrX, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivar railway station

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

Article is about a non-notable railway passing loop not a railway station. Information on the intermodal hub is covered in the Edinburgh, South Australia article. BarossaV (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caveat. I am very staunchly inclusionist when it comes to current and former passenger railway stations due to the abundance of reliable sources on railway history; however, unless there was ever an actual station here (and this can be proved in WP:RS) then it's not notable. If it turns out during this AfD there was a passenger station there once, consider this a keep. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Drover's Wife. This appears to be a crossing loop, essentially a named location on an employee timetable. If there was actually a station here then that's a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator Agree with Drover's Wife. If it can be proved that a station existed, then would agree with the nomination being withdrawn. To date have not been able to locate any evidence of this. BarossaV (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm as big an inclusionist as you'll find where named places are concerned, but even I have to admit an article for a passing loop is pushing it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jameatul Arabiah Lil-Baneena Wal-Banaat, Haildhar, Anwara

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

Appears to be about a school. A search using the article's name fails to find anything relevant. From the looks of things, it doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP either. I'll withdraw this nomination though if the article is proven to have at the least a secondary school, which is hard to confirm given that: 1. the article doesn't imply that one exists, and 2. As I've mentioned, a search was inconclusive. The article name might simply be wrong, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's just not enough here to justify keeping it. I'm all for setting up stub articles and encouraging other editors to add further details, but the creator has to do some of the work, such as at least writing the initial paragraph! This is just a list of the staff of what seems to be some kind of educational establishment. I've done a bit of searching around to see if I could find anything to improve it with, but drew a blank. Neiltonks (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a Qawmi madrasah in Chittagong District, Bangladesh. However, without more information, it's really not possible to determine whether this would meet the "secondary school" inclusion bar of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Some Qawmi madrasahs offer education "levels" that would be equivalent to high schools or even universities, but the majority do not, and absent any further information whatsoever ... well, simply on its merits, this article is very close to being an A1 Speedy candidate simply from the lack of information provided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I have nominated another article by similar name and contents for deletion. Ref Al-jameatul Arabiah lil baneena wal banaat Hailder anwara. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. I have deleted two other versions of the article and closed their AfDs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Markovic

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

It seems to have been copied directly by another wikipedia. Thus, the edit history is not properly preserved. Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is also unclear.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This has been at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Stephan_Markovic since February 4. Apparently he spells his name "Stefan Markovski". See short profile in English here (page 2), and YouTube [46]. But not much luck finding results under that name. I would recommend transwikify, but per Ymblanter at WP:PNT, an article under this name (Стефан Марковски) has already been deleted at MK WP as not notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DaviX

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. References are a tutorial and an arXiv preprint, both from the authors of the software. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four new sources from scientific reviewed paper have been added and three from blogs and online sources. These can be considered as reliable published sources. Firwen. Do you still consider WP:NSOFT as not respected ? (hm?) 22:03, 1 February 2015.

None of these papers have received any citations, except one, and they all come from the same group, so they don't count as independent in my book. The only paper that has received a handful of citations is the Dynamic federations one, which devotes only a tiny paragraph to DaviX. Looks like it's WP:TOOSOON for this software. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious ? This software is quoted in at least 4 papers, references in 5-6 independant websites and is used in at least 3 different frameworks / softwares ? Do you need to have a 10 papers in Nature or ACM to be in wikipedia ? This software is used by WLCG and the High energy physics community, deployed at more than 120 sites / physics institutions... And it is a free software developped by a public institution: nothing commerical.... How is this not enough ? Firwen.

You need significant coverage in the independent sources, not passing mention: benchmarks, analyses, critiques rather than "we used software X [courtesy citation]". Citation counts can be used as a proxy for such coverage (some citing papers will contain the coverage required), and the threshold is typically put at a few hundred or more. Re: independent websites, self-published sources like GitHub repos, StackOverflow posts etc. don't count; anyone can put software up there. Inclusion in Ubuntu isn't significant coverage, nor is use. There are myriad Linux device drivers that are deployed on millions of computers worldwide but don't warrant separate articles because nothing interesting is written about them. Commercial or free plays no role. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your concerns. About "Benchmark, analyses, critiques", the paper "https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13021-7_15" covers these topics with benchmarks and analyse of the performance of Davix versus an HTC solution", this paper has been peer reviewed and presented at the VLDB conference. DaviX is used by three independant scientific experiments ATLAS experiment, Compact Muon Solenoid and LHCb and consequently installed by more than > 120 of their cooperative physics laboratories worldwide. It has been distributed and packaged on 5 majors plateforms by official distributions channels (Official repositories) by different individuals: Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, Ubuntu and brew (OSX). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firwen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More external references have been added from the EGI project, the GRIDPP team, the HEP software foundation and the DMC CERN team.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more reference about daviX usage and softwares used at CERN added ( quora ). Firwen( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda (The Sound album)

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

I've searched, and as it stands, the only current source that establishes Wikipedia-notability is AllMusic (Prefix is not a valid review source). Lachlan Foley (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic and Prefix are perfectly good sources and there will almost certainly be print sources that a Google search won't find. --Michig (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking over WP:NMG, I'm not seeing anything that really strikes me as extremely non-notable. The band article The Sound (band) itself appears to have established some notability, so I see no reason not to include the albums as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silion

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

Does not meet WP:N Richard C. Stone (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N and nom Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its content is incorrect anyway. It is effectively an orphan, because "What links here" shows an earlier incarnation when it was some sort of Indian village.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:35, wikitime= 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD was started by a vandal who mass-nominated dozens of articles for deletion, seemingly at random. Since this one has generated other delete !votes, I'm going to leave it open; I have no opinion on the notability of the article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NGEO and WP:GAZ.--RioHondo (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per WP:GEOLAND. It's an officially recognized, populated barangay, as demonstrated by the very first reference in the article (the Philippine Statistics Authority) and by various other authoritative sources, e.g. [[47]. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and now sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik S Kumar

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

This is an article about a young actor that I think fails WP:ENT. Based on this edit, it can be assumed that the article has been written by the subject. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've noticed that the following has been added by an IP to the talk page of this AFD:

please delete this article...its violating the rules.....he is not achieved anything in life.just acted in tele serial nothing else..if it is like that each and everyone can crate a there profile in wiki.....please dont break the rules..... by 170.251.155.50 @ 12:04, 16 February 2015‎

Call it coincidence, but it just happened to be posted five minutes before a brand new user effectively blanked the article with these four edits. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - article has ample sourcing and no valid reason for deletion was offered. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Smith (entrepreneur)

This account was not created merely for this deletion. Have been actively working on several drafts that are not submitted as of yet. Please look at the edits for the entry. They are all clearly from a user named abfw (a better fort) the charity that the individual in the article created himself. Mjohnsonbtc (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points to note with regards to your comments. I know the user abfw personally, of which his username is an acronym for his actual initials and he is a part of our group in northern Indiana called the Wiki-nons. This group meets quarterly in person and semi-monthly remotely to discuss and learn Wikipedia and contribute with a focus on Indiana "based" events, persons, companies etc. We are always providing each other with tricks and tips for improving our knowledge base and improve our contributions. Furthermore, I agree with JSFarman, Anupmehra and MicroPaLeo that this is a bad faith nomination and to your comments about Drafts, this has to be false because there's a history of every edit that you have made. Previous to a couple edits this morning, your only edits were to nominate the article for deletion and to remove Alex Smith from the list of notable business people from Fort Wayne. Liilbuck (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Notable Mjohnsonbtc (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepClearly notable enough to have attracted your attention to create an account just for deleting the article. Otherwise, you never would have come accross the article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNotability established. This article went through the AFC process before administrators moved to Wikipedia. Liilbuck (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -bad-faith nomination. Subject clearly meets the BIO and GNG standard. Pinging reviewer who accepted the draft. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notability has been well established by the references used, and I agree with both Anupmehra and MicroPaLeo that this is a bad faith nomination. JSFarman (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Señorita Mexico U.S

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

I rather doubt the notability, but it isn;t my subject field. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only people who think this is notable are the organization themselves, since every single source is a press release. I looked around in Spanish-language sources and couldn't find anything reliable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:30, 8 February 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source coverage provided in teh article or found in my searches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie Pixel

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

After searching, I cannot find a reliable source that covers Nixie in depth at all. As it stands right now, this article fails Notability for web content. w^L^{<speak·check>} 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do the refs I did add help on that matter ? Yamitatsu (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if those refs count as reliable sources, which are needed when it comes to living people. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 22:09, 16 February 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) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Only notable website that she is supposedly a regular columnist is The Escapist, but according to her profile there she hasn't been active there since December 2013. The tone and style of the article (as it is now, going to edit for just those reasons) seems like WP:PROMOTION to me. --Soetermans. T / C 17:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missi Hale

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

A singer whose only credit is to Monster High-either redirect to that or delete. Wgolf (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have a decent list of credits, but I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow talk 00:36, 5 February 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was unable to find any sources that would support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feerkhan Shujauddin

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

only a passing mention , redirect to bohra dai page. Summichum (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dawoodi Bohra per nom. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Faizan (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarius tour

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

This article basically contains a setlist and list of dates for a tour that is currently in progress. The artist, Tinashe, does not appear notable enough that her fist tour will pass the notability criteria in WP:NTOUR. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to pass WP:NTOUR. Also since many of the dates are in the future there are issues with advertising. JBH (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTOUR: "Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." That appears to be the case here, as the only coverage I could find in reliable sources merely announce that the tour is happening [48][49][50][51]. Perhaps some info from those write-ups could be incorporated into the associated album's page. Gongshow talk 15:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTOUR as above. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close/speedy delete as hoax. The complete and total lack of sources for this author make it clear that this is a hoax. While it's possible that the coverage never made it onto the Internet because her works pre-dated it, it's unlikely that someone nominated for a notable award would lack even an entry on the basic book databases. Since this has been around since 2007, I'll move it to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia database for the record. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alyse Squillace

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NRV Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, this one seems to be of local, not global, interest by WP:GNG and WP:NRV (Jedi attempt to subtly massage the terms of notability in the long term. Not just now. Shhh). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking as well. HullIntegrity^\ talk /

Comment @Coolabahapple: I am pulling literally nothing on academic databases. This one is screaming non-notable methinks. And I am for keeping anything with a secondary source. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I am getting that hoax feeling. Interesting. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further info that will help in debate? Have searched www.AbeBooks.com, which is used by thousands of bookdealers worldwide selling millions of books, for her name and titles mentioned in the wikiarticle. None of her titles are listed for sale. Have been unable to find any relevant info about her on google (a lot of sites base their info on the wikiarticle:)), or on Trove, which accesses multiple Australian library collections.^[1] There are no Kirkus Reviews on her.^[2] WorldCat has nothing on her.^[3]Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - As a hoax. I can't find any mention of Alyse Squillace or any of her supposed books anywhere (including Worldcat). The creator states that her book won the Golden Kite Award in 1996, but her supposed book did not win the award.^[4] The second reference the page creator inserted also does not mention Squillace, and the first link is broken. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I do not like speedy delete in general. But this one looks totally odd. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Alyse Squillace (Search)". trove.nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Retrieved 17 February 2015.
^ "Search Results: "Alyse Squillace"". www.kirkusreviews.com. Kirkus Media. Retrieved 17 February 2015.
^ "Alyse Squillace". www.worldcat.org. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 17 February 2015.
^ "Golden Kites Fly High". Publishers Weekly. 243 (13): 45. May 20, 1996 – via ProQuest.

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. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Girl in Town (song from Hairspray)

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

Single-sentence stub; questionable notability. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this page is not necessary when The New Girl in Town can serve as a redirect to Hairspray on its own. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not every song from a film is notable this being one of them, The New Girl in Town already redirects to Hairspray and personally I think this is a useless redirect anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 05:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete. This isn't even a stub, coverage in the main article is more extensive than in this one-liner. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unnecessary redirect. Any attempts at a standalone article for the song can be made at The New Girl in Town. Gongshow talk 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect already exists, everything about the song can be added within the main article. Open & shut czar ⨹ 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No attempt to even try to meet the WP:GNG. No redirect, as it's not really a plausible search term... Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - Liam987 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greyhound routes

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

Route list copied from Greyhound's site; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Trivialist (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This deserves a one-way ticket to Nowheresville. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How the hell did this go unnoticed for so long ? ...., Nothing of encyclopedic value .... and nothing of value will be lost!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom re WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a directory and almost certainly unmaintainable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above - Liam987 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but improve). I don't feel super-strongly about this, and I hesitate to take a position opposite the emerging consensus, but an up-to-date list of intercity bus routes strikes me as a valuable thing for us to have. In addition, keeping such a list would parallel the numerous articles and lists we have listing the cities and routes served by every passenger airline and every passenger railroad, certainly in the United States and to the best of our ability worldwide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Brad, correct me if I'm wrong, but while we may have lists of cities that airlines fly to, we don't attempt to maintain a list of every specific route flown by every specific airline, do we? That is, we might list that American Airlines flies to San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, but not that they fly from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Seattle to Dallas/Fort Worth. The route networks that airlines fly change so rapidly that keeping up with it would seem to be an insurmountable task. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Alyse Squillace (Search)". trove.nla.gov.au. National Library of Australia. Retrieved 17 February 2015.

[2] "Search Results: "Alyse Squillace"". www.kirkusreviews.com. Kirkus Media. Retrieved 17 February 2015.

[3] "Alyse Squillace". www.worldcat.org. Online Computer Library Center. Retrieved 17 February 2015.

[4] "Golden Kites Fly High". Publishers Weekly. 243 (13): 45. May 20, 1996 – via ProQuest.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]