Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 March	30 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unit (art collective)

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

Art collective long tagged for notability-was up for a AFD late last year and was voted no consensus. Wgolf (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, it's been tagged for notability for over 7 years, so certainly deserves a good discussion. Has some notable members, but doesn't seem to be notable. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: AllyD, Andy Dingley, Ethicoaestheticist. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That sure as hell shouldn't have been a non-admin closure, it should've been relisted until more than two people spoke up. For my part, my answer to the only Keep voter is that notability is still not inherited. I couldn't find anything remotely close to reliable on Google UK, and the sources in the article are garbage: a blog post from a long-defunct webpage, two gallery websites and an unlinked "Artists Newsletter." Fails the GNG by a country mile. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeeuch. Notability is not inherited, no significant coverage, no notable achievements (not to mention non-encyclopaedic content and a big old puff-piece. Elephantbronze (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nothing notable here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Repeating here most of my position on the first AfD: "not finding anything substantial that would indicate critical attention or evaluation of Unit as such. The principals of the group don't appear to have the established notability in their own right which might confer retrospective notability on this group, as suggested above, nor does notability inherit from putting on exhibitions by say John Latham, much of whose career probably preceded the lifespan of the Unit members. Unless someone can identify actual coverage of the group itself, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH." AllyD (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because notability isn't inherited from its members, and it isn't notable on its own. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Am slightly perturbed as to why User:Sukhvirlam has used the seemingly fake signature FrankUnderwood12 on their keep !vote but it doesn't change the outcome. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surf (2015)

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

Explicitly states that the album release is "rumored". Smileguy91^{Spread the knowledge!} 01:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is based on rumors, and the single source mentions the end of 2014, not 2015. Clearly not notable and not yet real. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP In this Fader^[1] exclusive cover story, Chance the rapper himself acknowledges the album's expected release and quote "The rest of the crew is looking slightly worse for the wear, though, having been up until the crack of dawn putting some finishing touches on Surf." The album was expected in October 2014, however due to delays it has been pushed back. No there isn't a release date, but the direct implication of it being released in the near future is there as in this cover story Chance states that they are just now finishing the album and to expect a summer tour, which also implies the album will come out before the summer. FrankUnderwood12 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Let's discuss.

^ "Why Chance The Rapper Is Forgoing Solo Fame To Make Jazzy Songs With Friends". 19 January 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We need coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. The rapper talking about his own (possibly) upcoming album is the exact opposite of independent coverage. What else have you got, FrankUnderwood12. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "to be released in 2015" - Well judging by that no one's updated the article because I assume no one has any idea when it gets released, All for we know it could've been cancelled .... so unless anyone can find anything that says this is getting released any time this century than I'll have to say Delete, oh and per WP:CRYSTAL....... –Davey2010^Talk 05:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would make more sense as section discussing change of direction by Chance the Rapper on article page until it is verified: WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL @Rob talk 15:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no redirect -- too generic a title) per the above -- WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruos Cheat Jivit

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

~~Obscure show with no refs or even notability at all. All the Google hits I got were wiki links even. Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdraw-This has to be a record for the quickest withdraw. Anyway as it turns out there is a alternate English title that was on the side bar that was not linked here The Taste of Life-which I'm going to create a redirect for. Well sorry about that! Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. The Snowager-is awake 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The Babysitter Battle (TV series)

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

I put a csd up-but this is nto a real show and a hoax-surprise it has been around this long! Wgolf (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Basically inconceivable that a new series, supposedly around for over a year on the Disney Channel (which has a huge fan base), would not generate vast numbers of Google hits, reviews, commentary, fan pages, merchandise, etc. Every sign of a clear hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Can't believe it wasn't speedied last year-I saw it was a hoax right away even-I put up a csd but decided to do a AFD as well seeing how pages go on the Hoax page (well at least it will have the (dis) honor of appearing on Wikipedia hoaxes!) Wgolf (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Every little trace of this article tells me it's a hoax since no hits related to the series were on Google and due to the fact that the article is unsourced. I would close this submission if I was an admin but alas. The Snowager-is awake 02:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a csd up. (I have some younger family who watches Disney channel and they could tell you this is fake) Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Čukić

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winner of a national beauty title. Plenty of potential sources exists - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bearian. WordSeventeen (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after adding several references from reliable third-party sources as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- She still participated in only one event... The Banner talk 22:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javidan Gurbanova

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as while English-language coverage of Azerbaijan topics is difficult to find, it's not impossible. Sources in other languages are not ideal but would fulfill the WP:GNG requirements, should they be located. - Dravecky (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if more reliable sources were found, she'd easily pass as winner of a major national beauty contest. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added the source Dravecky mentioned above as well as another one from a news site. I found more coverage when I used the native spelling of her name, Cavidan Qurbanova. I will keep going through the list to see if I can find anymore WP:RS. WordSeventeen (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkari Naukri In India

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

Prod that was removed by a IP-a article that comes across as more of a advertisement I believe. Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:OR. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an ill-conceived article with no sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is bad, shit article and not suited for wikipedia. --Haccom ✉ Talk to me 07:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very bad article, the only reference is in the reference section, not tied to anything. AlbinoFerret 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is very poorly written and sources as well. Should be deleted immediately. Dormantos (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above/OR. At best this would be a WP:TNT situation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - WP:BLOWITUP and start again, Clearly WP:OR. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be WP:OR. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liesl Laurie

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject easily crosses verifiability and notability thresholds with references in reliable third-party sources such as [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. - Dravecky (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a winner of a National Beauty pageant title she is notable. As Dravecky points out there are enough reliable third party sources, which will increase over the time spent in the role of Miss SA. Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above statements. She is Miss South Africa 2015 and this makes her notable, especially to our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.111.30.100 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikol Svantnerova

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. No sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Nikol Švantnerová, which is her real name. Česká miss is a notable annual competition and the winner usualy becomes a "celebrity" or public personality. Reliable source do exist: [6], [7], [8]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in one notable event does not make a participant notable, as notability is not inherited. The Banner talk 10:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but winning it, and going on to take part in another one is a different case. Typically winners of this contest receive year-round press coverage, which is ample for WP:GNG. So that's the three arguments in the nomination put to bed. C 679 16:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficient reliable third party sources ([9], [10], [11], [12], etc.) exist to push subject across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. C 679 07:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Dravecky and the sources he noted. WordSeventeen (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cato Hoeben

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Tagged recently by Duffbeerforme for lack of notability. 1st AfD attracted no comments; hopefully we can resolve it this time. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per being TOO SOON. It appears this person's end works have notability, but THIS composer does not have the media coverage to meet WP:BIO... yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps TOO SOON, but I'm certainly not seeing anything in the first 100 or so Google results for this very unique name that counts towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 20:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alan Meyers

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

not notable Fuddle (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant, in-depth coverage here; local business cites are run of the mill. Neutrality^talk 23:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Neutrality, it also reads like a promotional pamphlet. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Neutrality not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Payam Yazdanjoo

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

No signs of reaching notable status Amortias (T)(C) 19:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look at the references in the article and in my opinion they are not enough to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC as there is not enough secondary sources available about the subject. Dalba 15 Farvardin 1394/ 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Taking a quick look at the Persian Wikipedia's article about him and doing a quick search for his name in that language (پیام_یزدانجو) I did turn up a few sources. If only there were a few more, I'd love to feel more convicted in my keep !vote. He looks to have written a few books, ~Frankvla (فرانكولا) and ~Goodnight John (شب به خیر یوحنا), both of which turn up some google hits, and seems to be known for translations (including Richard Brautigan, which is what attracted my interest in the first place, and various works of philosophy). Some sources: interview at aftabir.com, book review, book review, interview with radio zamaaneh, another interview with radio zamaaneh, book review? at khabgard.com... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WCW Nitro. Been up 3 weeks and and only one !vote so closing as redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WCW Nitro (truck)

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

Can't find reliable, independent sources that support notability. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (sermonise) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WCW Nitro Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ERMES

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, although it's not my area of expertise. Has been tagged for notability for seven years. Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep If only for potential encyclopedic value. Article states that "ERMES" acronym stands for "European Radio Messaging System", but this source says it also stands for "Enhanced Radio Messaging System". I've found a handful of sources on both meanings, mostly in technical publications, and they just may (barely) satisfy WP:GNG.[13][14][15][16][17] Levdr1lp / talk 11:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (consult) @ 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Polonsky

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

Non-notable. Thin on content. Promotional. Tagged as needing citations since December DaveApter (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable media journalist, numerous reliable sources meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - editor of Page Six seems notable. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Journalists are notoriously hard to get through the GNG gate since other publications don't write about contributors to their competitors and their own publications writing about them is regarded as self sourcing. We need to use discretion here. I feel that the career achievements of this individual merits inclusion, although honest people may certainly differ with this opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Marshall (drummer)

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

Unwikified autobiography of a musician. Doesn't seem to have won any major awards, so notability hinges on WP:INHERIT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked the article for review at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 24. The author admits copying the text from a copyrighted source on the article talk page, claims ownership of the source text but hasn't supplied proof of this. Hut 8.5 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a massive copyright notice is all thats left. Notability is very weak if it exists at all. AlbinoFerret 23:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If one is willing to believe the author's claim of being Bill Marshall and this text being therefore not a copyright violation (see Swarm's talk page), then notability is still not established. I suggest WP:TNT, and wait for someone else to write a new biography based on reliable sources rather than Marshall's Facebook profile. If someone does before this AfD closes, please ping me. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pig fallopian tubes

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

discussion shows that dish essentially doesn't exist anymore Adgggadggg (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced article with invalid deletion rationale. There is no "discussion", just an IP (which I assume to be you) noting your opinion on the talk page.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing though: all those articles point to one restaurant that serves the dish and that restaurant no longer exists. You can't buy the ingredients at a market nor can you walk into any restaurant and ask them to prepare the off-menu item. It may be well-referenced, but so is every other dish in that article and I don't feel it to be completely necessary to have every dish in the articles to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adgggadggg (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriad regional food dishes that no longer exist, which what makes including them in an encyclopedia even more of a necessity. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about just editing it to say that it used to be commonly found in Singapore?Adgggadggg (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NTEMP, notability does not expire. In any case, the topic is wider than Singaporean cuisine as the dish is eaten in other countries such as Vietnam. And then there's the basic anatomical and veterinary aspects of the topic - see Swine in the Laboratory, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have a whole list of weird but notable food articles at Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Food. This seems well-referenced, like sambong or balut. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging around, I found out what this dish was. Nobody refers to it as "pig's fallopian tubes" but it is indeed still served in some places in Singapore. It's known as Kway Chap, and it pretty much consists of pig offals, including fallopian tubes, and rice noodle rolls. Would it be more appropriate then to change the name? I could list some references, but those are endless.Adgggadggg (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittitian Hill

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

Fails to meet notability requirements and is purely advertising Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep advertising content can be toned down by editing, but the argument here should be about the topic, which seems to be notable to me. There are quite a few published pages on the topic, they do seem to be independently rewritten at least and not just press releases. so WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article may be vaguely promotional, but certainly is not "purely advertising". Tone problems can be solved via editing and the subject is clearly notable sourcing based on extrensive reviews such as [18] & [19] and the many reliable sources in the article. Pinging @Gigs: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be enough coverage to meet notability requirements, including three non-trivial mentions in the NYTimes. The slightly effusive tone of the article not a valid reason for deletion.TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has a pretty good reference/content ratio and there is coverage in independent sources. There are a few sentences that read a little promotional and could be toned down. Gigs (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality (rapper)

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

Appears non-notable, no secondary sources to be found. Ref's provided purely prove of existence. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note-there was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality discography that was merged into this. Anyway, delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a little WP:TOOSOON. He gained notability for his album, but it didn't charted. --Karlhard (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, no charting songs/albums, released on a non-notable record label whose website looks like it was created in Notepad in 1999. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Hotels of Europe

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

No "independent" in-depth coverage in web, books or news found (only press releases and passing mentions from member hotels and tourist organisations). Notability is not inherited from member organisations. GermanJoe (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (spiel) @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Rich Gates

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

Spammy and weakly sourced article fails WP:NMUSIC. Careful about clicking on the links in the References! Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Logical Cowboy, How you say this article is spammy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji E.M (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is spammy but this guy recorded with Waka Flocka Flame so I'd say keep but watch.98.221.118.184 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)(edit to add that is me/my IP saying KEEP above as well)2601:C:6783:6A01:C80C:A620:F3FB:D718 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) @ 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- very few of the sources look that good. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Fails WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this artist is credited on many other artist's prominent recordings. I have a COI in that while looking for info about this artist, I noticed a domain that was heavily-linked that they actually did not own-so I bought it cheap. (full disclosure) That link is not a part of the article. Yes this article was created by a paid-editing spammer who subsequently disclosed that on their page, (I still don't know exactly how I feel about that).....but 1)-we don't really know WHO paid to have the article created, so why "punish" the subject? I worked on the article a little, but as far as the references to track-samples and players, I really do not know what is WP-proper for artists in this category. I tweeked this up with category, NPOV, and fact-checking, but I refrained-from adding extensive youtube --or--any--youtube linking, like I said, I just don't know enough about musical artists to know what would be acceptable, so I am only linking like I would for a "regular" article. Internal links and connections on WP, and reliable sources.2601:C:6783:6A01:C80C:A620:F3FB:D718 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, basically, there are two keep votes from the same IP, who admits a COI, and whose best reason to keep is that the guy recorded with Waka Flocka Flame! Lol. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Bobak

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

This is probably a talented and capable singer; but she appears not to come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. The world is chock-full of talented and capable singers holding down teaching jobs to survive; they are not notable. Ms Bobak has no in-depth coverage in reliable source to support her notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although not apparently notable as an academic administrator, she may well pass WP:GNG as a performing artist because of brief (a sentence or two,) but favorable reviews of her performance in reviews of concerts, operas in which she was a soloist. I linked a couple of reviews from Variety and Los Angeles Times to the page. There were more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The reviews at Variety and the LA Times are substantial enough to push her over the GNG threshold. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet Chancers

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network. No indication of independent notability. Greykit (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 20:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use It or Lose It

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

Once-off show sourced mostly to the network. One possibly independent source gives it one sentence. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 20:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most of the other programmes on this TV network, it's non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So You Want To Be Taoiseach

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (pronounce) @ 20:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consuming Passions (Irish TV series)

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

Once-off 'summer filler' show sourced only to the network. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampstead Trash

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

A couple of mentions in local newspapers, in relation to a single incident, do not confer notability. This is a blogspot blog for pupils at one school, not any kind of significant website. Mogism (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (natter) @ 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hets (band)

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

Unsure about notability-no refs, only one page links here. Maybe a redirect at best. Wgolf (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a COI also-the page creator has the same name as a band member. Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, notability is unsourced. The Swedish Wikipedia page on it is not much better. Fails WP:GNG. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND either. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YoungGoldie

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

Definitely a case of TOOSOON, sources are either irrelevant, (potentially) incorrect, or a single paragraph with no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Honda

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

Not notable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. No competitive bio at isuresults.com Hergilei (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(uninitiated) Keep by WP:GNG alternately. Sports Graphic Number Asahi Shimbun (1) Asahi Shimbun (2) Osaka Nichinichi(3-parter interview) Daily Sports 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (yak) @ 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references identified by Hisashiyarouin. She is notable outside of her skating career. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up truncation

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

While the cited reference does indicate that the truncate function may be used to expand the size of a file, no source is given, nor can one be found, to indicate that the term "up truncation" is used to describe this action, nor to indicate that performing this action has any given reason or benefit. As such, the description of the action here appears to be original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) @ 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Down truncate to zero bytes per nom. No hits whatsoever for this term other than this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search hits shows that any usage are almost exclusively coincidental: either from a hyphenated adjective or phrasal verb before it (e.g. "look up truncation", "follow-up truncation"), or just from a completely different clause/sentence separated by punctuation. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of this term being used for the task described. If there is a term that has the same definition as "up truncation", then possibly move the article to that term and assess it for notability. Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Sioux

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

Possibly too soon, Nia Frazier goes to the tv show it appears also. Wgolf (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable third party publications. Extra care should be taken as this is a WP:BLP about a minor child. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources. She's really young, it's too soon to tell if she'll be notable or not. Per nom, BLP is especially important here. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delanoistes

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

This article cites no references, and I couldn't find any uses of this term in the French media in the sense used in the article. This appears to be original research. Gaullism and Blairism have articles because they are terms very widely used in the media, but this is not the case with the term Delanoiste. Liam987 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (soliloquise) @ 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with the nominator, this is purely WP:OR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEO. I would say merge to Bertrand Delanoë, but as there are no sources there's nothing that can be merged. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be made up. I'm not sure if this really exists in a significant context. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Fazio

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

Sources all self-published, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC Seems to be WP:PROMO, unable to find additional WP:RS [20] ― Padenton |☎ 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Fazio production discography, pending separately. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author's creator has been repeatedly trying to remove the AfD template from the page. A protection request has been made (here) ― Padenton|✉ 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is under semi-protection status, expires 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) ― Padenton|✉ 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 20:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even when I went to the site listed as a reference and checked out the links in the press section it was hard to say any of them were good, one had no author listed, one did not link to the article it quoted, and one ...might have been good but one source is not enough to make this article. There doesn't seem to be any reason to have this page on wikipedia other than to promote the individual.Peachywink (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure whether WP:CREATIVE is the right place to judge this, but I don't see that he meets either that or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hogan

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

Fictional character that only appeared in a few episodes of a TV show from what I can tell Wgolf (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A "few" episodes or not, I do not understand what is the point of deleting this page. It is a legitimate encyclopaedic entry as far as I am concerned. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (interface) @ 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to Spooks#Other (Surviving). No evidence of individual notability, but a valid search term. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Spooks (series 6). A "guest" star for one series/season doesn't require a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lawrence (Spooks)

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

Fictional character on a tv show who had only 2 appearances. Wgolf (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. He's a character in two TV episodes. What next? Unnamed mutt (Spooks series 6, episode 1)? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Spooks characters or delete if the character is too minor for even that. No evidence of WP:GNG, we just have primary source plot summary.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny-Boy Hatchard

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

Article appears to fail WP:ENT. From what I can find out his only main role to date appears to be as Lee Carter in EastEnders. WP:ENT states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I think it's too soon to make an article for Danny-Boy Hatchard, I suggest either deleting the article or re-directing to Lee Carter (EastEnders). That way, if Danny-Boy does become notable, we can simply take the redirect off. 5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) @ 20:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:ENT because he's only had one significant role. –anemone projectors– 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Jones (politician)

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

As far as I can see, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN: local politician, candidate for national office but not yet elected, only press coverage is in passing as a side-effect of covering a story on another politician The Anome (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a candidate, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Time enough to create this article if he does get electiod on the back of a liberal collapse in the constiuency.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many, many precedents. He's not so much a perennial candidate as a failed one. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politicians who ran for higher office are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gonzalez "Calofer"

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

I put this as a BLP prod but I'm starting to wonder how real this is-of course its a bit hard to find Carlos Gonzalez since there is a bunch-so I did try to find Carlos Carlofer and the only result I could find is a car dealership in Florida (kind of instructing since Florida is mentioned) also the articles creator has the same name. Wgolf (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - based on what I read in the article and your reasoning for nomination, this looks like a hoax. – Michael (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of sources. He may exist but nothing in the article clearly says notable, and without the details it is hard to say what some of the claims mean. The soccer group he is with may well use the name given, but that does not make his position notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to K.C. Undercover. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Dunne

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

per WP:NACTOR ― Padenton|✉ 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K.C. Undercover, she probably will get her own article someday anyway. Wgolf (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly minor roles, one main cast role. Not multiple significant roles. No independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Perez. She's only had one role, fairly recently, that is anything more than a cameo or redshirt. If and when she gets more media attention, then this can be recreated. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to K.C. Undercover, the series in which she stars, until coverage emerges such that she meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gongshow talk 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD A9 (music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East of Alexandria

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

Not notable. The band referred in the article does not have a Wiki page. Conflict of Interest writing. Cahk (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As both A9 and G11, which I've now tagged it as. I've also (soft) blocked the creator's account per WP:ISU. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelgreen Baptist Church

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

Non-notable church. Article is a generic background of a generic church with one local newspaper reference. Article was prod-ed by another user, which was contested. ~EdGl! 13:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 29 March 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 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing notability, just seems like a run-of-the-mill congregation. Neutrality^talk 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't source it. (Sounds like a nice church, but no one writes about it.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(with regret) delete -- A nice but NN local church. The content would look good on the church website, but does not beloing in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very local notability only. We probably should have explicit SNG guidelines for churches; this one seems to be on the delete side of that imaginary threshold. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Solutions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Cattle

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

Unencyclopedic original research. Prod contested by creator. --Finngall ^talk 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sourced, but compiled via WP:OR, good as a term paper, not as a wiki article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3E Accounting Private Limited

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

An accountancy firm, which doens't appear to have received any independent 3rd party coverage by WP:NCORP. I am very suspicious about paid editing in this case given the large number of similar articles produced by what appears to be a WP:SOCKFARM. Le petit fromage (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the AFD as as seen here[21] it all appeared to have went wrong ..... –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of the articles connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvin Aghayev and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, although the subject matter appears unrelated and no socks have appeared here yet. I share the cheese's suspicions about paid editing, giving the pattern of unrelated topics in the SPI. Note also that the related article 3E Accounting was deleted last November per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Times link is just to a business directory, and the Singapore Business Review link is to something that does not appear to be about this company. The remaining sources look worse. So we don't have the multiple reliable, independent, in-depth sources required by WP:ORG. And as I already stated above the pattern of editing in the SPI makes me suspicious of paid editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership by Virtue

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

Novel published in 2013 with a suspiciously complete summary. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of any reviews. [22] Nobody appears to have read it on Goodreads either. The tone is also overly promotional, which suggests WP:COI. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I wasn't able to find sufficient sources to pass WP:NBOOK, but I'd like to see if anyone more familiar with Slovenian can find more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of the articles connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvin Aghayev and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, although the subject matter appears unrelated and no socks have appeared here yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the cited reviews are blogs or worse, no coverage in reliable sources. This is quite likely the work of a paid editor or editors trying to scrape the lower range of notability criteria (and failing badly, IMO). — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Yerpo: this is written with the surface appearance of notability (having many sources on a varied selection of sites) but none of the sources looks reliable. And the scattershot nature of the topics related by the SPI makes me suspicious of paid editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi Chowdhurani

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

non-notable show, part of a massive group of non-notable show articles created by puppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj and User talk:Tanns.25630 for background). References are mostly a bunch of cruft indicating merely that the show exists. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Comment. So this article from the Times of India is "cruft"? --Michig (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't go through every reference in every one of the scores of articles these puppets posted, neither do I think a single reliable source makes an article notable. That's particularly true in this case, the article you reference is used in the article merely to support the fact that Nibedita Biswas is an actress on the show. That certainly doesn't make the show notable. Particularly a show that all anyone can say about it is the "show was about a girl called Bibi who was a liar but ultimately the lies turned out to be beneficial for others". I've inserted the word "mostly" in my nom above to clarify.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole article about the show from ToI linked above, which says a lot more than that about the show. There may well be more Indian coverage - Google isn't a very good indicator when searching for Indian topics. I wouldn't dispute that the article as it stands is poor, however. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig:OK, I'll close this nom based on the information you provided.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete, please see AFC should you wish to re-submit this article. Nakon 03:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. and M.

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

Author has contested prod repeatedly without addressing issues addressed by editor Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, wait. I just now found this page. I still "don't get it". Is this a place where it is appropriate to repeat my initial protest of the deletion? All I see is a notice that teh content is "Unremarkable". I have tried to explain this elsewhere, on the page User talk:Okskyhi.

"I read this story just yesterday. The phrase C. and M. was so curious that I spent considerable time researching it's meaning. I went to wikipedia first and found nothing. Having found what I believe to be a very credible explanation, I believe it is reasonable to share this on wikipedia for other readers of Hemingway who are similarly curious about this obscure reference. Clearly it is an archaic phrase. And standing alone, it is certainly unremarkable. But I do not believe that Hemmingway has become so obscure or irrelevant as to delete this aid to understanding his writing. Okskyhi (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)"

Then there is this: Because you keep removing the proposed deletion withou making any improvements, I have nominated the article to be discussed for deletion. This nomination can not be deleted. Go to the page where it is being discussed and make your argument there on why the article should stay on wiki. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So I responded with my my confusion" I really don't get all the little syntax issues. I don't understand the advice given here or in help sections. Is THIS the page where the deletion is being discussed? Where is the link to the page where this deletion is being discussed? I don't get it.

When is someone going to explain why the phrase is "unremarkable". I have stated why I think it is useful to make the explanation of the phrase available in a universal resource like wikipedia. This is beginning to seem rather petty.

Is it enough of an edit for me to correct the spelling of Hemingway's name? Would it be enough of an edit for me to figure out how to properly insert links and citations? Would it be enough of an edit for me to create another page specifically for the short story "The Light of the World"? in the category:Short stories by Ernest Hemingway?

Okskyhi (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the discussion page. The original person who thought your article should be deleted did not feel your article was worthy of being on Wikipedia. Rather than make improvements to the article, to show why you think the subject is notable, you simply defended your point of view. And you added your defense, inappropriately, to the article itself, not its talk page. I had to delete it. Grammar alone does not mean deletion. It only means you are a poor writer, typist and or proofreader.

Here is the place for the issue to be discussed and a consensus reached as to whether or not to keep or delete the article. If you want the article to be kept, I suggest you make a persuasive argument and improve the article so the article reflects the importance of the topic. The last time I saw the article, I was unclear as to why it should be a separate article and not merged with an already established article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG, appears to be WP:ORIGINAL, if properly cited could be incorporated into article on Ernest Hemingway? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting and important are not the same thing. And if you look up unremarkable in the dictionary, you will see the relevance in this context points more towards importance than interest. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it already and be done with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: WP:BITE - For shame. I might be missing something (and I'll apologize for this scolding if I have), but it looks like Okskyhi has repeatedly asked for help and tried to participate while not even one person has linked him/her to the relevant guideline that forms the basis of the PROD and AfD: Wikipedia:Notability. There's the welcome message with the bevy of various help links and the AfD notification, as well as criticism of his/her typing/writing abilities, but nowhere is notability linked -- just repeated references to [unlinked] words like "unremarkable" and "notable". We're all familiar with the distance between the commonsense understanding of those words and what we actually expect when it comes to presenting arguments on those subjects on Wikipedia. @Okskyhi: This article is not going to end up being appropriate for Wikipedia. Either it'll be deleted or redirected, and if the latter it's more likely to redirect to the treatment than to an article about Hemingway. You might consider working on an article for Light of the World, which I was surprised to see doesn't exist. As long as all the most important aspects of the subject were covered first, it looks like there are sources about his use of slang in the story, so C. and M. might be appropriate to include there. Leave a message at my user talk page if you want to talk more about that -- or about deletion or notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried more than once to help but based on his user name I can't help but woner if English is not his first language. I have left messages here and on his talk page to improve the article based on the issues addressed, to make a persuasive argument as to why the article,mshould be kept, etc but as far as I can tell, none of that has happened. At one point, he even admitted the term was simply interesting but that seems to have been edited out. He even asks if this is the page to discuss the issue even though all links to this page say it is the discussion page. I prefer to think we have a language barrier issue here rather than a cognitive one. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. He has said numerous times, "And standing alone, it is certainly unremarkable. But I do not believe that Hemmingway has become so obscure or irrelevant as to delete this aid to understanding his writing." He is agreeing it is unremarkable which to me is a wonderful endorsement to delete. Hemingway, I agree, is remarkable. If this topic should be discussed anywhere, it should be discussed there. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Thank you, *dendrites. At least Someone gets it. Perhaps I shall respond when I have more time and patience for this school yard nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3580:E:65CF:8A17:C590:D667 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted CSD G7: Author requests deletion. The nominator is requesting deletion of a page he has created and there are no substantial edits other than by himself. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hijr (disambiguation)

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

already a page Al Hijr A.A.Wasif | Talk 13:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A10. No significant edits other than by the creator. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrre Maros

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

Delete: as non-notable businessman. Quis separabit? 12:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous references including this in-depth article in the NY Times as well as in wn.com plus media coverage in state-wide New Jersey publications such as the Newark Star-Ledger and New Jersey Monthly, plus much attention in local sources. The Chicago Tribune described him as a roastmaster ... serious about coffee. He's notable not only as a businessperson but for running two successful and popular music series (1) Coffee With Conscience Concert Series (2) Powerful Women of Song. series. He's raised over $100,000 for charities; (note: there are people alive today, alive only because of his charitable activities.) In short, easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Agreed with Townsulcer. Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dasun Pathirana

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

Articles for Creation draft (essentially the same page) was rejected three times for not adequately asserting notability. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why would you delete this article of me , when i am new to writing articles and learning and improving day by day. He is a famouse actor in Srilanka. Thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diya2012 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Investor (Company)

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

No indication of notability, not a single independent reliable source for more than half a decade. The content seems rather promotional. The references recently added by Varunksood do not represent independent coverage of the magazine and largely don't say what they're cited for. Huon (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article differentiates itself from the Book "The Intelligent Investor". If this article is deleted then it could lead to user confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.104.110 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of importance. Fails WP:NCORP. With regard to user confusion, I'm sure they'll figure it out, just as they would with any article subject that shares its name with another article. ― Padenton |☎ 01:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsterball (video game)

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:11, 22 March 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) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of current condition, burden is on the nominator to look for sources before coming to AfD. Indeed there's nothing on the Raptisoft game, but there's enough on the TikGames game—reviews in three major video game publications: IGN, Eurogamer, and Play (UK magazine) (see the Metacritic listing). So we're looking at repurposing and dropping the disambig after this closes. Those reviews are enough, but there are a few other small articles in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough sources appear to be available. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable enough, despite the current, unfortunate condition. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all individual House of Hardcore event articles into House of Hardcore (non-admin closure). Esquivalience ^t 00:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hardcore V

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

WP:EVENT: One of several similar events produced for pay-per-view TV. Limited attendance at the arena. There appears to be no significant coverage, and what coverage there is appears to be routine reports on the event. (I'm not sure what category this belongs in but I settled for games or sports.) Sjö (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I remembered the deleting of an article which covered multiple House of Hardcore events, and sure enough: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hardcore events. If a cluster of these events aren't notable together then I'm not sure how this one is special.LM2000 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are House of Hardcore VI, House of Hardcore VII, House of Hardcore VIII articles which may need deletion as well.LM2000 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should I then start a new AfD with the other articles? Sjö (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait to see the outcome of this one. If this is deleted then we can nominate the other articles as a WP:BUNDLE.LM2000 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, including VI, VII, VIII, into House of Hardcore. None of the events are important enough on their own. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all as above. Neutrality^talk 23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All and Merge-then-Redirect House of Hardcore into Tommy_Dreamer#Professional_wrestling_career. Pax 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - House of Hardcore is overall notable, but the individual events are not. Merge all into the main article. Nikki♥311 01:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B Chandrakala

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

Mid Level Bureaucrat. Non Notable. Does not meet Notability guidelines Uncletomwood (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Vanity page which fails all suitable notability guidelines. Cavarrone 04:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing indicates subject is notable. Neutrality^talk 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv Rokah

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

Not Notable. No WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Upon investigation of the two sources the page creator added, while the page is mildly self-promotional it does have some claim to notability. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Delete. Wait until subject is more notable for an article Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY at this time. There is some press on the one movie, but not enough at this time to justify an article. May well one day! Just not now. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep E.M.Gregory is doing excellent work to make a real article out of this. thanks for your work! Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except: he's got a film this spring at Vail.[23] 2 blue-linked actors in film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2015 film, a documentary, is garnering quite a bit of coverage. Wikipedia is not destructive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fact that Zach Galifianakis took laundry lady in documentary to a red carpet movie premier, then got this homeless woman anapartment, decorated by Renee Zellweger generated stories in Daily Mail, Daily News lots of other papers. It's still a paltry page, but it passes WP:GNG becasue of that film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so there is this, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yaniv_Rokah,

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yaniv_Rokach, as the other commentors and nom are , f course, aware. I am not defending his behavior. But I think we need to evaluate the coverage of his movies in independent sources, and his IMDB page independently of our feelings about his behavior on WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentAll facts, assertions in article are now sourced. Sources in include an article about subject in The Jewish Daily Forward and an interview with him in Jüdische Allgemeine, a newspaper in Germany. Note that although Queen Mimi received wide coverage, I only cited articles in which Rokah is discussed. The iVotes on this page were made before I sourced the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per E.M.Gregory and Jytdog plus in-depth articles in references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Valley Hospital

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

Try also search terms added 3/21:

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

--do ncr am 03:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at WP:COMMONOUTCOMES#Hospitals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals#Notability, WP:ORG and WP:GNG, I couldn't establish its notability, or a useful redirect target. Google hits were mainly its address being noted or adverts, not actual coverage. Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a redirect to List of hospitals in Pittsburgh? Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kennedy Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which presently does not mention the institution. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. For one immediate reason, the hospital operates a school of nursing and also a school of radiology, and the article is to by kept by wp:NSCHOOLS. The degrees are granted by Carlow College and Robert Morris College, but it makes sense to describe the programs at the hospital article; it would not make sense to redirect to just one of those colleges. Other redirect targets suggested by comments above are the Kennedy Township article and to the List of hospitals in Pennsylvania (rather than the Pittsburgh sublist because it is not in Pittsburgh proper). All four of those "targets", instead, should link to an article about the hospital. And, the hospital was started in 1906 and has a long history, including I am sure significant coverage over the years but in off-line sources.

Some basic facts are in this "Insider's Guide to Pittsburgh".

It was founded as Mckees Rocks General Hospital and operated for the longest time as Ohio Valley General Hospital, and it has a Wound Care Center and also a Cataract & Eye Care Center, all terms that should be searched upon.

This recent (2014) obituary of longtime CEO provides several paragraphs about the hospital, as it is intertwined with his life. That's in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a reliable source and there will be lots more in it over the years.

There's a long timeline of older events in the hospital's history in this old version of the Wikipedia article

There's this 1904 newspaper coverage of first nurse graduating, provided at the hospital's site but it's a newspaper's account, and there]s this History page of the hospital, and no reason to question it as a reliable source for what it covers (useful in developing article).

"The School of Nursing was accredited by the State of Pennsylvania" in 1939, per that, suggesting it was a standalone school not part of a college's degree program.

Further, ina modern "Fundamentals of Nursing" textbook, i see the hospital is a school: it lists as a contributoer (page v) a Lori Klingman, MSN, RN; Nursing Faculty and Advisor; Ohio Valley General Hospital School of Nursing; McKees Rock, Pennsylvania.

I see coverage of it as a faith-based hospital, including its founding by Dr. Samuel McCune Black, and its management by "Holy Family of Nazareth Sisters" in this book "The Rise and Fall of Faith-Based Hospitals: The Allegheny County Story" by Georgine Scarpino Rsm Ph. D., Georgine Scarpino. That book identifies it as "non-denominational" somewhere too, so I am not sure which it is.

This 1902{?) Journal of the American Medical Association news item, p 1122, covers the transfer of hospital from Dr. Black who founded it privately a few years earlier, to become a public institution.

Although it is about a same-named different hospital, The Golden Years: A History of the Ohio Valley Hospital, Steubenville, Ohio, 1912-1962, is of note, because there are probably comparable book(s) about this one, too.

I added other search terms above, but haven't tried them. Searching specifically within the Pittsburgh papers would yield more, too.

So, keep on the basis of being a school in past and present, and also for coverage as itself a hospital in sources identified plus plenty more. It was and probably is a charitable organization, not a commercial one, leading to even more coverage. --do ncr am 03:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Found one news article that mentions it in the title, but it is an obituary, so not really about this institution. Other sources I see mention it in passing. Doncram provides a good number of sources. The Hoff's Insider's Guide is helpful. But the other sources mention it in passing (as far as I can tell, Scrapino mentions it only in a single sentence), and I don't really see it as a valid school. I have trouble seeing how it passes the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hospitals#Notability. Perhaps someone should ping that project and ask them for input. PS. Also found local news here. Borderline, hmmm. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Commment Well the AFD should be settled by the article being about a post-secondary school as well as a hospital. By the way, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a major regional newspaper actually, and is covering this hospital which is outside of Pittsburgh. Thanks, though, it's a good idea to Google search on "Post-Gazette Ohio Valley Hospital", yields more besides CEO article and the maternity unit closing article:

this 1996 article about restructurings at the hospital

"It employs 500 persons, spends 63 million per yr, per new CEO Scott, Editorial / column

a doctor files suit against past CEO, as had filed against hospital before.

I run out of free access to the Post-Gazette though. Also, not from the Post-Gazette:

The hospital has bonds and a Moody's rating, in 2013 [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-320848677.html Moody's Investors Service has downgraded Ohio Valley General Hospital, Pa.'s bond rating to Ba3 from Ba2, affecting $25.7 million of outstanding bonds issued by the Allegheny County Hospital Development Authority." .
The Nursing schhol has 89 students

--do ncr am 06:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per do ncr am. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm still not convinced that there has been enough hospital-specific coverage, outside of the region, by a reliable secondary source, as required by Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals#Notability, to establish notability. Seems like most of the articles are of the "doctor sues CEO of xxx hospital" type, which per the above notability criteria specifically do NOT establish notability. BakerStMD 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Der yck C. 05:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the large number of incoming links from TLD-related pages, I've created a redirect to Frank Schilling, founder of Uniregistry. This is not to be treated as an admin action or part of this AfD's enforcement. Der yck C. 05:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uniregistry

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

This Generic top-level domain registry operator

gets "Uniregistry" "About 343,000 G-hits"
gets "About 1,240 results" in Google News

This would appear to demonstrate at least the significance of the business.

Uniregistry is a an internet business. It would be reasonable enough to judge its notability by its internet presence.

Within the "about 343,000 G-hits" and the "about 1,240 results", there seems to very little significant coverage about this business in websites that are not hosts for press releases.
This business would appear to fail the requirement for multiple, independent sources about businesses.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I assert my right to be completely and utterly wrong, every now and then. Shirt58 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A million domain names under management in less than a year and a top five domain name registry. Surprised they weren't in here sooner. Keep. Nameboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.144.94.21 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced outside of a passing mention in the Cnet source. No citations at all for the "million domains" claim. Nakon 04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-India sentiment

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

Apparently an WP:OR by single contributor; mostly quoting several sources to interpret indomania of some sense? – nafSadh did say 08:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indomania which has some problems with referencing but nothing that warrants deletion. In any case, the page Pro-India sentiment is for the most part a copy of Indomania and could almost be speedy-deleted under the A10 criterion. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinder Sahota

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

Was moved to draft space to set up proper article, but article has only marginally improved since and has now been moved back. I do not think that this artist is notable enough for an own article. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails our notability guidelines. COI issues as well. Cavarrone 04:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-COI, Too soon, per nom. Wgolf (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skinny Molly. Nakon 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bradshaw

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

I could find no sources to verify notability or sustain an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Delete and redirect to Skinny Molly Jbh (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Two of the sources are by the subject (independent). Other two sources are shop bios with no indication of editorial oversight and every indication of just being advertising (and so unreliable), plus they're not focused directly on the subject (just incidentally). I almost have to ask if the article was written by the subject, or just a friend of his. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i've added more sources. WikiElvis1965 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: user has been blocked as a sock of User:Wiki_Elvis)[reply]

And those sources do not appear to be specifically about the subject, only tangentially about the subject. Notability is not inherited or transferred. The Living Well article on Issuu only mentions Bradshaw's name once in a photo caption and does not discuss him at all. The Allmusic.com sources only prove that Skinny Molly exists, not that Bradshaw is notable.

I really have to ask if you're Bradshaw or just working for him. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with sockpuppet

I dont know mister Bradshaw at all, im a music journalist from Europe, and i saw that their Fan base is quite big! (i like their music too), i saw a lot of band info from them from different sites, and i saw that Bradshaw played with quite some big names, so i included these sources and i got the other information from mailing with the contact adress on their website, regards WikiElvis1965 (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this up for deletion? i was reading about Skinny Molly, and i came here and i see its up for deletion? what a nonsense! this article is important for the music lovers on Wikipedia, plus this warning is put here without asking the editor first what was wrong, Hank123321 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: user has been blocked as a sock of User:Wiki_Elvis)[reply]

Do you have a policy based reason for inclusion? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence! Hank123321 doesn't capitaize "I", or most words at the beginnings of sentences, just like WikiElvis1965!! I suppose this might explain it. Too bad that Hank's opinion will be struck as soon as the SPI is closed (and I'm not even sure a CU is necessary, it's all pretty duckish to me). BMK (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skinny Molly. BMK (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farez Bin Juraimi

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

Actor who was in just one brief role and that's it. Wgolf (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article states he's actually had more than one role. Nevertheless, he lacks coverage in reliable sources, and the roles he has had so far aren't enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs do not indicate notability. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Davies

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

Actor who basically has only small parts and that's it. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Yes it says 2nd nomination but it should be mentioned that from what I can tell this is a different Dean Davies then the one that was deleted. Wgolf (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he passes notability guidelines. Most of his work is so minor the characters are not given names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Human Traffic. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Dean M. Davies, only notable person of this name. This one doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Belle Air. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbi Xhelo

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

A businessman who was the head of a unknown airline from what I can tell Wgolf (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Belle Air. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to show notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Belle Air, which presently does not mention the subject. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above; no objection to a merge, if desired. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neutrality: If the article is deleted, a merge won't be performable by most users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Fleishman

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

The subject of the article does not meet the WP:GNG. It contains original research possibly from people close to the subject of the article. 8/9 of the current references are not independent of the subject and are not secondary sources because they were written by the subject of the article. Weedwacker (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks adequate 3rd party sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for want of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, etc. Neutrality^talk 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently needs improvement, but the subject certainly warrants inclusion in WP. Article can easily be improved by normal editing and development. Akma (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why this subject warrants inclusion? Seems to be a non-notable journalist. Weedwacker (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Fleischmann is a prominent journalist, author, and public figure. You're obviously free to dismiss his importance, but the cost of maintaining a page that clarifies his identity seems small enough.Akma (talk) 18:16, 2 May 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. Nakon 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hithlum

AfDs for this article:

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

Googling doesn't turn up significant coverage about the subject as per the WP:GNG. Thus the subject should not have a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and redirect to Beleriand article which has a section on Hithlum and could be expanded. Have copied article info to Talk:Beleriand asking for some helpful Middle-earth expert editors to incorporate the info. Have also left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth letting them know. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Coolabahapple: A merge to Beleriand is a good idea, even though googling Beleriand in JSTOR/Archives/News turns up very few secondary WP:RS to WP:V verify its WP:GNG notability. AadaamS (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang-ee

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

Fictional character from some tv show that mentions her being a minor character even. Wgolf (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Also I did put a prod on a similar situation: Park Myeong-yi (probably should of just XFD it and asked to combine them) Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Dae Jang Geum. No notability independent of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, this has no relevance Asdklf; (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EPIC (cognitive architecture)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Tagged by Mikeblas 7 years ago, still unresolved. A couple of incoming links are potential redirect targets, such as Cognitive architecture and David E. Meyer. Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, seven years? With no forthcoming references to establish notability, we should drop it. I think the presumption is that this model was presented in a paper, and the paper is referenced by other papers. The article claims that EPIC contributed ideas to other architectures; substantiating that might help, but it just hasn't been found. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Seven (!) years! Neutrality^talk 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospike database

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

There are not sufficient sources to satisfy any relevant notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inadequate evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - I had no difficulty finding "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of the Aerospike database, per WP:GNG - starting with 8 of the 10 references already in the article, which point to reliable third party sources. Following are links to some relevant coverage I found in the first few pages of a google search: [24][25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. This short list includes major publications such as The Register, GigaOM, Information Week, InfoWorld and Forbes. Beyond this, I found coverage of the Aerospike database (also under its earlier name, "Citrusleaf") in at least 60 different books and scholarly articles, including the proceedings of several major international conferences. So, yea, there are sufficient sources to satisfy the notability criteria. This article doesn't meet the criteria for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON, and it would save time if @Rhododendrites: would withdraw the nomination for deletion. Cinteotl (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: upon rereading the rules for withdrawal, I see that it might not be appropriate in this case, since another editor has added substantive comments.) Edited 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've checked one of the sources found by Cinteotl, it was okay, and assuming that about a dozen other links are also okay the topic is notable. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dynamic random-access memory. Nakon 03:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prefetch buffer

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

Unreferenced since January 2010. Subject has no coverage outside of pages primarily discussing Prefetching or organizations that create and promote their versions of prefetch buffers. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked history and talk page, no sources attempted. Delete.-A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like WP:SNOW. It's exactly the sort of technical subject one would expect to find in Wikipedia. Googling "Prefetch buffer" (with quotes) gives 29 in news, 1,930 in books and 56,000 generally. Clearly meets WP:GNG. There's an equivalent article in fr.wikipedia and 10 "What links here" articles. -Arb. (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to Dynamic random-access memory. I doubt that much of what is here can be sourced, and it would be better discussed as part of the memory that it's used in. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect. I agree with Michig, above. Neutrality^talk 23:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eye shadow. Nakon 04:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey Eyes

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

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. I also suspect the author is posting the article merely to drive traffic to their own blog and YouTube channel, which would constitute WP:SPAM. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Didn't realise the issue of the how to. I also was just starting to build the article which is a very valid article for wikipedia as its something very well known and should be included. I hadn't finished adding additional vidoes and images. I was also linking to a howto video and page if this is also not correct fine, I just don't see an issue with linking to a video on the subject - fine no howto in the article but surely thats not an issue if its a procedue and its just a link. Beauty and the Boutique is not my site for info also, its just one of the many I was going to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite it - Agree with nom that as written this is a self promotional how to. The topic itself might potentially be notable though. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok If I remove all the external links will this fix the issue and People can then add images and more to the topic. I have removed all external reference to any site so presume the article now doesn't have any issue only needs some images etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharveywiki: - Hmmmmm.... I think there still may be a few more issues. You're a new editor? If you'd like some help/advise, please say so. We'd be happy to help. ;-) NickCT (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have an article on cosmetics. We don't have articles on specific cosmetic techniques, and I don't see that we're likely to find any reliable sources to indicate that this particular cosmetic technique is notable enough to merit its own article. What we'd need is not links to a bunch of blogs telling people how to achieve this technique, but rather links to fashion or cosmetics magazines and the like point to the fact that this is a particularly notable technique. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: - re "We don't have articles on specific cosmetic techniques" - True. I imagine the paucity of sources probably wouldn't make a stand-alone article viable. Something like this could potentially get merged into an existing article.... NickCT (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strage as there is a page approved in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Eyes This is a very specific makeup look that someone could quite easily be searching for. I am not sure why there is an issue there are articles of all sorts of things which are part of another sector, makeup wouldn't cover it correctly but if the view is kill the article then fine, but also kill the DE wiki article as the point is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Yes I am a new editor - I also wanted to put some articles on Banknotes - British provincials and other but inder this view I couldn't as it should just go under banknotes ???? seems strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although all different language Wikipedia versions are run by the same Wikimedia Foundation, they each operate under their own guidelines which are generally set by the community that uses them. de.wiki operates under a different set of guidelines than en.wiki, so the existence of an article there has no bearing on the validity of the article here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little neutral on deleting. If this could be well sourced, I think it might be reasonable to make it a stand-alone article. That said, it's not well sourced at the moment so I think it's a dynamite situation.

@Aharveywiki: - If you really want to preserve this, message me on my talk page and we can discuss sourcing. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, not sure what you want me to message on your page, cannot see anywhere to do that, if you are talking about sources for info pages here are well known brands and websites talking about it. You may not know about this but it is a very well known look. http://www.loreal-paris.co.uk/trends-and-tutorials/tutorials/make-up-tutorial/get-the-look-smokey?gclid=CID8nt_Ko8QCFWEOwwodwAIA9w# http://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/makeup/a134/smoky-eyes/ http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/beauty/how-to/a31953/smoky-eye-hacks/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/08/gabrielle-union-makeup-best-celebrity-beauty_n_6631120.html This isn't someting I made up its something which people want to know about there are 11,900,000 results in google. If you want me to add these as a citation then fine, Like I say, I am new here and may have made a few mistakes but adding this into the system I don't feel was one of them, adding the "howto create the look maybe" although this because its a look, you cannot realy describe without saying how its done, or you can but its limited. I feel like a naughty person being told of when all I was doing was contributing but thats life I guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharveywiki (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharveywiki: - In my earlier comment if you click on "talk page" you will go to my talk page. I will be happy to give you a bunch of advice there. ;-)

Regarding your sources; Wikipedia strives to be scholarly, and prefers sources which are more scholarly and reliable over those which might be less scholarly and/or less reliable. The loreal source is a little weak, being commercial. The marieclaire and cosmo refs are how-to guides. The huffingtonpost article is a start, but you really want is a book or article which just states plainly what smokey eyes are. Are there any text books on cosmotology or something like that which might describe them? NickCT (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books suggests that many published makeup tutorial books do include the term "smok(e)y eyes" (which I assume they will proceed to discuss about it more). The DEWP article de:Smokey Eyes (which I read under Google translate) is decently encyclopedic at least as a stub, and Aharveywiki could start with referencing the tone and style they used there. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The actual article isn't really great, and probably should be deleted, but Eye shadow seems like the natural home for a better-presented, properly sourced summary of this style of eye makeup. Mabalu (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eye shadow, and speedily due to poor quality. This article does not appear to have any redeeming qualities in the offing. However, I can see it being an occasional search term, thus I support a redirect. Pax 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Eye shadow. It's possible there's a notable subject in here -- at least worth a mention at that article, but there's no usable content here. WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of prisons in Jamaica. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Andrew Juvenile Remand Centre

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

Fails WP:ORG. Juvenile correctional centres are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. WP:SNOW chance of deletion. Seems to satisfy GNG and LGNC. A prison (in the broadest sense) is likely to be notable (due to its size, the nature of its architecture, and the nature of the public functions it fulfills). This prison is known by a number of expressions. A search for "Stony Hill" "Remand Centre" or "Stony Hill" remand, for example, produces better results. There seems to have been some sort of prison for children at Stony Hill since the nineteenth century at least, variously described as a "reformatory school" or "place of safety" etc. This prison being in the Caribbean, I think it is reasonable to infer that there may be a lot of undigitised offline sources that can't be found with Google (WP:NRVE). ORG doesn't appear relevant as this prison appears to be some kind of building. As a plausible redirect to either List of prisons in Jamaica or, more likely, Stony Hill, Jamaica, to which it might in either case be merged, this isn't eligible for deletion on grounds of notability anyway (WP:R). James500 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I se no basis for assuming that all prisons in then road sense will be notable, and no reason to think this ones in particular. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or, better still, redirect to List of prisons in Jamaica. Short information (like number of inmates, etc.) can be adequately listed on the list article. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derdian

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

They seem to have achieved some level of success, but I couldn't confirm that they definitely meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Italian language article's notability seems to be questioned too. I've added several sources, but not sure they are reliable sources establishing notability. Managerpants tagged this for notability 7 years ago - still awaiting resolution. Hopefully, it'll get it now. Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-Per nom Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying_Group_G. Consensus seems to be fairly clear against keeping the article. Anything sourced with *reliable* sources can be included in brief in the redirect target. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro v Russia (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying)

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

No evidence this match will have any lasting notability. A bog-standard qualification match that happened to have a few disgraceful incidents causing it to be abandoned - such things happen fairly regularly, and are rarely worthy of note. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for as long as article Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) exists. ^Ol^Ja 13:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a very good reason for keeping. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I can see it passing WP:GNG as there has been a lot of media coverage and it is not everyday a goalkeeper has to be sent to hospital for having something burning tossed at his head. As also said above we have a similar article for an other match so I think this should also be kept. It is a fresh article so it has to be improved, but in my opinion it is notable. QED237 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it the first time such a thing has happened, and I see no article on, say, the 2005 Inter Milan v AC Milan UEFA Champions League quarter-final match - a match that was more notable anyway. Any football match could be said to pass WP:GNG, pretty much; WP:EVENT, however, isn't close to being satisfied yet. WP:TOOSOON. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - matches getting abandoned are certainly rare; that does not make it notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. Giant Snowman 15:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the reasons given above by GiantSnowman, not notable. JMHamo (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the match is important not so much because of the flare being thrown itself but in a political context. Around 300 Serbs turned up to support Russia, which can't have gone down well with the Montenegrins. The Serbs and Russians hanged Novorossiya flags in the away sector, fans from ex-Yugoslavia are a force in the Donbass conflict.[37] Seeing as this close to the Serbia-Albania match, tensions in the ex-Yugoslav region haven't been this tense in a while Abcmaxx (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTNEWS applies here... JMHamo (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, that's a terribly unreliable source... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unreliable? Biggest supporter website around, independently published, non-blog, non-forum etc. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Supporter website" is your answer - those are very, very rarely WP:RS-compatible, and this one shows all the signs of not being reliable (fan sites for ultras are rarely going to be reliable, for starters). There is also nothing obvious in the source that verifies your claims. Size does not equal reliability - look at the Daily Mail. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters are just as entitled to their own publication as multi-billionaires, government-owned media, fashion designers, or any other bloke deciding to run a publication. Fan sites for ultras - no it's a website for ultras and the biggest one of its kind. And Daily Mail (or any other newspaper) is a reliable source under Wiki rules, however much you disagree with a publication. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.Abcmaxx (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The Daily Mail, along with many other newspapers, has been frequently discredited at RSN. It is categorically and objectively not a reliable source, and that isn't a "JUSTDONTLIKEIT" argument - in fact, if you have any familiarity with the Daily Mail, and you are calling it a reliable source, I would question your competence. TMZ has a wide circulation, is that a reliable source? No, no it isn't. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that this fan site you are praising to the high heavens is reliable - and the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that. Most supporters sites are little more than blogs without the blog name, and I see no evidence - and you have presented no evidence - that this one is any different. Large, yes. Reliable? Not a chance on any evidence I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can rubbish any media according to your rules. BBC is government owned, Vice News is for hippies, The Guardian for left-wing nuts etc. etc. As for the site I praise to high heavens: clearly other newspapers had no problem using them as a reliable source Lithuania Tribune: [38], Soccerly.com: [39], the Romananian Gazeta Sporturilor [40] and Pro Sport [41] and probably tons of other if I bothered to research properly. No media is reliable as such Abcmaxx (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you've resorted to trolling - appropriate given the date. The Soccerly source is nothing bar a video and some description of it - that's meaningless. Yes, it references ultras-tifo... because they're the copyright holders of the video. Likewise, the Lithuanian Tribune is using a picture from that website, and nothing else. To suggest that those two are evidence of ultras-tifo being reliable is ridiculous. As for the Romanian piece... translating from the Google translation, that is pure tabloid journalism, nothing more, nothing less. So, yeah; you've got 0 evidence that the website you were touting is a reliable source. Other sites using their images or videos does not mean anything, nor do referring to their data for pure tabloid rubbish about "hottest choreographers". And even if ultras-tifo were a reliable source, you still haven't shown that they gave this game in-depth, non-trivial and non-routine coverage! Good job sir! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's hard to accept defeat isn't it? How dare I mock The Guardian or the BBC, the bastions of unbiased and reliable journalism across the globe! WP:DONTLIKEIT, almost WP:BLUDGEON if it weren't for the fact you disguise your arguments by rubbishing any source you simply don't read on the regular or have some sort of grudge against, bastardising policies to fit in with your own opinions. Pure tabloid rubbish about "hottest choreographers" - ever considered they were writing about fans and the site was the best place to back their article up, or they went there for research? Some guy with two laptops probably wouldn't go as far as copyrighting their material - if they weren't judged to be a significant source, no-one would have bothered with it. Trivial, routine and non-in depth material stays in their e-mail inboxes/on the massive forum, they don't write articles for minor events (from an ultras point of view) - 90% of stuff doesn't get an article, only big fights, tifo's and significant actions get an article. Football is about all fans, not just Sky Sports, MOTD pundits, and "official supporters" only. But I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue because you don't like and therefore it's definitely rubbish. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"How dare you mock" - it is behaviour like this that is little short of trolling. Nothing to do with you "mocking" particular sources, more that you appear more and more to fail WP:CIR. When trying to prove a site is reliable, you cited three articles where they were used as a source - two of those were file attributions, and thus the attribution is meaningless. That's nothing to do with not liking it, that's a fact - and your claims about copyrighting are pretty dubious at best. Also, 90% of stuff doesn't get an article? Why do I see random amateur matches with full reports on that site then? There is 0 evidence that site is reliable, at all, and as someone who is proposing a novel site as a reliable source, you must be able to prove that it is at least vaguely reliable. You've not done so, you've not attempted to do so in a serious manner, and you seem incapable of doing so. And the kicker is that even if the site is reliable, it still didn't provide significant coverage on this match, or if it did, you didn't show any evidence of that - meaning that your entire argument has been pointless anyway! Good job! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you just don't like the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there and you have refused to take on board any argument that you disagree with. So I'm not going to repeat myself because it's like talking to a brick wall. But just to avoid embarrassment: random amateur matches with full reports on that site then - the level of football a team plays is completely irrelevant to the strength of a club's ultras/fan scene e.g. RB Salzburg, a title winning team, their "fans" would never be on there as they are considered incredibly weak/non-existent in supporter culture whereas Carshalton Athletic might well do if they do something notable enough.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly not liking the evidence - there is simply no way on earth the first two links show any reliability of this site at all, and you seem incapable of acknowledging that. Intellectual property and copyright laws, whichever happen to be applicable, mean they have to attribute the source of the files. So maybe yes, they're a reliable source for photos and videos, who knows? But there's no evidence of them being reliable for journalistic pieces (you presented one piece of dubious quality), and there is no evidence they gave this match significant coverage in a non-routine way, and you've not even remotely attempted to show that. All you did was post up a random page of photos, nothing more, nothing less. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Matches are abandoned due to crowd trouble all the time; I fail to see why this is particularly notable. Same goes for the Serbia–Albania article. Number 5 7 16:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The game was interesting, sure, but it hasn't had anywhere near enough coverage to justify creating an article about it. – Pee Jay 17:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, at least, Redir) - Differently from Serbia-Albania (IMHO), for its diplomatic and political issues etc, this is a normal match abandoned after a flare to the GK and a brawl between players. This happens in football, and IMHO fails notability. At least could be redirected to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group G#Matches. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's first article I created and anyway I'll improve it. Yeah, at this time there are no refs in this page but the facts you here suggested will be included to the article. And, moreover, article of match between Serbia and Albania wasn't nominated to deletion and now it's the C-class article. EKBCitizen (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the match got abandoned doesn't mean it's notable. WP:NOTNEWS. – Michael (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group G. I think Dэя-Бøяg described it best: whereas there is a great deal of context supporting the Serbia-Albania article, this Montenegro-Russia event appears to lack it. To address A short paragraph on the Group G page describing the disturbances will adequately capture all of the salient content. Aspirex (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group G. Good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source [42] Abcmaxx (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of likely enduring notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 15:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midasuno

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Tagged by Sting au for notability 7 years ago; hopefully we can now get resolution. Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you try to establish notability but don't find enough it would at least be worth identifying what you found. A quick Google search found coverage from the BBC, Rock Sound, The Guardian, WalesOnline, another BBC article confirming one of the members' later bands, and an entire book on the subject of the band. --Michig (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a review of the sources above, passes WP:BAND. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination my error. Thanks for your work on the article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikes to Rwanda

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

Sounds like a worthy organisation, so I hope someone proves me wrong. I could see some coverage, but not enough for WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Tagged for lack of WP:NOTABILITY by Aboutmovies 7 years ago, no one else has yet established its notability. Hopefully this can be resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – There was some recent information in this book. It looks like the organization has fizzled out. I don't really know what to do with this. The links in the article were all dead, so I fixed the ones I could. If we keep it, it would be on the basis of the two surviving links from the article and the one from the book, which explains the difficulties they were up against. Starting with being the most expensive country in the world to ship anything to. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it was a mess, but please check the current article. Valid, verifiable references now include VeloNews, The New York Times, and Entrepreneur magazine. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stumptown Coffee Roasters#"Bikes to Rwanda" Project: Most of the sources in the articles only give Bikes to Rwanda a trivial mention. The only ones that cover the organization in any substantial detail are the book and Triple Pundit source. I'd recommend a merge to the listed section, which covers the organization is sufficient detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agape Church (Little Rock, Arkansas)

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

Was proposed for deletion as failing the main notability guideline. However the article was previously proposed for deletion back in 2007, so cannot be proposed for deletion again and am bringing it here. I can't see anything that suggests they meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) Delete -- No indication of size, but the fact that the pastors may have launched a TV network does not make the church notable: notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my opinion, the network is notable, the church is not. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action_Ambulance

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous nomination for this article was on irrelevant grounds. This company does not appear to meet notability standards: it has a common name, which confounds a Google (archive) test, but a search of the Boston Globe archives through 1980 returns 38 results, all consistent with incidental or promotional coverage, and it's a local company. Beyond that, there doesn't appear to be meaningful content in the article once advertisement is removed and there appears to be a substantial conflict-of-interest history. In the interest of full disclosure, I work in EMS in Greater Boston, and not for Action. Noophilic (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of the company is questionable at best, and the thorny COI edit history just makes it worse. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lack of secondary sources suggest that this company fails notability requirements. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Erotas (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Kiriakidis

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Erotas (TV series) as the main role in that TV-series seems to be his only claim of notability (he has other TV credits, but they seem to be not significant roles and/or for non-notable works). Cavarrone 18:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 29 March 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 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting means that it could possibly be notably expanded in the future...from a series that ended seven years ago. — Wylie pedia 04:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Erotas (TV series). Per Cavarrone, this actor's only claim to fame seems to be having starred in this series. The traffic statistics make it apparent that he is a likely search term, since he gets a hand-full of views a day. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Charles

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

non-notable. His role in founding Crocodile Cafe is not mentioned in our article, which lists other people as founders; his role in Capitol Hill Block Party is one of several co-founders only, a city's 40 under 40 translates as "not yet notable"; e-joint is not notable yet ; the section on his political opinions is not of encyclopedic interest DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough coverage and association with notable ventures. If the article is not good enough then improve it. I also was initially skeptical about mentioning politics but it was picked up by a couple sources.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

associated yes, but that's a very vague term--there is no evidence isis primarily responsible for the notable ones, and if the politics was picked up by sources, it shows they are basically PR. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) nafSadh did say 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Breeze School

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

Not notable and no reference. A.A.Wasif | Talk 07:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and plus the fact you haven't at all followed WP:BEFORE. –Davey2010^Talk 07:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES --Antigng (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 01:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerakat railway station

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

Non notable, unreferenced. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 07:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per well established consensus that all railway stations are presumed to be notable enough to sustain an article. Contrary to nom's claim, there is a reference. The article needs improvement, but that is no reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots. While the nom shouldn't have AfD's this less than two hours after article creation [43] (see WP:BITE), the article creator shares some of the blame for substandard writing. Even newbies should bother to capitalize sentences and proper nouns.--Oakshade (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
snowwball keep -M.Altenmann >t 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All railway stations are notable enough. In this case, wirting and layout can be improved. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1942 RAF Hudson Crash

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

This, one of thousands of aircraft crashes in 1942, is not a notable subject for a stand-alone article. The rationale for this article's existence appears to be the part of the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines which states that aircraft crashes involving wikinotable people may deserve their own articles. It is not a requirement that there be such an article, and there is not enough here to require it. We have an article of a single paragraph about a footballer (whose article probably only hangs on the notion that football players are automatically notable) - one of nine ex-Arsenal players who died in military service during WWII according to the one reliable source used in it - and another article about the crash that killed him, with two sentences of information that isn't already in the biography article. Also to be considered is that two other people who are much more notable than William Parr - Glenn Miller and John Denver - do not have stand-alone articles covering their deaths. Nor do David Watson (cricketer) or Ron Flockhart (racing driver). In my opinion it would be better to expand the biography article, using the sources already listed there, and then deleting this one. I don't see anything useful in keeping the title as a redirect, as a reader is not likely to be looking for William Parr by searching for a Lockheed Hudson crash. The term "1942 RAF Hudson Crash" is way too unspecific to be useful anyway; the Aviation Safety Network's user-edited wikibase lists 32 RAF Hudson crashes in 1942, and that is not an exhaustive list. I know it isn't exhaustive because one of the two sources used in the crash article (another database, covering 1942 aircraft crashes in south-west Britain only) lists another 17 RAF Hudson crashes in 1942 that aren't in the ASN wikibase. YSSYguy (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the biography Here and the title of the article follows the Accident article naming conventions for Wikipedia articles on air accidents without a flight number, in the format <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>> Talskiddy (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very good, but none of that addresses the concern I have, which perhaps can be summed up as "why does two sentences of information, which can be and is mentioned elsewhere in another article, need a stand-alone article?" YSSYguy (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I concur with YSSYguy--Petebutt (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable as a wartime military accident and the death section of William Parr (footballer) covers the incident adequately. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not meeting the requirements of WP:GNG for a standalone article; coverage is not significant (googling for written works referring to the crash itself turns up nothing). The current referencing establishes that Parr was killed on that date and served with the squadron, and that this crash was of one of the squadron's planes but does not actually tie the two together. Of itself a plane crashing at night during war is not significant, there is nothing that marks this crash as different from any other, save that the pilot's name might be recognized by the average man-in-the-street. The details of the incident can go in the article on the man himself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - William Parr (footballer) was notable as an International footballer for England. I've updated his personal page to reflect this with a couple of new references. I created the article based on the criteria for inclusion that the Military aircraft crash could only be posted if it involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia. Talskiddy (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria you used are the ones in WP:Aircrash - it says in the opening that its guidance "for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles (my emphasis) - ie in this case, would it get added to the articles on RAF St Eval, 233 Sqn or Lockheed Hudson. It also says that "By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not". And refers to the guidelines on general notability and on notability of events for whether or not to create an independent article. Perhaps the Aircrash guideline could be clearer on these points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I followed the guidence in WP:Aircrash which says: For accidents involving light aircraft or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)". I understand that the guidelines could be clearer, but maybe someone should start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents to clear this up Talskiddy (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A thoroughly unremarable incident and as noted the fact that there was a notable person on board does not necessitate an article. Nothing here than cannot be said in the biog.TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Notability is not inherited. This should apply as much to a wartime crash involving one person who is just notable enough to have an article as to elsewhere. If the crash killed multiple notable people it might be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Has been speedied. Peridon (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romai Sportswear

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

no evidence for notability; no third party sources DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 29 March 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 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Summers

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

never a head coach; minor positions only. I'm no expert, but his college playing career does not seem notable either. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant coaches can achieve notability, but I do not see how this particular one has done so. Normally assistants are not found to be notable and I can find no reason to make an exception in this case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Bath

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

Stub article that fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. I'm a fan of this band but they do not deserve a place on Wikipedia. There's websites like Metal Archives for stuff like this. It's another minor and underground band that doesn't need to be on here. Second Skin (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – There's actually a fair amount of coverage from reliable sources. Ghost Bath was the subject of two feature-length articles from Vice's metal blog Noisey[44][45] with additional coverage or album reviews from Consequence of Sound[46], MetalSucks[47][48], Stereogum[49] and Pitchfork Media[50]. There's plenty of information from reliable sources to establish a reasonably detailed article. I say weak, however, because I believe this is just enough to barely fly by the notability guidelines, and most of these sources were published within the last two weeks as the subject is currently within the process of establishing Wiki notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- in response to that, there are many bands who have made publicities like that which aren't on Wikipedia for the sole fact that they aren't notable enough. For example; Infant Annihilator,No Clean Singing Slice the Cake,MetalSucks & Mega Star Reviews Ingested (band), Metal Injection (and the band is signed to Century Media Records now) Epicardiectomy,MetalSucks,Teeth of the Divine Rose FuneralMetalSucks,Metal Injection,Metal Underground,AllMusic and Female Nose Breaker[51],Metal Underground do not have articles (without to mention many articles for several of these bands have been made several times but ended up being deleted). Second Skin (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF — comparing Ghost Bath to articles that do and do not exist is neither a strong nor compelling argument. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we're on the topic of an article in which we are in debate over if its existence is even going to be a thing anymore, then isn't what I just said a "strong" or at least relevant argument? Second Skin (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. First of all, the link WP:OTHERSTUFF is a subsection of a larger article titled Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions. Second, the notability or non-notability of subjects do not relate to the notability or non-notability of other subjects — this discussion is for evaluating the notability of Ghost Bath on its own merits, not how it stacks up to other subjects. This opens up the possibility of arguing from the reverse position of finding articles that are similar but weren't deleted. For example, above I provided seven reliable sources for Ghost Bath. When I created an article for the underground metal band Heiress, that article only had seven sources as well. But it didn't get deleted. If Heiress gets a page, then Ghost Bath gets a page. Was that a strong or compelling argument? Does Heiress have anything to do with Ghost Bath's notability? No. Or to use a non-band example, does the claim, "George Washington would make a terrible President. He's a lot like my friend Billy, and Billy was the worst and would make a terrible President, therefore George Washington is the worst and would also make a terrible President," persuade you at all? A cogent argument here would make a claim directly relating Ghost Bath to WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, and a cogent response to my point would directly relate to the sources I provided, not other stuff. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator) - meets WP:GNG. Also @Second Skin: please can you advise why I wasn't informed about this discussion? Rather disingenious of you. GiantSnowman 19:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hell would I know? It's not my job to inform everyone, I didn't even know who made the page. Second Skin (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - SecondSkin, for future reference, it actually is your job as the nominator to notify the creator/major contributors. Per WP:AFD#Notifying substantial contributors to the article: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use Duesentrieb's ActiveUsers tool or Wikipedia Page History Statistics." Fezmar9 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Troutdale, Oregon. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Park (Troutdale, Oregon)

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

Seems to be a small city park. Fails WP:N as there are no outside sources confirming any notability and despite several tags and requests for any sources, the articles creator continues to remove these tags. The only links provided are Yelp reviews and a MapQuest search, none of which establish why this small park is notable. JOJ ^Hutton 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Troutdale, Oregon, which presently does not mention the park except for within an image (caption) I just added to the article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Troutdale, Oregon. While there is a case to be made for auto-keeping all articles on parks, this is not consensus at AfD. This seems a minor park and a very "gudebooky" and unencyclopedic piece. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st Nice Beach Fashion Festival

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

Non-notable contest lacking support. A we search reveals nothing. Should probably include 1st Miami Beach Beauty Pageant and 2nd Miami Beach Beauty Pageant in this AfD. , reddogsix (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The nominator didn't include 1st Miami Beach Beauty Pageant and 2nd Miami Beach Beauty Pageant in this nomination - neither has been AfD tagged, so please consider this discussion to be solely concerning 1st Nice Beach Fashion Festival. --Michig (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable competition. No useful additional information (such as sponsors) seems to be available. Risker (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Decent

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A YouTube comedy effort lacking coverage in independent, reliable sources. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the non proper noun phrase "extremely decent" rather common in general news reports, one might need to add extra filters to sort out the unrelated results. But no reliable sources found with "Extremely Decent YouTube". 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was easily able to find secondary source coverage in multiple references including: The Huffington Post (2014), Hypebot.com, TIME magazine -- where they featured in The 5 Best Facebook Parodies, Variety, Marketing Land, CIO.com, The Huffington Post (2013), Complex.com, Digital Trends, The Stir, and also this source in German language. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. In addition to Cirt's links, here is coverage in The Daily Dot. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. - Our goal is to create a web-based, free content encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge....we are not hardup for space. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already the subject of publication in the wider world. lol fun rant!!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone point to a single reliable source that gives significant coverage to Extremely Decent? All I see is passing mentions in the context of very brief articles recommending funny videos. What am I missing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-: I just checked through the sources provided above and I can't see the subject of this article as the subject of the sources. All I can see are passing mention. None of the sources discussed the subject in detail. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-: I just checked the source suggested by Carrite, above, namely, The Daily Dot. Thank you, Carrite, for helpfully doing some diligence and recommending yet another source. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Here's the totality of the coverage of the topic in that source: "L.A. sketch comedy troupe Extremely Decent feels your pain, and translated it to video." Do you really see that as significant coverage, Cirt? I don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Nakon 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vidadi Muradov

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

No real references that I can read. (This is the en wiki, after all). A search brought up self-published sources, I can't any references to the official public office he holds. His degree is confusing. He does scientific research for the president on carpet designs. He's a professor of decorative applied art. The whole article is very, very confusing and at best is so completely culturally out of touch with anything that I am familiar it resembles a hoax. Bfpage |leave a message 01:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My review: this news(?) article reads like a press release from his carpet company. A newspaper review on his book about carpets. Carpets in the museum and the carpet company. The man's title of the article under discussion is mentioned briefly in passing in the previous article. This is an article that is really about a very specific, very regional, ethnic carpeting, not about the man.

site:news.google.com/newspapers gave no returns. There are books, all with the same title, different years returned from a google book search, but they are unavailable in any form or library. They do list the man as the author. I am guessing the books are catalogs of carpets but that is conjecture. The books are not probably about the man. There are three citations only in an intelligible form from google scholar. No returns from JSTOR. Even after reading the poor translations to English, I still can't grasp the notability of this biography of this living person or even figure out what he does. If someone were to ask me how the encyclopedia was better for having this article, I wouldn't have an answer.

Bfpage |leave a message 02:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is described as a leading academic expert on Azerbaijani rugs. I am fully prepared to acknowledge that such an expert, on a topic of considerable importance to his country's economy and culture, could be notable. What's not at all clear is that the case for that notability can be made here. For whatever it's worth, note that the Russian Wikipedia version of this article is currently being considered for deletion and (as best I can follow the discussion from the Google translation) the editors there are expressing similar concerns. Input from editors knowledgeable in the subject matter would obviously be valuable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Keep Apparently an expert in his subject. But I too would like to wait to see the result at the ruWP. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Riders

AfDs for this article:

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

A defunct local advocacy group. Not notable at all. Only coverage was in local Toronto sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that this article does not make any substantive claim of notability, nor is it supported by sufficient reliable sourcing to claim WP:GNG — as written, all I'm getting here is that the group might merit a single unlinked mention in the article on 501 Queen, and does not need its own standalone article if this is all that we can write or source about it. I do want to express the caution to @Some Gadget Geek:, who nominated this for prod the other day, that we do not automatically delete articles about defunct groups just because they've gone defunct — if an organization was ever notable enough for an article, then it remains permanently notable regardless of its current activity status. We're not just a directory of currently active things; we cover things of historical note too. The problem here isn't that the group is defunct — it's that under current Wikipedia content standards the article isn't written substantially enough, or sourced adequately, to demonstrate that it was actually notable enough to get over WP:ORG even when it was active. Delete unless somebody can actually salvage it with much more substance and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarana-e-Pakistan

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

Bogus article. There are sources pointing that such a thing never existed. The controversy is a very minor thing and this article gives undue weight to it. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 04:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a historical article about Pakistan's first National Anthem. This article must not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBulova (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no historical evidence that this Anthem ever existed or was approved by Jinnah. It does not need an article here on Wikipedia. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorsports people by nickname

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

I fail to see how this list is encyclopedic... at all. It is just a laundry list of nicknames, many of which are either unsourced, or of drivers who aren't notable in the slightest. There is also no evidence that any nickname usage is widespread for the majority of these drivers. The article itself is also a total mess; no inclusion criteria whatsoever, formatting is all over the place, etc. Such a list may be appropriate for a fan Wikia, but not Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up. No valid reason for deletion has been given. Should we also get rid of everything in Category:Lists of people by nickname (if so, a lot of my work has been in vain) and Lists of nicknames? However, people who don't have articles and unsourced nicknames should go. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should go, yes. The lists are not remotely encyclopedic, and most of the nicknames aren't notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sports nicknames are notable per WP:LISTN as there are substantial compilations of them including:

Andrew D. (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable, yes. However, none of those links above are relevant to the article in question, and most of the nicknames in these lists are not notable. The lists have no inclusion criteria whatsoever, and any real inclusion criteria would come down to pure WP:OR. Falcadore's analysis on the related AfD is pretty accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LSC - specifically in section 1 of the common selection criteria: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. By definition, most if not all nickname articles would be a redirect to an article named for the subjects full/correct name instead of the nickname. Basic mis-understanding of WP:CSC. --Falcadore (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you're misinterpreting the stipulation. As I read it, it just states that each entry should have an article (though it explicitly allows redlinks as well). In any case, it is just put forward as a "common" selection criterion, not a mandatory one. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You think or you know? --Falcadore (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know. But it's so poorly worded, who can tell? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:LISTN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames in motorsport

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

I fail to see how this list is encyclopedic... at all. It is just a laundry list of nicknames. There is also no evidence that any nickname usage is widespread for the majority of these subjects. The article itself is also a total mess; no inclusion criteria whatsoever, formatting is all over the place, etc. Such a list may be appropriate for a fan Wikia, but not Wikipedia. Some of these aren't even "nicknames", but either actual names (Baby Bertha was a specific car, not a "nickname"), or official/semi-official descriptions ("Home of British Motor Racing"). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's comment I made this as an expansion to the list of sportspeople by nickname as was getting too large, plus there is other lists of sportspeople out there such as...

amongst others, what is more worthy is a cleanup as this was done when I was new to Wiki but I don't have the time to do this myself, plus there is more lists that is in a poorer condition to this one. Donnie Park (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. No valid reason has been offered for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list being non-encyclopedic is most definitely a valid reason for deletion. Laundry lists of random nicknames, most of which aren't notable in the first place, have no place here whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC — a classic argument to avoid. Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LSC - specifically in section 1 of the common selection criteria: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. By definition, most if not all nickname articles would be a redirect to an article named for the subjects full/correct name instead of the nickname. Basic mis-understanding of WP:CSC. --Falcadore (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - Some of the snooker player nicknames are beyond moronic but I won't name & shame!, That aside I don't see how any of these are encyclopedic - Most nicknames get shoved on the BLPs article .... So all of these lists are pretty much redundant and useless IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010: Notice that List of nicknames in motorsport is the only article nominated for deletion in this discussion. The other list articles were posted as a general comparison. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as most of the names can generally get a mention in BLPs articles (Thanks Northamerica1000 for spotting the cock up there - Lack of sleep as per usual). –Davey2010^Talk 23:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sports nicknames are notable per WP:LISTN as there are substantial compilations of them including:

Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable, yes. However, none of those links above are relevant to the article in question, and most of the nicknames in these lists are not notable. The lists have no inclusion criteria whatsoever, and any real inclusion criteria would come down to pure WP:OR. Falcadore's analysis is pretty accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with what other nominators said is that it needs a heavy amount of pruning down as this was done in 2008 when there (probably) wasn't any inclusion criteria. Donnie Park (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:LISTN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leon County, Florida – Public safety. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miccosukee Volunteer Fire-Rescue

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

No indication that the subject has received significant, independent, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Leon County, Florida – Public safety, which presently does not mention this fire department. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. volunteer fire brigades have no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Demings

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

Claims to fame are (1) being a county sheriff and (2) being an unsuccessful candidate for a statewide office. Does not meet WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough here to evaluate Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here confers automatic inclusion under WP:NPOL, and the article is not well-sourced enough to claim WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Dalhouse

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

Secretary of one YMCA in Jamaica. Only source that perhaps covers the subject in-depth is a routine article reporting his death. Remaining references only mention him in passing. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article originator here. Subject has a still extant international swimming meet named after him. There are multiple sources: Entering "Karl Dalhouse" as a search term at http://gleaner.newspaperarchive.com/ yields over 300 results in Jamaica's main newspaper and 30 in other, likely US papers. Google likewise yields multiple hits. Incidentally, the Kingston YMCA was at the time the only Y in the country. -Arb. (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being mentioned in the news does not make a person notable. Most search results are for the swimming meet, not the person and do not provide any significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject lived in the time before the internet and has an extant, annual, international swimming meet named after him (not a common honour anywhere and unique in Jamaica to the best of my knowledge); not surprising that the majority of recent web commentary is about the meet. -Arb. (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article originator again. Closing admin kindly be aware that OP previously AfD nominated another article I originated (as part of it's DYK process - Formula 1 (board game)). It was closed as Keep. Since than he or she has nominated this plus at least two articles I'd improved and deproded. While technically within his or her rights, it certainly feels like harassment. -Arb. (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Journals/Requests#Newspaperarchive, we should have access to The Gleaner's archive "in the next couple months". Suggest this AfD is closed as "no consensus" for now and revisited once the references become available. -Arb. (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Willing to userfy or redirect on request. Nakon 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia (group)

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

Untrue information. Marta Jandová and Václav Noid Bárta will represent the Czech Republic at the Eurovision Song Contest 2015, but they never formed a group called "Bohemia". The page cites no sources and is orphaned as well. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no view on the question of notability but there are plenty of sources that link these two together as Bohemia, eg [52], [53], [54] and many more that can be found with a Google search. Just Chilling (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But are these reliable sources? The official Eurovision website lists them as "Marta Jandová & Václav Noid Bárta" as do other reliable sources such as Eurovoix, Esctoday, and Wiwibloggs. As for your third source, it never calls them "Bohemia" except for an unrelated YouTube video they linked. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the fact that there is no current information of this group. It fails notability standards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of those sources that @Just Chilling: linked to, OGAE is reliable, as is EurovisionTimes. The third, I'm not sure and have never come across the website before. Although that doesn't mean they are unreliable. However with that in mind, and seeing as we have conflicting information on various reliable Eurovision-related websites - then I would be inclined to say redirect to Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015; and in the event that Eurovision.tv confirm the group name, then undo the redirect and build up the article accordingly. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 – Per Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs). There is too much uncertainty at the minute and it isn't really clear if this group justifies an article beyond the standard Eurovision one. A re-direct seems appropriate for now. CT Cooper · talk 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- If ever the article should be deleted, it would be better to redirect it to their song page "Hope Never Dies" rather than Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015. werldwayd (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Someone searching for the group would not expect to be redirected to their song. As the duo were internally select to represent the Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015, then a redirect there would be more logical. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. All finalist formations that are performing their country's official entry at the Eurovision Song Contest are notable to have their own separate articles in Wikipedia. But there is not enough documentation till now that the official entry will mention Bohemia by name. However regardless of the outcome, there is good argument in renaming it Bohemia (duo) as technically this is not band. To my mind, a band would have three members are least. Two members is called a duo. werldwayd (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lazar (rabbi)

AfDs for this article:

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

"Straight person of the year" is not a notable award, and I see nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Another nomination less than three months after a snow keep? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG I assume you missed the recent AFD that User:Brewcrewer flagged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources exist, though the article needs these sources to be added - please see first Afd. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but the first AfD identified a significant number of sources about the subject that demonstrate notability. What's changed since then? Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Mercado

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

I was going to put a BLP prod on this-but something seemed off when I saw the guys year of birth and the fact that the creator has the same name. Is this a hoax or what is this? Either way no eligible for wiki imo. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Phool Ek Bhool

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

non notable film Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ek Phool Ek Bhool

Comment: A 1968 Hindi film that is waaaay pre-internet and Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly... specially for films from 47 years ago. I will await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians who may have information about this film. At the very least, it seems this film has made it into the permanent historical record. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS - Sources are next to none impossible to find on films dated pre 1970s so films of these eras are 9 times outta 10 kept. –Davey2010^Talk 04:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balram Shri Krishna

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

Non notable film Wgolf (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: another pre-internet early Hindi film. Not unsourcable and part of the historical record. I'll await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians and not judge from current state. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Part of this is due to a bit of possible SPI that has been going on which is why this is on the AFD actually. Wgolf (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The poor noob author. If not a sock, the sheer number of deletion tags from you on his talk page is not exactly welcoming. Whew. Do you have a link to any investigation? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For reference, see WP:INDAFD and this search: Balram Shri Krishna. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I didn't realize I did that many, feel bad I did. I seem to have more troubles with some of these articles from countries like that though from those users...I don't mind obscure films coming in to be honest though. And the other problem is though the refs are unreliable and I have sent them notices about it. Wgolf (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj Wgolf (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation lists him only as "suspected" of being part of a "paid editing ring"... though who is going to rich on articles for 50 year old Hindi films? I would think that if any established editor wishes any of these userfied to them for continued work, we'd be okay with that. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong Venue - Drafts get nominated at WP:MFD. –Davey2010^Talk 04:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Myanmar Airways International destinations

AfDs for this article:

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

Contents of the article are being merged to the main article. Doraemon25 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 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 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong Venue - Drafts get nominated at WP:MFD. –Davey2010^Talk 04:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Tree

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

Article is not edited in the past six months. Doraemon25 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon25 - Umm the article has never been created?, I'm assuming it's a typo somewhere? –Davey2010^Talk 04:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Davis Drumming

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

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

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

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

Seems to be entirely self-promotion --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking up Seth Davis Wiki page and discovering that his page is being considered for deletion has got me very confused. The Seth Davis page seems to be very accurate and may be missing some of his accomplishments but I could not verify all. He is a perfectionist at it's finest and has nothing but heart for his profession and passion of percussion. He is all about business and is very down to earth and always willing to help and teach others interested in this world we call music. He worked very hard and learned a lot of music very quickly. And may I say not easy music to learn. Seth seems to have Dealt with all that was coming his way and overcame many obstacles that were put in front of him last minute. Seth does not have to impress, his percussion speaks for itself. Like I mentioned in the beginning of my statement a bit confused on why his page would be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32CC:2160:2DFC:48CC:9C9B:4452 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:32CC:2160:2DFC:48CC:9C9B:4452 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How is Seth Davis' wiki page "entirely self-promotion" when it is all factually based with substantial references and written by fans?Drumming4Life (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC) — Drumming4Life (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm really frustrated with the fact that any individual would even think of deleting this article. Seth Davis has devoted almost his entire life to teaching his craft for either peanuts or for free so that other individuals can learn and carry on his knowledge. The "wiki page", although does not give all the information on this world renowned drummer, is an article much like any other wiki article filled with facts about his life. It would be a shame to see such an article deleted from the wiki records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.hebert35 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC) — John.hebert35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Seth Davis is an accomplished drummer/musician with many credible references as well as noted recordings with accomplished bands. He Made History by winning many competitions in various categories of drumming, as well as established his own techniques to the approach, practice, and performance of drumming. This is not an autobiographical page to be deleted, it is but a record of his accomplishments throughout his career, in which he is continually growing. His skills can be compared to Buddy Rich, Neil Peart, Mike Portnoy, and several other amazing musicians that are also in wikipedia articles. If they have articles about them, being accompished drummers, why shouldn't Seth Davis be among them. If you have seen his videos and his performances, there would be no question about his inclusion into the great library of wikipedia. I am a supporter and frequent user of wikipedia, and would love to see them include this article among the many other great articles that this website and participants have produced. Mainly, for the world to learn about as many people as they can through this website, as I have, all sharing and networking to better educate ourselves and others we influence. Thanks for your time. - Christopher T. Gautreaux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher T. Gautreaux (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Seth Davis drumming page being considered for deletion? It says "self promotion"? That makes no sense. Seth didn't have anything to do with the creation of the page. Not only that, everything in it is completely true. Because it may seem far fetched to some has absolutely no bearing on it's validity. Going by wiki's criteria for the deletion of this page, are we to subsequently call into question every individual who has pushed and strived to achieve into question? I mean if that is what we are doing then we all have some work to do to alert Wikipedia on all extraordinary individuals who's personal achievements apparently are suspect because SOMEONE thinks it's too good to be true. Also not to nit pick but "self" promotion indicates that it was perpetrated by self i.e. Seth Davis himself which it was not. All of Seth's achievements are verifiably facts. Maybe you should check for errors in fact instead of pointing accusatory fingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdthardy (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Tdthardy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been aware of Seth Davis as an unusually gifted drummer for a number of years. But I was surprised to see that he did not have a Wiki some time ago. I became aware of him through his Youtube videos and quickly bought one of his drumming courses. As a drummer, I found that he has a way of "hitting the nail on the head" in terms of material to give a strong amount of results with a small amount of practice time. I was actually a co-coordinator at one of his live seminars and thus have seen him play in person before. IMO, this wiki page is not exaggerating any of his accomplishments, tittles, or abilities. He has so many for being such a young musician and certainly belongs in here. It would be very sad if this page were taken out as serious drummers such as myself and family definitely benefit by having this info available. I simply do not see any downside to this page about him at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyjazz (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Scottyjazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't understand why this page is being considered for deletion. Seth's devotion and contributions to the art and science of drumming is unequalled. His involvement in the industry as a technician and teacher has been fastidiously documented and should remain a part of the Wikipedia database for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelonious Pink (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Thelonious Pink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete swarming of single purpose editors indicate conflict of interest , and no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of Seth Davis's out there. Anyway, adding " drum" cuts the no. of results to five, four of which are in Google Plus and one I don't recognize the language but appears a video sharing site. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilasha (film)

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

Non notable film Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD Abhilasha

Comment: Another nomination for a new article on an old Hindi film. Shame on its author for leaving it for others to work on. It's not unsourcable, and as it appears to have made it into the historical record, I'll await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians able to offer sources for this 47 year old, waaaay pre-internet film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kushboo Ramnawaj

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

fails WP:GNG, only known from WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Mauritius. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of sufficient coverage by reliable third-party sources ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], etc.) to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Dravecky and the sources he has cited above. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wheatus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montauk Mantis

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

Appears to be a non-notable record label. Article is unsourced, and has had an "unsourced" tag on it for 6 years. I'm unable to locate any reliable sources that speak to or confirm this label's notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Does not appear to fulfill notability. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wheatus, no notability outside band, directly related to it, and a likely search term. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wheatus where it is already covered. --Michig (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahua (film)

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

Non notable film Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to have coverage outside of IMDB. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Banake Dekho

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

Non notable film with no reliable sources Wgolf (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to have coverage outside of IMDB. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As this 53-year-old, waaaay pre-internet Hindi film appears to be sourcable and through it making it into the historical record, I'll await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians able to judge it a bit better than I. Who knows... it may just develop that it is a significant part of some notable actor's career. We'll see. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Mehboob Mujhko Tu Itna Bata

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

Non notable song Wgolf (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only source is wordpress. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film article Haseena Maan Jayegi where it offers context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haal Kaisa Hai Janaab Ka

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

Non notable song Wgolf (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo (mass deletion of pages added by Akash Guhathakurta). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aalha Udal

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

Non notable film with only unreliable refs Wgolf (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability Psychotic Spartan 123 00:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another nomination of a new stub article about an old Hindi film.... 53-years-old and waaaay pre-internet. As it appears sourcable and has made it into the historic record, I am inclined to not judge by current state and await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians better able to offer sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For reference, see WP:INDAFD and this search: Aalha Udal. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Why Chance The Rapper Is Forgoing Solo Fame To Make Jazzy Songs With Friends". 19 January 2015.

[1]