Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 May	25 May >

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montana of 300

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

Non-notable rapper lacking non-trivial support. Article makes claim of high YouTube hits and downloads, but this is probably not enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:MUSICBIO at this time.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing significant with News finding a few links and my other searches (Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacsk significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 30 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 Speedy delete by JamesBWatson. (NAC) lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yotta Solutions

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

Lack of notability. I see no evidence that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Providing services to notable companies doesn't confer notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:22, 24 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 redirect to Kitty (rapper). MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impatiens (EP)

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

I created this article about a year ago thinking the release would be moderately popular and notable, but that didn't end up being the case and it didn't even get a single review. I don't think the subject of this article is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, so I think it should be deleted. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No reviews and didn't chart, shame because it seems notable, and the artist is. Would propose a merge into discography on main page, which could be expanded to include tracklisting (subsequent EPs could be done too?) Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to artist. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:35, 30 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aromadon

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

A corp I am having trouble finding refs for as well as notability. The google search results I am getting names for the most part-though I did get a Russian page but no clue if it is about this or not. Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good Russian sources are found, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from business listings. @Wgolf: What was the exact Russian page you found? I'm not finding anything that would suggest a company website. Also, maybe @Wikimandia: could help find possible Russian sources. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - @SwisterTwister: I found next to nothing really, just listings and some (not hugely notable) product awards, and has some mentions on the Rostov-no-Donu government page. But most notably it was pwned on the Russian Wikipedia in 2010 for failing GNG and copyright violation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely lacking sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:36, 30 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Nuñez

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced BLP The Banner talk 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now with no good target for moving elsewhere (she's had some soap operas but nothing significant for a move to any) and my searches here, that same Huffington Post link for Books and related for browser while at Highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in depth independent coverage. 10:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Adhimene

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

Fails WP:GNG, effectively unsourced BLP The Banner talk 21:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good and there's no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - third place in a national beauty pageant with no significant coverage that I can uncover. -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 30 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 Consensus to keep. Chillum 03:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Washington, D.C., quadruple murder

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

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - Neither the perpetrator nor any of the victims appear to be notable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously, you and I have different ideas of what constitutes notaable, but the entire family looks notable to me. The father was the CEO and President of the company American Iron Works, a construction company that helped build major D.C. buildings, such as the Verizon Center and the CityCenterDC. That in an of itself establishes notability for the victim and his entire family. Not to mention the fact that many reputable news organizations have covered the homicides. One of the notability guidelines is "significant coverage", and, well, this has gotten significant coverage in reputable news media. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for the "WP:NOTNEWSPAPER" thing you linked to, one of the things it specifically says is this: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Well, reporting on a quadruple homicide is not "routine news reporting". Quadruple homicides don't happen every single day, and certainly aren't routine. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you created this article [1] but you need to demonstrate what makes these killings notable; was there significant coverage of any of the family members prior to this event? If so, please provide sources. In 2013 there were an estimated 14,196 murders in the US. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any significant coverage of Walter Scott before his death, yet when he was shot at nine times in the back by a police officer and died, a Wikipedia article was created about him, and rightly so. Therefore, just because there isn't any significant coverage before death does not warrant deletion. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will assume you have no sources for prior notability. Regarding Walter Scott, are you saying you don't see the difference between this event and that one? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't start claiming exceptions now. You said this warrants deletion because there wasn't any "significant coverage of any of the family members prior to this event". By that logic, we'd have to delete the articles on the shootings of Walter Scott, and Trayvon Martin, as well as the article on the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. That's why your logic doesn't make sense to me. I see the difference between this event and the Walter Scott one, but that doesn't make it automatically okay to subvert your "rule" that someone must have significant coverage before a person's death. Therefore, your argument is invalid. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of this page you'll see my reason for deletion: Neither the perpetrator nor any of the victims appear to be notable. - This is a news story about a murdered family that will shortly be out of the news cycle. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a news story about a murdered family that will shortly be out of the news cycle." And with that comment, Somedifferentstuff, I direct you to WP:NOTABILITY – where it specifically states the following:"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Therefore, even if you're right that the story will soon be out of the news cycle, it has already received significant coverage by multiple media outlets, and as such ongoing coverage is not required. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverSurfingSerpent: That's not how Notability is not temporary works. See WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This is not significant coverage. Significant coverage is the Trayvon Martin case, the Rodney King story, large cases that are major news stories for months. ― Padenton|✉ 13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:CRIME. I won't comment here further. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've made it clear you won't address my actual arguments that are completely in policy in Wikipedia notability guideline, I won't comment here further. However, reading that, it's obvious that this article does comport with those guidelines. Mr. Savopoulos did have a role in a well-documented historical event: The building of the Verizon Center, through his construction company American Iron Works. That is all. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "well-documented historical event". The Verizon Center is notable. That's it. ― Padenton|✉ 13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with SilverSurfingSerpent. To SilverSurfingSerpent, don't bother wasting your breath. This nomination is ridiculous and without any merit whatsoever. All of the (supposed) reasons offered by Somedifferentstuff are just plain wrong. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: That may be the least productive comment I've seen in an AfD all month. WP:ATA ― Padenton|✉ 13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton:: I stated my opinion that the nomination was without merit. I stated my opinion that the reasons offered are incorrect. That is exactly the type of opinion that is appropriate for an AfD. That is exactly the type of opinion that an AfD is meant to solicit. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:, Speedily so. The incident has been covered on national and international media. It passes GNG and should be kept as an article. I think the nominator got confused between notability of "perpetrators" and "events". For example, we do not have an article on every single person who was killed during 9/11 but we do have an article about 9/11, same analogy here, the event is notable and should be given a mainspace article. However, I would like to advise that the article is 'renamed' to a more encyclopedic name which gives information, such as Savopoulos family murders or The 2015 Mansion murders. both of the renames I have proposed give out more information than the current title. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does need some cleanup which I will be very happy to do as soon as a decision is made to keep the article as per GNG.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, FreeatlastChitchat, and thank you for recognizing that my arguments are valid. As for your proposed name changes, I don't have a problem with them, I do like Savopoulos family murders more than 2015 Mansion murders though. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss the name change at some later point and in some other place. But, I will say that a name such as Savopoulos family murders is disrespectful to the housekeeper (and, not to mention, factually inaccurate). The housekeeper was just as much a victim and she should not be considered any "less" important than the Savopoulos family. What if I proposed a renamed title such as "the Veralicia Figueroa murder"? No, that would be equally unacceptable. But, back to the original point at hand: yes, this article is a snowball keep and a speedy keep. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:, this is not routine news, when it gets international coverage, and involves violence and evil more characteristic of a scripted terrorist attack than a random crime or disgruntled worker incident, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER needs to be clarified that significantly notable crimes like this don't get deleted just because there was no prior news coverage of suspect or victim. Bachcell (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, Snowball Keep. Ridiculous and silly that this was even nominated. I mean, really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Huge coverage. Article can be edited and corrected in future when the suspect is arrested, prosecuted and declared guilty/innocent. Notability exists. 223.176.14.85 (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Events need to have Lasting impact and continued coverage. This is routine news. ― Padenton|✉ 13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Look at the following: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Also, routine news is stuff like weather reporting, sports, cars, etc. Reporting on a quadruple homicide of a prominent family in Washington, D.C. is not routine, it's unique, things like that just rarely ever happen in neighborhoods like that. Also, there will be ongoing coverage, specifically when the defendant in the case is going through a trial. Just saying. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverSurfingSerpent: As I explained to you above, this is not significant coverage. And "Temporary" does not refer to a few days. "Notability is not temporary" is talking about things that had significant coverage but are now no longer being discussed. i.e. Watergate scandal, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, etc. Things that are obviously notable yet are no longer receiving news coverage. "it's unique, things like that just rarely ever happen in neighborhoods like that" Completely untrue. Read more newspapers. "Also, there will be ongoing coverage" ...WP:CRYSTAL. ― Padenton|✉ 14:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SilverSurfingSerpent is correct; Padenton is not. This event has made international news. That is significant coverage. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been receiving a good amount of media coverage in the past few days. Considering the nature of the crime, the victims, and the fact that more perpetrators are out there, this will no doubt continue to be covered as more facts come along. My only criticism of the article is that some details need to be expanded on a little. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is varied, in-depth and ongoing. Fairly unusual circumstances in the crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter whether the subjects are notable. The crime is notable in the Washington, DC, area. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The person who created this article on May 21, 2015 [2] has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet [3] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. But, that has no bearing on this AfD discussion. Regardless of who created this article, we are discussing whether or not the subject is notable. From the looks of things above, this article is clearly heading for a "keep", if not a "snowball keep". Somedifferentstuff is the editor who nominated this article for deletion. I am curious as to why Somedifferentstuff mentioned this "update" about the alleged sock-puppet, when that information has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the proposed deletion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact pertinent to the discussion, as he has participated quite heavily in this AfD. ― Padenton|✉ 22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and you make an excellent (valid) point. However, the "update" informed the rest of us that (A) SilverSurfingSerpent created the article in question; the "update" did not inform us that (B) SilverSurfingSerpent particpiated heavily in this AfD discussion. Point "A" is irrelevant to this AfD discussion, Point B (as you pointed out) is indeed relevant. So, again, why is the "update" informing us of the irrelevant fact A, as opposed to the relevant fact B? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously. You are correct that none of the actors in this event are notable, however the event itself is very notable. I don't think the suspect, nor any of the family members should have pages of their own, of course. Because, like you said, they are not notable. But the event itself should definitely have a page because the event itself is definitely notable. Robo042 (talk) 20:59, 31 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Richards

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

A non notable pseudonym of two different people that can't be used as a redirect either due to it being 2 people with no references to be found as well. See also the article of Clare Richmond, there was another one like this that was AFD last month I believe. Wgolf (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page: Simply turn Clare Richards into a page that directs readers to either of the other articles. π♂101 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a disambiguation page could work, possibly combining the different spellings of Clare/Claire into one list, with there also being Claire Richards to list. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if it was a pseudonym for one writer it would be a redirect. As it's a shared pseudonym, we need to link it to both writers. Whether or not it's technically a dab page, it needs to exist. WP:IAR if need be: the encyclopedia's readers are better helped by its existence. PamD 08:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have found and added a source. PamD 08:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page creation as per @Piguy101 and @Michig. Quis separabit? 21:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstation that this cooperative psedonym is notable enough for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 30 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Taylor Young

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete because there aren't any solid sources and the sources there are few, my searches found some of the same links currently in the article along with a different one here (minor mention, Boston Univ. link). Compiled searches at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing good and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obviously way too soon. Palpably promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 21:08, 29 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakant Jha

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

Article that comes across as a huge resume it seems. Wgolf (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delte routine article on an executive. No notability'`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 5:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete - A News search found several results but it seems he's best known for the company (I'm not sure if the company is notable enough for an article) and passing mentions at thefreelibrary and highbeam with nothing at Books. A few looks at Indian newspapers found results related to company as well. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Musthafa Rayes

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: He is a chairman of a local and non-notable arabic institute. I can't see enough evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find mentions of him speaking at events and conferences, but unfortunately no coverage, and nothing in Google Scholar. His name is not there in Tamil, which would be the last hope for sources, and Google Translate only translates his first name but not his last. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree this is a non-notable individual. Dan arndt (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I usually stay away from academia but searches for this one found nothing. Of all my searches this is the only thing I found which only mentions him of a list. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Firodia

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't enough evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from some results at Highbeam but nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable by WP:BIO, sources only mention subject, rather than talking about the subject. Also, only two of the given sources could even be considered independent. Also falls under WP:NOTLINKEDIN, as it seems a bit like a resume, what with the positions held section. Additionally, there are no references in the article (or that I could find through a quick google) for any of the Early life section. crh23 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 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 withdrawn by nominator. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Wyoming, 1988

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

This user seems to be mass-creating articles for each election and each state. So far:

United States presidential election in Delaware, 1980

United States presidential election in Ohio, 1980

United States presidential election in Hawaii, 1980

United States presidential election in Arizona, 1980

United States presidential election in Illinois, 1980

United States presidential election in Wisconsin, 1980

United States presidential election in Indiana, 1980

United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1980

United States presidential election in West Virginia, 1980

United States presidential election in Nebraska, 1980

United States presidential election in Michigan, 1980

United States presidential election in Arkansas, 1980

United States presidential election in South Dakota, 1980

United States presidential election in North Dakota, 1980

United States presidential election in South Carolina, 1980

United States presidential election in Kentucky, 1980

United States presidential election in Washington (state), 1980

United States presidential election in Rhode Island, 1980

United States presidential election in Georgia, 1980

United States presidential election in Wyoming, 1980

United States presidential election in Tennessee, 1980

United States presidential election in Oregon, 1980

United States presidential election in Oklahoma, 1980

United States presidential election in Mississippi, 1980

United States presidential election in Colorado, 1980

This seems unnecessary and of questionable encyclopedic value. Most of the articles contain little more than a vote count and candidate names, and they're all sourced to the same (very basic) sources. The info in these articles is already in the article for the election as a whole anyway, I see no need for a separate article on each state. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apparently these pages are much more common than I thought, see [4] [5] [6] for example. Sincere apologies for the error/waste of time. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep United States Senate election in Wyoming, 1988, Senate/House elections by state are of encyclopedic value and have been widely created - see Category:United States Senate elections by year. Delete all presidential as it is a duplicate of United States presidential election, 1980. @Fyddlestix: do you think you might consider withdrawing the Senate one? —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikimandia: I would, I actually didn't notice that that one was different from the others. I've never withdrawn a nomination before, do I need to do anything? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It actually appears that articles of this type are much more common than I thought they were - see [[7]] [[8]] [[9]], for example. Looking into how to withdraw these nominations, mea culpa! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the withdrawal on the part of the nominator. Yeah, these articles are very common, just look at the 2008 presidential election. Every state has its own separate article for the results. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 20:54, 24 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SeamlessR

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

Fails WP:BASIC: only has one interview. Esquivalience ^t 17:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Between his Facebook page and his YouTube page and his Splice page and his Patreon page and his Reddit contributions and his last.fm page and his Soundcloud page and his Instagram page and his Spotify page and his Twitter feed, Mr. R certainly has the self-promotion thing down pat: a Wikipedia entry was no doubt inevitable. (One wonders where he finds time to do the things the article claims he does.) In the whirl of the social media chaff, there's a complete lack of any significant coverage from reliable sources. Article created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is. Ravenswing 06:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as he has not received significant and notable coverage even in the least, a few News links but that's it. Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing good aside from a product called Seamless(R). SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 25 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BUNK'D

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

I hurried to create this article, Disney still not released through the internet any demo or promo on the series and there is no release date. I think that the best would be to wait a little longer. Philip J Fry • (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I recently de-orphaned the article. The current source seems reasonable enough at a glance. I think it would be better to keep the article, and expand it when more information becomes available.
—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - according to this article, shooting has begun, which I think is required for upcoming TV/film projects. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep – Notability is there.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because several of these Disney shows will air, Kirby Buckets, for example, is an article I encountered and it has since aired. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The show is apparently premiering this summer. If the show sticks to that date, then it won't be long before more information starts coming in. Seems kind of pointless to delete the information now, only to bring it back again. It's already here now. 2602:306:80E5:6970:54:C86D:5BD9:B41 (talk) 17:24, 27 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 Consensus to delete There seems to be a clear agreement here that this article is soapboxing for an individual pretending to be a list. Chillum 03:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia

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

WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX. Single-person list of people who have accomplished a non-notable single event, the event being "walking the perimeter of Tasmania":

WP:LASTING Event has not had a lasting effect as it only finished a week ago. The article (in its author's version) makes no claim of any effects of the walk.
WP:GEOSCOPE No effects claimed, certainly not outside of Tasmania.

And so forth... ― Padenton|✉ 16:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I don't think it would even qualify for a stand-alone article about the trek, much less one disguised as a list —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this satisfies our inclusion criteria, and I don't think a list that consists of a single element is really helping anything. With only one element and autobiography, it does come off as looking like a coatrack. Once this becomes a thing and people outside of Tasmania report on it, we can recreate the list (minus the autobiography). Another option would be to redirect to List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia, which seems to be more of an established event (though I have my doubts about that, too). Not everything that's reported in the news is fodder for an encyclopedia article. WikiNews is probably more appropriate for this sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had not read Geoscope and Lasting at the time. I realise now this list should not have been created. Sorry everyone. Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about walking across or walking the perimeter of AUSTRALIA, It is an article about the first person in history to walk the perimeter of Tasmania. These events are NOT related. EarthWalkMan (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust Title and Relocate the Article ( with some modification ). As far as the List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia is concerned, It is understand that Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia ( giving information on many subjects or on many aspects ). I agree that the title of "List" may not be 'Currently' appropriate, given that Christopher Neil Linton is the first person in recored history to have achieved this World Record ( one person does not make a list ), however, the information about such a World Record walk should not be struck from the Encyclopaedia as it is a historical fact worth preserving and noting within an encyclopaedia, including Wikipedia. I am new to wikipedia and will learn as I go. So, what I suggest, that should satisfy the interlectual critics, is to adjust the title to reflect the historical event until such time that others complete the perimeter walk of Tasmania and then the article can be re-titled, resubmitted, and/or relocated. As editers, we should not only edit and suggest deletion, but should also advice as to how information can be maintained in an appropriate manner ( not just delete and have important facts disappear into cyber-space ). Does anyone have a suggestion as to how this historical event can be listed appropriately? Can it be titled "People who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia" or "Walking the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia" It seems to me that a solution can be found rather than a complete deletion. If wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of facts, then there should be a space for this kind of historical event somewhere within the Encyclopaedia. Researchers, such as students and adventurers who may want to write an article or even challenge such records by walking it quicker and achieve like adventures for themselves will research these kinds of facts and wikipedia is often the first place they try to find these kinds of facts. EarthWalkMan (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a world record either. Guinness is quite reputable in these sorts of things, and they have several walking distance related records. Linton has a long way to go.

George Meegan 19,019 miles (30,608 km)
First circumnavigation: Dave Kunst 23,250 km (14,450 miles)

― Padenton|✉ 04:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walking the perimeter of Tasmania certainly is a world record and officially recognised as such, needless to say, the discussion is not about a world record but about a person walking the perimeter of Tasmania. the World Record aspect can be referenced in due course.

What is a world record ( taken from Guinness's own website: What is a 'world' record?

World Records must fulfil some key criteria including ( in regard to the Tasmanian walk ):

1. Measurable - Is it the fastest / longest / heaviest / most? ( Longest, Yes ) 2. Breakable - Can the record be broken or repeated by someone else, open to being challenged. ( YES, people can do it quicker ) 3. Standardizable - Can the record title be done universally? For example, it cannot be related to something restricted to a region. ( Debatable ) 4. Verifiable - Can the claim be proven? For example, a claim such as ‘the man who never drank water’, can never be verified unless the man spent his whole life from birth under surveillance by a witness. ( Yes, it has been verified ) 4. One Variable – We can verify the Largest painting but would not consider the largest painting by the most people. ( Yes, it has ) 5. Absolute records not categories - For example, Fastest 100metre sprint but not the fastest 100 metre sprint by a Fireman. ( Yes ) 6. Universal - The proposal must be something, or about something that is known to the world’s majority. It cannot be too specific / regional. ( Debatable )

Walking across Australia or walking the perimeter of Australia is NOT the same thing or connected to walking the perimeter of Tasmania. They are different records, different activities. The walk around Tasmania has been completed and has been officially acknowledged as a world record. Linton has no need to go further. It is a completed record. See also www.earthwalkcommunity.com/media-coverage ( see TV News clips ). EarthWalkMan (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - EarthWalkMan guessing by your username, are you by chance Christopher Neil "Earth-Walk Man" Linton? —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coatrack for an individual who is not notable enough to have his own article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And delete List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia as a similar coatrack for a small number of individuals and the charities they were walking for. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Mean as custard, I nominated that one also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia . —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ahistorical and unencyclopediac and soapboxing. In the 1800s and early 1900s various individuals traversed the island in a number of ways that are equivalent to and very much more challenged ways in comparison to the claims made in two articles/lists. Tasmanian history and trying to claim a first do not match. A large number of people in various ways have traversed the island in much more straightened circumstances through eqiuvalent distances and much more difficult circumstances. I fail to see how it is something that requires 2 separate lists. Tasmania, Australia is not local Australian or Tasmanian usage and does not fit either. User:JarrahTree 11:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the perimeter is a gross innacuracy and not even close to what encyclopediac text should contain - 'simply walking the roads' is no-where near what the actual perimeter is of the island - the article deserves less and less credence the more I have checked it. User:JarrahTree 01:34, 27 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hogan

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

Non notable artist. A lot of minor appearances and presentations, but no work in major museum collections and no substantial critical work about him DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author of this article. Christopher Hogan is regarded as one of the foremost artists in the Australian North East. He is on permanent exhibition at the Gold Coast City Gallery and also at the Gold Coast Sculpture Walk. His unique form of art is known as Marine Abstract.Nmwalsh (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG ,non notable artist fails WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:46, 31 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 delete. The point-by-point analysis of Barcaboy2 is persuasive. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Allen Moser

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

Delete (nominator) No evidence of meeting PROF or other relevant guideline. Vanity puff page. Barcaboy2 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well it's clearly not a "vanity puff page" - I do not believe that Moser is user:Jokestress. As for meeting WP:PROF, it certainly seems possible to likely that he does. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NACADEMIC/WP:GNG. Chair of the Department of Sexual Medicine at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality isn't a named chair but starts us in the right direction. Elected fellow of the American College of Physicians speaks to WP:NACADEMIC #1 & #3. Also a Fellow of the European Committee of Sexual Medicine. Being the 2009 recipient of the Outstanding Contributions to Sexual Science Award from the Western Region of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality further speaks to WP:NACADEMIC #1 & #2, on editorial boards for some decent journals. Combine those with a good number of citations/coverage and while there's no one slam dunk, notability's there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each piece of evidence Rhododendrites provides actually shows subject is below PROF threshold:

Subject does not hold a named chair; department chairships do not meet PROF. (And the school in question is not accredited?)
Subject does not have a national/international award. Local/regional awards do not meet PROF.
Subject does not hold a position as editor of a scholarly journal. Memberships on editorial boards do not meet PROF.
The European Committee of Sexual Medicine is not a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society." All I could find about that group was from their own website http://www.essm.org/society/about-essm.html : "In 1994 in Singapore, during the ISIR (now ISSM) Annual Congress, the ESIR (European Society for Impotence Research) idea was born as the European development of the International Society for Impotence Research." Not a group one can really compare to IEEE, etc. The only other hits to that term are from third-world physicians putting it on their websites.
The college of physicians is a professional advocacy group, not a scholarly society.

The accomplishments listed are all well and good, but do not meet PROF.Barcaboy2 (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, choosing about 5 refs in the article at random, none made any mention of Moser, but were general comments about viagra/fetishes etc. Article certainly needs major 'clean-up' to align text with refs. I suggest delete as not notable.Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: That's an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP matter. The basis for deletion is whether or not sources exist, not whether they're currently cited. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could see, using ALL of the aids above, they DON'T exist. Many of the refs currently used, which create the impression of an RS article, do not support the text they are attached to. It would help to come to a fair assessment if the text were cleaned up such that it accurately represented what sources really say about Mr Moser, because MAYBE one or two do support SOME of the text, but the available evidence does not support notability of the subject.Pincrete (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His position falls short of all the criteria for notability of academics. The tone of the article is promotional with an attempt to make him seem notable, when it is just buzz words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 30 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 13:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cycle (calendar)

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

Not notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Julian Solar cycle is extensively covered in many reliable sources as it is one of the major components of the Julian calendar. For example it is discussed in books such as Universal Technological Dictionary: Or, Familiar Explanations of the Terms Used in All Arts and Sciences and Fasti temporis catholici, and Origines kalendariæ and authoritative websites such as Timeanddate.com and Britannica. I can list more sources if you wish as there are thousands of references to it. This concept can be made into a complete article by itself by passing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more or less per User:Winner 42's argument. This was one of the standard items in traditional accounts of calculating dates in the Julian calendar, and still gets covered in works on the history of calendars. There is an equivalent 400-year cycle for the Gregorian calendar, but for some reason or other (probably to do with its sheer length), it has been far less used. The article title is possibly slightly less than ideal, as modern works may refer to any of several other cycles involving the sun as "solar cycles" - and this can obviously produce a number of false positives when searching for sources. But there are still quite enough sources for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many relevant hits found searching Google books for "julian calendar" "28 years", so this appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 26 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Millar

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

Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. Won a non-notable race and died very young. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all articles are referring to him as a world champion. Are they incorrect? Even if it's only world champion in his age group, it indicates notability that goes beyond one event. Additionally, deaths in athletics (even motorsports) tend to be notable and are not considered WP:MILL. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A world champ in an essentially non-notable competition. I wonder if any world champs in the egg-and-spoon race died before they hit their teen years? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ninja Kart racing is pretty much limited to the UK, so it is hard to call him a "world champion". There is no Wikipedia article about the Ninja Kart or its racing and negligible coverage of its races in reliable sources. He was killed driving Ministox, another non-notable small race car for kids. It's a memorial page based on memorial newspaper articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article claims he's from a "famous stock car racing family". If this is true, I'd expect WP to have articles on one or more of his family members to which this could be merged. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This poor lad's family members are not notable from a motor sport point of view, as far as I can see. Ninja Kart is pretty obscure in the motor sport world, and Ministox is barely notable. Awful tragedy, but I don't think he's notable in motor sport terms. I've posted this at the Motor Sport WikiProject so if I'm wrong, people will come and correct me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article clearly fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria.Corvus tristis (talk) 20:52, 30 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hadley

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

Non-notable businessman (little/no coverage in RS that I can find), unsuccessful candidate for political office. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also the fact that there are zero references. Delete it, delete it. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, per WP:NPOL an unelected candidate for office does not earn an article on Wikipedia just for the fact of being a candidate — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that they were already notable enough for an article for other reasons independent of the candidacy, then they must win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. But that hasn't been demonstrated here; the article just asserts that he exists, and fails to cite a single source at all. Also worth noting that the article was nominated for prod last year, but the prod template was removed by an anonymous IP WP:SPA with no explanation or improvement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches at News, Books, browser (this one found some results for the nomination), highbeam and thefreelibrary (this one found a Chuck Hadley for a Fluidnet though). Nothing to suggest he is notable as a politician or businessman. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being one of 165 or more candidates for the Pennsylvania Assembly from major parties who lost in the year he ran does not make Hadley notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 30 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transtator

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

Prod converted to AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was prodded "No references, no evidence of notability", but many people likely will come across the word in Star Trek and look it up here. A link is needed from here to the full description http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Transtator in the Memory Alpha wiki. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PROD-er—the article appears to fail WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not familiar with Star Trek devices but my searches found nothing to suggest there's much about this. I'm not seeing a target for moving as well. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to universal translator. Artw (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Based on the Memory Alpha article, transtators don't seem to have anything to do with universal translators in Star Trek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, I was thinking if general SF usage, but that's not the only use of the word and then we're into dicdef and really a delete is probably for the best. Artw (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject is well covered in Star Trek literature. There are many Star Trek fans. Many of them will want to know what the word "transtator" means, and many of those will look it up in Wikipedia. Ultimately, Wikipedia is for people to look for information in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but said information ought to be selective, not just "whatever anyone could someday want to search". Most articles of the scientific literature are of interest to some research community, and it rarely has verifiability problems, but it does not follow WP ought to mirror the latest advances because it is interesting only for a narrow community. Tigraan (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Without coverage by secondary sources (and why would anyone cover this?), no reason to have a WP article. PianoDan (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't have thought that this was notable enough for WP. It isn't like it as well known as Dilithium (Star Trek) for example. Miyagawa (talk) 14:24, 28 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Dr Abdul Rob

moved from Professor Dr Abdul Rob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability - holds some important-sounding posts but on closer inspection these are with small, local organizations. For example, the NHS "Governor" position is a volunteer post. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in third-party, reliable RS, definitely fails WP:SCHOLAR. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nothing in the article itself adds up to notability but his Google scholar citation record is close to the threshold (though I think a bit under) for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note in passing: the article was moved after nomination so the original links rather failed to tell the whole story…so I've added in the links for the new name. Please feel free to adjust my adjustment ^_^ HTH HAND —Phil|Talk 13:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: -- does not meet threshold for notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:SCHOLAR. Quis separabit? 21:10, 29 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 redirect to Lerwick Power Station. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lerwick District Heating Scheme

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is nothing to suggest this district scheme is particularly notable; anything possibly significant can be mentioned at Lerwick Power Station or District heating. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 12 May 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 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect both this and Lerwick Energy Recovery Plant and District Heating to Lerwick Power Station. This is wholly unnecessary multiplication of short articles. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect both to Lerwick Power Station per Colapeninsula. These facilities are all (I believe) on the same site and would be best covered by a single article. --Deskford (talk) 12:12, 25 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Abbuehl

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

Reason Yasima burundi (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC) this article Does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Yasima burundi (talk) 13:19, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Article already demonstrates notability. A simple google search would have given heaps more evidence of notability. -- haminoon (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has significant coverage in the article's sources as well as sources such as agoravox.it and worldmag.com that demonstrate notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability of the subject is quite obvious with three publications on ECM and holding the position of professor at two conservatories — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-filter (talk • contribs) 19:16, 31 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ≤===PREDICT trial – Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Renal Damage in Congenital Abnormalities of the Kidney and Urinary Tract===[reply]

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

Non-notable study (studies shouldn't even have a standalone article in most cases). Esquivalience ^t 13:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG. On the rare chance this becomes a notable study (after the fact), its notability can be discussed again. ― Padenton|✉ 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this requires discussion - should be deleted on spot.My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted list item

The PREDICT trial involves 14 European Countries and 60 European Pediatric Nephrology centers. Australia recently joined the study. I think it can worth a wikipedia page.

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PreerP

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

No indication whatsoever of notability or indeed existence; there was a website, mostly non-functioning, apparently copied with minimal changes from that of Odoo, but that seems to have disappeared. The article was created by copying the Odoo page and replacing "odoo" with "preerp", even in the weblinks (that content now removed). This seems to be a hoax or scam, but speedy as G3 was declined. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A short one-line article stub that's hardly worth keeping. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found absolutely nothing good aside from an unrelated pre-ERP. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 02:55, 26 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop That Ball!

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 May 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 00:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the announcements from the sellers suggest that the book might be notable, but I was unable to find any independent sources beyond trivial mentions.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think it's going to be difficult to come up with online sources to establish notability for this early entrant in the Beginner Books series. Perhaps worthy of note, for someone's future attention, is that the author, Marshall "Mike" McClintock, played a significant role in the career of Dr. Seuss: a Dartmouth friend, McClintock was a brand-new juvenile book editor at Vanguard Press when he was responsible for the publication of Seuss's first kids' book, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street: Seuss dedicated the book to McClintock's wife and renamed the protagonist Marco after McClintock's son. Much later, McClintock wrote several books for Seuss's Beginner Books series. [10][11][12]. According to this publisher's bio for McClintock [13] he died in 1967, so it might take some off-line digging to come up with an obituary, but maybe with some effort a reasonable bio article could be written. (Apparently Mike McClintock existed as an unsourced article until it was deleted by prod in 2012. [14]) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:58, 25 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Closing as WP:NPASR instead of a 3rd relist because there is the possibility of meeting WP:NBOOK, which requires deeper discussion. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of Stormweather

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

This book doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms novels - there is one review, so there may be more out there. BOZ (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 May 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 00:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:17, 24 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 redirect to Diya Aur Baati Hum. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Rashid

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Mdann52 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diya Aur Baati Hum - Multiple searches found nothing aside from the usual gossip and other non-significant links here. Nothing to actually suggest he's notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 12 May 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 00:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:15, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp david GCC

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

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Rpclod (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and per nom. --Seduisant (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poorly titled and not sufficiently developed, but fulfills WP:GNG -- significant international news coverage over an extended period. Will surely be cited going into the future on U.S.-GCC relations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:55, 15 May 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) 10:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Summit ended 10 days ago and is still being discussed - [15], [16], [17], [18]. I'm a bit shocked this was listed for deletion before the event even took place, although it had already received significant coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some tensing is wrong, but it could use improvement and it has had significant coverage. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck confirmed (by CU evidence) sockpuppet vote. Esquivalience ^t 00:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The summit meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT, has a wide geographical scope, and will probably lead to international agreements. Esquivalience ^t 00:31, 31 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 delete. Nakon 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReGlobe

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

Highly promotional article, the sources are essentially press releases/ DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a private start-up launched two years ago which pretty comprehensively fails WP:ORG. Note that while the article claims it was started in 2012, their own website says that it was launched in 2013. [19] Having examined the sources, I agree with the nominator that they are all essentially press-release based. The article is clearly written to drum up business. Even if kept, 80% of it would need to be removed. Although this it is not in itself a reason to delete, I note that this has all the earmarks of a "paid for" article—springing fully formed from a brand new editor as their first edit, complete with perfectly formatted infobox and "references". Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use more content, but checking the references I find: #1 a substantial article #2 dead link #3 a promotional site (you write your own content) #4 mention #5 mention #6 article about getting significant VC funding #7 substantial article (local biz journal, AFAIK) #8&#9 no longer link to relevant article. I would say that #1, 6 & 7 are enough to establish notability. The article does need to be updated. LaMona (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously promotional/paid for article. #6 is borderline WP:ROUTINE, #7's use of bold blinded me in addition to being a very promotional article from a very small news organization whose website looks like this. #1 is the only reliable significant coverage of this business, but the article cannot rest on the back of that single source and LaMona has already ruled out the remaining sources. This Wikipedia article was clearly written with the intention of promoting the company and needs a good bit of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe I missed something, but I do not see why a "promotional" article needs deleted if it is notable. Anything can be stripped down to a few basic statements establishing notability. While some of the coverage looks routine, there are references out there such as this [20] that look like they would support notability. Not sure how to vote yet, but wanted to point out that promotion shouldn't be a reason for deletion when we could simply cut out the majority of the article which is promotional.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TTTommy111: No, you didn't miss anything. You're 100 percent right. Articles that are promotional should be tagged promo, but some editors ignore that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage including recent deal with Amazon [21], covered here —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only sources that I could find are just deals relating to the company, which does not contribute to WP:CORP notability. Esquivalience ^t 14:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about the company itself [22], [23], [24] as well as additional coverage of its VC funding [25], [26] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those "articles" is a press release from the company (or the VC firm funding it) or is quite explicitly based on one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore Which press releases are the profile ones from, specifically? Why does this one and this one have conversational style quotes that appear nowhere else? —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is from indianweb2.com, a blog where start-ups can publicize themselves. See their "about us" and also scroll to the bottom of the "article" and observe the author's blurb:

"A graduate working as a mechanical engineer, Vinay loves to talk and learn about everyone's story and then pen it down. In case you wish to get yours done, shoot a message to him at..."

The second one from youstory.com is more of the same. See their "about us":

"India’s no.1 media platform for entrepreneurs [...] At YourStory, we have a singular passion – to tell the world your story and to enable your story!"

There are loads of sites like this which exist to provide publicity platforms for start-ups and generate faux "media stories" for them complete with quotes. Coverage in such sources does not indicate genuine notability. Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. So, to sum up, first you claimed "every one" of the articles was a press release. So either you lied about that, which I am definitely not accusing you of, but the only other alternative is you never even looked at them in the first place. Oops... that, combined with your "delete" comment above, indicates strongly the reasons why you are against this article, and it's nothing to do with GNG... Even though you're now admitting they're not press releases but they're not good enough sources for you because of your theory that they exist only as a sham to deliver "faux" news, rather than genuinely covering the thriving tech startup scene in India that is a huge industry with a worldwide audience. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my original delete comment "I agree with the nominator that they are all essentially press-release based" and I stand by that per my analysis of the YourStory.com and indianweb2.com stories which you queried. And yes, I did examine all the sources in the article before !voting delete. You are of course entitled to disagree with my analysis, just as I think you have a rather naive view of the PR business. The Forbes article you linked to is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ReGlobe isn't even mentioned in it. The fact that the start-up phenomenon is "big" in India, does not make every Indian start-up notable. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shiite you don't know what a press release is if you think the yourstory.com and indianweb2.com articles are "press release-based" and not "interview-based"... Please link to the press release that these come from. It shouldn't take you too long. And I know about the PR business, but I'm more concerned about Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and the crew that have so much sand in their vaginas about paid editors on WP that they nominate for AfD every article they suspect of being written by one, regardless of that being true and also regardless of the article's notability, just to prove a WP:POINT. Well that's it - I don't want to keep you from your search from finding the press releases that those ~~interviews~~ press releases come from! —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now because all in all, they actually haven't received as much coverage as it could be, sure the Amazon deal is good but it's basically the best known thing. Searches here (results start to fade by page 3), here (two links), here (browser finding some of the same links) and here (one press release and the other albawaba.com) all sum to not much. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Earlier left a comment, but now leaving a keep vote. Despite the promotional tone, the article has sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. I would recommend that if it survives this deletion discussion that maybe those voting for delete can reduce the promotional tone by taking the article down to just the basics. Google news has plenty of coverage, including the International Business Times, Times of India, etc. --TTTommy111 (talk) 19:37, 28 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 delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christof May

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

This Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines .... sorry there is NO Evidence of Notability on this article , --Samat lib (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the nom. ansh 666 09:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets several criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Some of his clarinet playing with Abbuehl is stunning. -- haminoon (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete please where are the independent reliable sources to prove the Notability , Secondly how can we verify the information on this Article , ( if this problem can not be fixed fast ) *Delete Kokobenin (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of independent sources. It would be fairly easy to confirm the facts of this article and the clearly notable people he has worked with by googling. Bear in mind this article was created 8 years ago when referencing was done in a slightly laxer fashion. Deleting an article doesn't help it get referenced any faster. -- haminoon (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 May 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) 20:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage in reliable sources does not exist even when looking in German sources. I managed to find both a pastor and an entrepreneur with the same name that had more significant coverage than this person. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck out vote from sockpuppet of nom. -- haminoon (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything. Unfortunately the one review on the page gives me an error, but it's only a review. de:Christof May is unreferenced as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO reliables sources --Yasima burundi (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this comment is from a sockpuppet of the nominator. There clearly are reliable sources. -- haminoon (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since I created this article I vote for keeping. I added some extra content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-filter (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to read WP:OWN. Editors do not own articles. --TL22 (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize if I gave anyone that idea. I just wanted to explain that, since I created the article in the first place, it's quite natural that I am in favor of keeping it. Although I don't contribute to wikipedia a lot, I very much respect the policies and the rules. I also respect the opinion of some editors that there needs to be more evidence of notability and therefor I added some (in my humble opinion) significant content. Having provided this content, I voted for keeping --K-filter — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-filter (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The All About Jazz review is a good reference, but unfortunately, it's not enough by itself, and I don't see anything else. Perhaps move this to draft space and see if anything develops? @ToonLucas22: I think you overreacted a bit. It doesn't look to me like K-filter was trying to claim ownership. I'll see your WP:OWN and raise you WP:BITE :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One97 Communications

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first reference on the article indicates that Alibaba has purchased 25% of the company. That makes it sufficiently notable for inclusion. Richard Harvey (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alibaba Group - Article does not seem notable itself, but could be mentioned in its parent's article. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Alibaba Group This company has only received coverage by proxy of Alibaba so a redirect is appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect salvageable content to Alibaba Group as suggested. It's probably Paytm that's really going to be notable not so much on One97, note that the article has zero attribution for the history section. — Brianhe (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources may be hard to find, since they are an Indian company, but I have a hard time seeing deletion for any company with 1,200 employees. CorporateM (Talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I believe there are enough sources to support notability, I would say that the more pressing issue is the Paytm article which reads like a press release. I don't want to vote keep for this one as I am unsure if it should be kept and merged into Paytm or Paytm merged into One97. Maybe someone who has looked at it longer has some ideas. Just a thought. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article looks well written enough to support its notability. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: about 106 mentions in HighBeam. Although most are passing mentions, some seem to be significant coverage. Esquivalience ^t 15:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sourcing appears to be available. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:20, 25 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Katharine Duffie, Ph.D.

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

This autobiography is written as a resume. It appears to fail general notability standards. Besides an example of publish or perish in the academic community and its technical literature, it fails to add significance to the encyclopedia. A Prod failed when the autobiographer removed the notice and contributed more details to the article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written by the subject, does not establish notability as shown in WP:SCHOLAR. James Cage (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: I can understand how it may appear written as a resume, but I did not intend to sell or persuade anyone on my background - at all. It may have looked like a resume because I was trying to keep it short. I tried to follow the page structure on a number of anthropologists in wiki.

Perhaps you were immediately turned off, because autobiography is discouraged (for obvious reasons.) But, my intentions were actually opposite. Over the years I have been contacted by many people about my work - from defense attorneys, to lay people interested in New Zealand, to other academics needing specific information about the health and culture of American Indians and Maori. As I wrote the article, I was partly thinking of New Zealand and American Indian researchers as these are a very small but increasingly important group of academics. They are merging their research collectively into an indigenous epistemology, with an emphasis on global patterns in neocolonialism. Those who take a fourth world approach, as I did, to solving sociocultural patterns are pioneers in that way. More broadly, my life's work is unique and original as it was impacted by study with Vine DeLoria, jr. who turned anthropology upside down with his disdain for etic (or outsider analysis) interpretations among anthropologoligical ethnographies (i.e, in the 1980s-90s, he was reeling against the grain of truth in the following joke: Q. what composes an Indian family? A. Single mother, two kids and an anthropologist). I was one of the first, if not the first, Indian researcher(s) to incorporate these criticisms into all of my work, drawing on Clifford Geertz and Shostak from the anthro side. There are two books, a major research grant, and at least five journal articles that are mostly all readable by lay and academic alike. In fact, one book was written for a public audience in New Zealand. I also tried very hard to keep it nontechnical, as most of my hyperlinks bring the reader to already established wiki pages. I only included 2-3 external definition links, and these are very easy to read. Also, the autobiography references a research article that contains an original, unique theory about the physiologic, psychologic and cultural relationships that result in cross-cultural psycho-somatic illness. The theory earned a prestigious signal honor from the Society of Medical Anthropology. Perhaps I could redo the article and include some of the above analysis, or that which you may suggest (with consensus permission of course) from the other editors? Please also NOTE: I also did not intentionally remove any prods, so please don't hold that against the article. It must have happened by mistake. Example (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify which notability standards are missing. I should be able to address these with a bit more research and give the needed proof.

In a more general sense, I look forward to adding bits of clarifying information on many of the Maori, New Zealand and American Indian culture pages, separate from my own work of course. And, I hope to make a friendly relationship with many of you.

Thanks for considering ways to improve the article. I am a diligent responder. — Preceding mkduffie comment added by 205.161.250.173 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you will stay involved at Wikipedia, but in my opinion you have no place editing this article. I would never consider an article written by the subject to be worthy of including in an encyclopedia. It undermines the credibility of the article, and of the encyclopedia itself. It is impossible to consider such an article to be unbiased. I think you'll find that to be close to a consensus among Wikipedia editors (and all other encyclopedia editors, for that matter). You can read more at WP:AB. To be clear, I am not encouraging you to change, edit, or expand your autobiography here.

In general, should there be an encyclopedia entry for Mary Katharine Duffie? From what I've seen, I don't believe so. That says nothing negative about you or your career. Your autobiographical article documents work you have done, but does not seem to show that you or your work has received extraordinary notice by others. Speaking strictly for myself, it seems to be in line with the accomplishments and awards of other academics. Academic requirements are neatly summarized at WP:SCHOLAR. If you are curious, or if you want to contribute to articles about other academics, I urge you to read them. But again, as regards this article, I see no point in discussing this. Instead, I urge you to read some of the deletion discussion lists shown at the bottom of this page (for example the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions) for some perspective on this process.

I honestly believe that if a person is notable, someone else will take note of them and write a Wikipedia entry. If that doesn't happen, there's your answer. (And no, I am absolutely not recommending that you recruit someone else to write an article for you. You should have nothing to do with your own article.) Of course, I am just one of many thousands of contributors. Wikipedia is a rough democracy, and I'm just a single vote here. But as odd as it may seem, it's very effective. Best regards - James Cage (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the article nor the Google scholar citation record demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF. Author should be admonished to refrain from autobiography here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat holdings on 2 books about avg too. Dr Duffie appears to be a typical academic. I would echo the advice offered by James Cage above. Agricola44 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There is no real claim to notability here. The lack of academic positions is highly conspicuous because of their absence from the article, and the number of papers written is relatively small. Echoing previous advice, go and write a linkedin page, not a Wikipedia article. Le petit fromage (talk) 11:59, 29 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galt F.C.

Withdrawn by nominator Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable association football club. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympic gold medalists are most definitely notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I misread the year as 1981. Clearly notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was this a joke? This is one of the most famous football teams in the nation! I'd suggest User:Walter Görlitz restrict themselves to only trying to delete articles in areas of which they are familiar. One shouldn't have had to have read the article closely to know this! And a clear lack of research, given that any team that has represented the nation internationally got there in a national competition! Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Nfitz can keep his opinions to himself. I already requested that it be withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It's such a shocking nomination. Perhaps User:Walter Görlitz should properly research future AFD candidates before proposing deletion of such a massively famous team that anyone with awareness of the history of soccer in this country would instantly recognize. Ignoring the miss of the Olympics in the article, did you even read it? Surely the multiple references of induction into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame was a huge giveaway! Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did properly research this AfD. I looked at Google for sources. Found Canadian Soccer History-Great Teams Galt FC 1904 and nothing else. The references were just added now. So WTF dude. Walter Görlitz (talk)
  - I think I see the problem now, I'm not from Southern Ontario. I had never even heard of the team despite being very aware of Canadian association football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Zogmayer

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

No properly independent sources cited. Article cites its own author, via his dissertation. Reads like a fan page. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- We probably need a German speaker to assess this one. The article is unsourced and needs to be rewritten, but there is a fair bit of media coverage about this individual.TheBlueCanoe 13:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 May 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 00:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I linked the German Wiki article, though it is effectively the same and equally lacking in online verifiable sources. I do notice, however, a brief mention of the subject as "the lesser-known, remarkable Austrian gestural painter" in a Chicago Sun-Times piece ([27], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). Also a couple of recent German language articles about progress on realising the subject's winning plan for the renovation of St. Hedwig's Cathedral ([28], [29]). AllyD (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per strong museum/gallery line-up. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 30 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Olsson

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

No notability. Google search for name shows only social results. CerealKillerYum (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Multiple searches instantly found nothing good so it's likely he has not received that much attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 May 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 00:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 24 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. I see support here for practically every outcome possible, merge, keep, delete and redirect. After reading it all I cannot see any consensus at all in this discussion, but this closure does not prevent any merge discussions from taking place on the relevant talk pages to try and reach consensus. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Escambia County Sheriff's Office (Florida)

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

Article subject does not meet WP:GNG per WP:ORGDEPTH: I could not find any references that establish notability. As of now the article is just a directory of information, which Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR) —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to extensive coverage in GBooks, GNews (I count about twenty sources in the first and more than 650 results in the second) and elsewhere. This article does not satisfy any of the criteria of NOTDIRECTORY. It isn't a list (criteria 1 and 4), a genealogical entry (2), a collection of contact information (3), a sales catalogue (5) or an un-encyclopedic cross categorisation (6). "Directory of information" is gibberish and I don't see how this article could possibly be characterized as a "directory" in any meaningful sense of that word. We certainly don't delete an article because it is a collection of information, because all encyclopedia articles are collections of information. I'm fairly certain that the nominator has no idea what the word "directory" means. The Compact OED defines it essentially a list of people or bodies with contact details. This article isn't one, and there is no reason why it should be either, in view of the sources available. As a obvious redirect, with mergeable content, to Escambia County and Escambia County Sheriff, this page isn't eligible for deletion under any circumstances, and should not have been nominated (WP:R). AfD isn't for merger proposals. And that is exactly what this is: a merger proposal masquerading as an AfD. If the nominator wants to merge articles on police agencies into the areas they police, he should do so through the normal channels (Wikipedia:Proposed mergers), instead of wasting the time of the AfD volunteers, as there is zero prospect of any of these articles being deleted under existing guidelines, because we don't delete mergeable content or plausible redirects. I hope this recent spate of hopeless nominations will now cease, and that these merger proposals will be sent to the place where they are meant to go. James500 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't "zero prospect" of these articles being deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnstable Police Department. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a small town police department with a large county sheriff's department is not comparing like with like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: The result in that AfD is what is known as an 'outlier' or 'fluke'. Obviously incorrect results do unfortunately happen at AfD. Frankly, that particular AfD should probably be sent to DRV on grounds that consensus is not a 'head count', and, in this respect, during the AfD, it was pointed out, correctly, that the guideline WP:R required redirection, and no valid counter-argument (nor any counter-argument at all, for that matter) was offered by anyone, and thus consensus was for redirection and was not assessed correctly. I'm afraid I don't have the time or patience to send it there myself. James500 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

OK you really need to familiarize yourself with WP:ORGDEPTH in particular. Just because there are multiple results in a Google search does NOT satisfy the requirements. Do you understand this? If you want your vote to actually mean something, then provide the links that you say support notability instead of just replying to all of these AfD and saying "I googled it and there were results that I found so therefore it's notable! I found (X) results so that means notable! And I'm not going to link to a single one as proof because they are all proof!" It's right there in the WP guidelines that this is totally insufficient to establish notability. It's pretty obvious you're having some trouble understanding GNG as a concept, or you know what the guidelines are and you don't care, or, even more entertaining a possibly, you're just trolling. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that is not what I said at all. You know perfectly well that I said that the topic satisfies GNG because of the "extensive coverage" (in other words significant coverage) contained inside those (independent, reliable, secondary etc.) sources, and not because of their number alone. You know perfectly well that a closing admin would not have the slightest difficulty understanding that is what I was saying there. You know perfectly well, because it has been explained to you over and over and over again, by myself and others, that, under the guidelines, there is no need to provide a webliography of links to sources that come up immediately with search engines like GBooks and GNews, for the benefit of those who don't know how to use Google. You know perfectly well that, notwithstanding this, I did provide a set of links, immediately before the text of my !vote. I understand GNG better than you. I am more familiar with ORGDEPTH than you. You know perfectly well that I have not ignored any guidelines whatsoever. You may however, wish to read the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and discover that it says that editors can ignore any policy or guideline that prevents them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia (not that I have any need to invoke that policy in this case, your arguments having no sound basis whatsoever in those guidelines). I would be grateful if you would simply refrain from making absurd accusations of trolling on any occasion whatsoever in future. And I absolutely cannot fathom what you mean by linking that last comment of yours to List of people known as the Lame, or why you would find that "entertaining", whatever that means. James500 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James500 You either don't respect the WP:GNG or don't understand (I'm not sure which would be worse) as evidenced by what you post on all these AfDs. I and many others have told you over and over that there is no inherent notability for municipal organizations such as police departments. You very well know that and you acknowledged that yourself when you wrote on the Org Guidelines that you don't agree and wanted that changed (and then you also claim here that the Org Guidelines are "a mess" and are "under discussion" (because you started one) and it seemed it hadn't "reached a consensus" (because nobody was agreeing with you. You're not "ignoring all rules", you're just refusing to follow ones you don't like. And I will say yes, I have absolutely no confidence that you understand the definition of "extensive coverage" or "significant coverage" is, as you've failed to supply one single example. I'm wondering if you don't even get how this forum works, as evidenced by your decision to vote KEEP on an article that was a blatant how-to/advertisement (and was speedily deleted as one), saying you didn't understand why they were saying that it was How To/Ad, and that you were going to vote KEEP to "balance out" their DELETE votes because you said were cast based on "manifest nonsense" ... oh yeah ... and claiming the spam article was referenced because it linked to a law and all laws are right and therefore reliable (even though the article was not actually citing the text of the law at all, but using it to disguise that it was an ad! ... Even though they were probably using Google Translate, nobody else was pretending that was a legit reference.) So, either you actually don't know how to verify references, or you don't understand why verifying a reference is a step you need to take before you claim it's a valid reference... or you know very well it's required but because you believe "ignore all rules" applies to every single thing you do on Wikipedia, you will not be partaking in that particular step. Either way, I'm starting to think that perhaps AfD is not the right place for you to contribute to Wikipedia and if others have the same opinion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I simply lack the patience to deal in detail with irrelevant and misleading comments about what I may have said elsewhere. Suffice to say that I don't agree with your interpretation. For one example only, saying that I disagree with certain aspects of ORG is not the same thing as saying that I intend to ignore it. Do you understand the distinction? In any event, I haven't proposed to ignore ORG here. Likewise, if I recall correctly the discussion of AUD, and certain other parts of ORG to which I referred, in another AfD, which is not relevant, part of which is now archived, was started by CT Cooper months ago, and not by me, as you claim. And ... I could go on but I'm not going to. If you read the edit notice that appears when you try to edit an AfD, you will find it says something to the effect that commenting on other editors, instead of the article, is considered disruptive. In view of that, I would be grateful if you would simply stop commenting on me, as it is not even relevant to the article that is supposed to be the subject of this AfD. You would not like it if I was to search through your contributions for any editing that I disagree with and present it as evidence of 'incompetence'. And I don't want to do that either. And you cannot ask editors to leave AfD because they are more inclusionist than you would like them to be. If editors came here and !voted "keep per SCNR", something I have never done, that would be perfectly fine, though their arguments would likely gain little traction and be accorded little weight. It would be no worse than !voting "delete per MILL", as happens all the time, which essay is equally at odds with the real guidelines. In order to determine consensus, editors absolutely must say what they really think. Some editors, for example, faced with this AfD would actually insist that GNG was satisfied by the number of news results alone. I would not endorse them, (I would invoke NRVE ("likely to exist") instead, which would be applicable), but I would not pretend that there is a rule against advancing unorthodox or unpopular arguments, and start demanding that they leave AfD forever. If other editors do not agree with my assessment of notability, they will come along and say so, so what I say doesn't really matter anyway. But I don't think that is likely to happen, because, in truth, topics with many hundreds of news sources are rarely deleted or merged, despite the fact that, in practice, the outcome of an AfD primarily depends on who !votes in it, as evidenced by the lack of consistency in results. (Guidelines are also meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive). So, instead of continuing this irrelevant argument ad infinitum, why not just wait and see what other editors think? I personally really do not want to reply here again. James500 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Escambia County Sheriff and possibly and possibly Merge to the article. If RS shows that it can stand alone, I will have to agree with the idea of keeping the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Escambia County, Florida, which presently only mentions the agency. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 16 May 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 00:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any law enforcement agency with 650 employees is easily notable enough for an article. In fact, Escambia County Sheriff should be merged into this article. We usually have articles about the department, not the chief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines. No group, or company, or agency is automatically notable because of the number of its employees. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to patronise a very experienced editor who is completely familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and is giving his considered opinion as he is perfectly entitled to do in an AfD! I consider large law enforcement agencies to be inherently notable. I also consider this to be common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Law enforcement agencies of a town are very notable, and it has received significant coverage like this in reliable sources.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a local branch of government, there's no inherent notability, per WP:NPOL #3 "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability". The county sheriff is (usually) a local elected officer. Most of these would never get any in-depth coverage, law enforcement is taken for granted, no reason to write about it, except if there's something very wrong. In the list at Escambia County Sheriff there isn't a single blue link. Kraxler (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NPOL applies to individuals. This article is not about an individual. James500 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our usual outcomes. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office. We usually keep those larger sheriff's offices, but not always. I think at 650 officials, in an exurban area, would be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kosaka

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

A non notable actress, who is not referenced significantly in any reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO as well as WP:NACTOR. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator, Lisamichelle2008 (talk · contribs · count), has self-identified as the article subject on at least two occasions. This may not directly impact the notability of the subject, but may be taken into account in the discussion. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable with multiple searches finding these results, I would've suggested moving the article elsewhere but I don't see a good target. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She gets several hits in newspapers for co-founding the Rebelfest International Film Festival. However, those articles are just using her as a spokesperson for the festival and don't provide anything substantial about her, other than she is also film-maker. maclean (talk) 16:14, 12 May 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 00:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - only a handful of roles and no significant coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:27, 24 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 merge to German idealism. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Idealism

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

Unremarkable movement in literature with no reliable sources established. Tinton5 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about modern conceptions of magical idealism, but the historical conception associated with Novalis is well known and sourcable. So at the very least, a redirect to Novalis#Writing is warranted, where it is mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a merge I support the redirect to Novalis, but think redirecting to German idealism might be a little bit more appropriate: also there seems to be room for merging Novalis's well documented concept into the main German Idealism article- it hasn't been treated in that article yet. Sadads (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or merge to German idealism would be fine with me, too. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 17 May 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 24 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hedley C. Taylor

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

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:BIO as a district judge and unsuccessful local politician. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Satisfies GNG, due to coverage in the sources cited in the article, in GBooks and elsewhere, of which there are quite a lot. In my honest opinion the coverage available, and his positions as district judge, chairman of the board of governors of Alberta College, and senator of the University of Alberta, amongst others, add up to notability for someone who died in 1931. Comments such as "Few men of Edmonton are more widely known throughout the Province and the Northwest than Hedley Clarence Taylor, Judge of the District Court of the District of Edmonton of the Province of Alberta", in his own dedicated article in a general history of the Alberta province, do tend to suggest notability. There is potential for enormous expansion here. James500 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 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 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:James500. There are definitely more sources on him to be found and to expand off of. Haven't even checked newspaper sources yet, but he was one of the more notable names in Alberta at the time, going from my research. There's a good chance that there's extensive coverage on him in the Edmonton papers (there were two major ones at the time) as well. I might try and get back to it when I get the time... this was one of my earlier article creations. Connormah (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Notable judge who has received significant enough coverage.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 30 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 redirect to I Voted for Kodos. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start Your Own Scene

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

Nothing here supports a notability claim for this album. No references, no indication of significance. KDS4444^Talk 00:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fials GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Voted for Kodos - God knows how I missed that but yup redirecting's better than deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. Wgolf (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 12 May 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - My searches show that the album is obviously not notable with no significant sources and only blogs, etc. Considering the album is not notable, it could easily be deleted but I suppose it is a searchable term for a fan or so. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to band Album isn't significant enough to have its own stand-alone article.~~ SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 30 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 redirect to Westaflex. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Westerbarkey

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

Non-notable businessman. A search reveals some PR-announcements and brief mentions, but no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. The current sources are only interview quotes, blogs and brief announcements. GermanJoe (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two pages from family business, one deadlink and one interview. No reliable sources. No notability indicated either.--Rpclod (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 12 May 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Westaflex as it seems he is best known for that and my searches (News, Books, browser, freelibrary and highbeam) only found this at Books which are in German (I'm not a speaker) but adding Westaflex suggests it's probably more for that. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEO of a mid-size company who practises Web 2.0 technologies for the internal and external communication of his company. Got interviewed about that. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:35, 30 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 redirect to Austin_Mardon#Bibliography. Consensus that a separate article is not warranted and the redirect is reasonable. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Insanity Machine

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

Self-published book without unrelated citation or review. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin_Mardon#Bibliography. I can't find anything to suggest that this book is notable enough for an entry. I've made a bibliography section in the one author's page, so this can redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, nothing found in google, no need to redirect as author doesn't look that notable.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 14 May 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Fox News —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Judging by your recent humorous comments recently, I'm assuming moving to Fox News is a joke? I simply want to make sure for the closing user. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: All signs point to yes on that :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Mardon#Bibliography - Whether or not Austin Mardon is notable, I'm not sure but it's the only one with the nearby link, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing to suggest this book has received even the slightest attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 25 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes & Zeros

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

This Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Sorry there is NO Evidence of Notability Guidelines on this Article --Samat lib (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three albums on Universal passes WP:NBAND and pretty much guarantees there will be coverage out there. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this Article need a Third party Independent reliable sources , if this problem can not be fix *Delete. Kokobenin (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fixed the nom. ansh 666 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Obviously meets WP:NBAND. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:47, 16 May 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 00:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've struck out vote from sockpuppet of nom. -- haminoon (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBAND as stated by others above, but it appears to me that the lengthy "History" section must either be radically curtailed and rewritten or just plain removed. The edit history indicates that this was first added by an editor on 21 January 2008 [30], was deleted as an apparent copyvio on 13 May 2008 [31], was reintroduced by an IP editor on 21 February 2011‎ [32], was cut to a couple of paragraphs by a new editor making xis only edit ever on 20 November 2012, and then immediately restored when a bot reverted the edit due to external link violations.[33] Whether it was a copyvio or not, it appears to me that this long essay about the band's "amazing talent" and "hard work" is simply inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 25 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 redirect to Amazon Studios#3rd pilot season (August 28, 2014). Consensus that this should not have a separate article and the redirect is reasonable. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteria (TV series)

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

Not a TV series; just a pilot that was not picked up. If kept then the article title should be changed. Musdan77 (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amazon Studios#3rd pilot season (August 28, 2014) Amazon pilots should be subject to the same basic creation standards of regular TV pilot articles, in that they should only be created when they go to series. Failed pilot, which we don't usually have articles about. Nate • (chatter) 16:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 12 May 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) 11:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same for The After. — Wylie pedia 04:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amazon Studios as suggested above - A News search found links but because the show was not accepted, it's likely not going to get attention again but saving is an alternative to deleting. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 25 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Kurdali

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

Filmmaker with no real indication of encyclopedic relevance. His films don't appear notable, and there's little coverage of him in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 May 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) 11:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources provided and the article does not demonstrate WP:ANYBIO notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not exactly an expert of software but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) aren't finding much (aside from this) to suggest he's received considerable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 25 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Reynolds

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

Delete: non-notable. Quis separabit? 22:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find mentions of her in articles about the show, but nothing specifically about her except the pregnancy and birth notices. Hopefully, we aren't creating a WP article for every woman who gives birth. LaMona (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - The best option (rather than moving elsewhere) is probably better to delete as she's not known outside anything else of modelling and that's more for Price is Right. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 25 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 merge to European_Youth_For_Action#Alternative_currency. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecorates

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

This appears to be a non-notable currency system as Books, News and browser searches found no results, additionally I provided other searches with different words and found nothing as well. This could also be moved to European_Youth_For_Action#Alternative_currency (or delete and then move). SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not notable, it is one organization's discount scheme. Spumuq (talq) 13:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Move as suggested. It's not a marketing scheme, it seems to have been a sort of notional currency based on a trans-cultural cost-of-living index. a/c its web page, it wasn't continued after 2008. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 24 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of artificial intelligence films

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

The list would be far to large for Wikipedia to conceivably list them all. Seems like a case of WP:LISTCRUFT and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's already the Artificial intelligence in fiction article and it's not big at all. There aren't that many AI films actually. It would be nice to have a plain list of them and in an easily digestible form. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, we've already got artificial intelligence in fiction, which is a mostly unsourced example farm. I've been meaning to clean up that article for some time now, but it's not work that I really enjoy. Anyway, I'm not quite sure why we need two articles about AI in pop culture. But I guess a case could be made for it, such as [34], [35], [36], [37]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm sorry, ~~Dave~~ Winner 42. I'm afraid I can't let you do that. There are a manageable number of AI films, e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Demon Seed, Colossus: the Forbin Project, all the Terminator movies, etc. Adding these to Artificial intelligence in fiction would make it too long. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft; Category:Films about artificial intelligence is sufficient —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories can co-exist, as has been demonstrated numerous times, and is not sufficient reason for deletion. In fact, the existence of the category supports keeping the list. Also, Time magazine article: "Seven A.I. Movies That Are Better Than Transcendence". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support delete per Listcruft. I simply noted this was already a category, so I'm not crying too much over its deletion. Also the Time magazine article doesn't support this list existing. Churning out lists is common thanks to Buzzfeed and people's short attention span. Here's a fully useless list from Time - Top 10 Things That Broke the Internet.

The Time article demonstrates, along with the other lists, that the media do compile lists of these films. I've also added additional info that don't come up in the category (pro-list argument #1). Actually, this is a more-to-the-point Time list. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
01110100101100010101110011... (translation: It should be retitled List of films involving artificial intelligence). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply compiling these lists is not indicative of any kind of notability. As I pointed out, it's popular to compile lists aka listicles (easy content with no real effort). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Clarityfiend, and would go further to say that there are no encyclopedic, (especially open encyclopedic) lists of this variety suitable for cataloguing artificial intelligences in film. As far as list-based articles go, this one goes several steps further by conveniently and clearly listing other relevant film and topic metadata that does not fit into other lists. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN as noted above. WP:CLN and WP:NOTPAPER tell us that it's fine to have lists of this sort. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and that's why we have thousands of lists. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This differs from the category in that it is not just a list of the films themselves but it names and categorizes the AI. In fact, it might be more accurate to call this the List of Artificial Intelligences in Films, because that is what distinguishes it from any list of the films themselves. LaMona (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eh, I guess there are enough sources listed above to show that it passes WP:LISTN as a notable topic in its own right. I still don't like having two articles that overlap so much, but I guess one is an unsourced article full of original research in prose format, and the other is an unsourced list. So, there are differences. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 25 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 redirect to Figure skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics – Qualification

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

Unnecessary detail of qualification for Figure skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics. The article as an appropriate section covering this so merging does not sense, nor does redirecting. Whpq (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article is basically just tables of results; so merge the appropriate tables back to their respective articles for this meet (eg men's singles, women's singles, etc). I don't see a need to have a separate article about qualification when it's much better organized by discipline, and there is nothing unique about the qualification to support it being its own article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging this massive set of tables would be undue weight in the parent article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you know what WP:UNDUE is. Also, these would go in articles (plural) - men's qual goes in men's article, women's qual goes in women's etc. It's really not that massive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 12 May 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) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wikimandia, WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Andrew D. (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 24 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 delete. – czar 05:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackjack Treasure

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 May 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) 20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable game that is not covered in any reliable sources. Additionally, the game is no longer exists as the site that was hosting it just gives a 404. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable game; looks like just another Flash game that hasn't received any significant coverage. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:59, 24 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Nagendra

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

Previously deleted per blp prod-actor that falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 May 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) 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator, not enough yet to show WP:ENTERTAINER notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 24 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Crosby's legacy

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

A hodgepodge of synthesis, and to the extent it is not a miscellaneous assortment of facts, the material is covered adequately already at Bing Crosby. Speedy delete was declined (!) for this third recreation and I recommend that the page be salted to prevent a fourth. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a well-organized page of facts of the awards and nominations received by Bing Crosby and thought I might as well put his other achievements there. Other artists have these pages, such as The Beatles and Frank Sinatra and that material is already covered on their pages, so why delete this one? (Utzdman55 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and I would have agreed with the speedy delete. WP is not a platform for fanzines or essays, which this appears to be. Also the article struggles with a neutral point of view.--Rpclod (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::- The article was inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion here per WP:CSD#A1 by User:Jorm but I declined it with no prejudice against its deletion through this medium (WP:AfD) if notability is in doubt because, A1 does not applies to articles with enough context to identifies the subject. I found no deletion log for the page prior to declining the speedy deletion per A1, I would have tagged it appropriately, although am not aware that Bing Crosby already exist. Having said that, I think the page should be redirected to Bing Crosby since the page already mention the subject of the article according to the nominator. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::- I think I should delete the page but put the charts within the Bing Crosby page to compliment the data. Thoughts? (Utzdman55 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment::- @Rpclod This article doesn't support Bing Crosby. It is an article of facts. Just facts. If you look at those facts, you would see that they are not opinions. The article doesn't struggle with a neutral point of view because it tells facts. And those facts are backed up by sources that tell me that they are true. Bing Crosby was the most popular entertainer of all time. He could have sold the most records ever and has sold the 3rd most movie tickets of all time. In 1947, he was declared most admired man alive. At the height of his radio show, he had 1/3 of America listening. In 1948, he was half of all radio (more than 40,000 hours). No entertainer (in 2 or more main mediums) has put up those numbers since. These are not opinions, just facts. I'm pretty sure you didn't know all of these facts so you just jumped to conclusions. Next time just please be careful. This is just an article of facts. (Utzdman55 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - I think that tone is a big part of the problem - facts or not, it sounds like fansite material to me. JohnInDC (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure how this one table is a legacy of Bing Crosby. Chart positions have been covered in Bing Crosby discography. There is a List of best-selling music artists but I can't find a list of artist by No. 1 hits. Surely one already exists? —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Hot 100. For some other countries, see Category:Lists of artists by record chart achievement. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete – Pretty useless article, most of the stuff is already covered at Bing Crosby. Also, the itsy bitsy spider went up the water stout. Down came the rain, and washed the spider out. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking opinion by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This information can be presented in context in the appropriate articles without overwhelming them, and it is premature to spin off the legacy section of Bing Crosby. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 25 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurette Glasgow

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

fails WP:BIO. those thinking there is inherent notability of ambassadors should point out the actual guideline which says that. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:DIPLOMAT there is no presumed notability for Ambassadors. They can be redirected to List of Xian Ambassadors to Y but there is no such list for either of the subjects posts. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. . Nor are her Church roles sufficiently distinguished to contribute to her notability. Jbh ^Talk 13:47, 24 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Gagnon

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

Fails WP BIO. Coverage merely confirms he's an ambassador. those thinking there is inherent notability of ambassadors should point out the actual guideline which says that. LibStar (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. Article is unsourced. No presumed notability for Ambassadors per WP:DIPLOMAT Jbh ^Talk 00:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 24 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled 2009 Reunion Tour

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

This is a non-notable, canceled concert tour that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT. The concert tour was cancelled so the band could record an album. The first non-reliable source provided in the article references the second non-reliable source provided in the article that states the nature of the cancellation. The third non-reliable source just provides the concert dates when they were announced. Aspects (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to be redundant to Mechanize Tour, which was supposed to have begun in August 2009 in the various countries listed in this article. I'd recommend a speedy delete since it's essentially the same thing. The only difference is that this article lists the cancelled tour dates while the other does not. Even if the tour was revamped into the Mechanize Tour or was a completely separate tour, I don't see where this cancelled portion really merits its own article. It's already mentioned in Mechanize Tour and that's all that it really warrants. I'd recommend against redirecting since this title is fairly generic and doesn't seem like it'd be a likely search hit. It could be that someone would use this term to search for the cancelled 2009 shows by Fear Factory... or they could be looking for a cancelled tour by a completely different artist/group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TokyoGirl - It's pretty much a dup of Mechanize Tour, As an aside the title's rather pointless as it doesn't say whos cancelled tour.... Anyway delete1. –Davey2010^Talk 07:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The itsy bitsy spider went up the water stout. Down came the rain, and washed the spider out. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:21, 25 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 keep. Closing early as nominator has a habit of nominating articles under invalid reasons and or not bothering to search for sources. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 07:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keyti

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

The topic of this Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines, there is No EVIDENCE of Notability on this Article . --Samat lib (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clear that the subject does meet WP:GNG. Lack of evidence in the article is grounds for marking with templates, not nomination. Nominations required some effort to determine if the subject is or is not notable (see section D of the linked page). In my search I found the following a number of references including one that stated he had worked with Amnesty International within the country. I have added the ones I found. The problem may be that most of the references are in French or Wolof, and Senegal, the nation from which is is based, is not noted for its Internet use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:38, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with heaps of reliable sources. -- haminoon (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 24 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Terrier

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

Non notable dog breed. I cannot find any sources to establish notability and the article itself offers no sources and is written in the typical "this dog is good with kids, buy this dog" manner. TKK! bark with me! 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not show any notability; searches using "Gull Terrier" or the alternative name given of "Kohati Gultair" just come up with the usual unreliable sources (dogbreedinfo.com etc) or FaceBook. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 24 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forum at Grace Cathedral

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage of this lecture series in reliable sources. The tone of the article (which calls the forum "a series of stimulating conversations about faith and ethics in relation to the issues of our day") also inclines me toward deletion. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This promotional article's notability cannot be established. I have managed to find several trivial mentions, but nothing significant on this forum. Fails WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant and notable coverage and aside passing mentions here or mostly about Grace Cathedral for the talk show. Not notable with no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete – No significant coverage that can translate into notability.~~ SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We would not have a list of people who had preached in the Cathedral; we should thus not have one for people interviewed there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, subject of this AfD has received several mentions in multiple non-primary reliable sources including The Christian Post, Charisma News, and others. However, most of them do not have the subject of the AfD as the primary subject of their content, nor do any of those sources give significant coverage to the events. While it could be argued that the verified content can be merged into the article about Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, and a redirect left in its place, that can be done without the redirect, as the redirect can be seen as being only promotional in nature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 30 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 keep. Now that the article has been stubified the consensus is to Keep. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Mountain (resort)

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

Non-notable resort, fails WP:GNG. Moreover, the entire article is a POV controversy section which is poorly sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, TNT - it would seem that, based on the ongoing controversies, it meets the burden of the GNG. I agree it's way too much about the controversy and should be rewritten. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT is an essay that would be more in line with deleting, rather than keeping, seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify: meets WP:GNG; however the article is so full of self-published sources that fixes other than just starting over would not work. Esquivalience ^t 18:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think it's better off Blown up & rewritten from scratch, I get we're an encyclopedia & all that but there's no chance in hell of this being rewritten from what it is now to WP standards so personally think it's better off all redone again and this time should hopefully meet the standards here. –Davey2010^Talk 07:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of news coverage such as these [38] [39] covering its 2013 sale and this which describes some sort of bankruptcy scandal. It's a private business at the end of the day, but I think these sort of sources squeak it over the WP:GNG threshold. Now the unsourced material has been removed the article can be rebuilt appropriately. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the stubified article is fine, and a massive improvement on the POV page that I nominated for deletion- still could do with being expanded in an encyclopedic way. If I could, I'd withdraw my nomination, but I can't, so Keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:09, 25 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Bay (city)

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

Contested PROD. Fictional element of a game that fails WP:GNG and is better off at Wikia or some other fan-centered site. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and if anyone wants the information about this niche article there is already another article on the Mafia II wikia. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 10:04, 24 May 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) 01:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely in-universe, fictional detail written without any sources. If someone can find the sources to meet the GNG, I'd still recommend delete per WP:TNT, as it would have to be entirely rewritten. That's s a huge "if" though - I imagine the significant coverage from third party reliable sources does not exist, as most fictional video game cities don't get much attention like that. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Not independently notable from the game, but not even sufficiently notable as a search term to warrant a redirect to the main article. Previously AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Bay (Mafia) in 2011. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 04:37, 26 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

107.5_Switch_Radio

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, there is nothing specifically notable about this radio station. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:PERNOM yet? --TL22 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Wikipedia's baseline criterion for the notability of a radio station is that it has a broadcast license from the appropriate media-regulation authority (the FCC in the United States, the CRTC in Canada, OFCOM in the UK, etc.) — any station which has that is always a valid topic for an article, but that "validity in principle" does not confer an exemption from the article having to be properly written and sourced. This article, however, is resting entirely on primary sources — and is only just barely removed from being speediable as blatant advertising (the lack of advertorial adjectives being about the only thing that keeps it from falling over the line.) And no radio station, even if it is officially eligible for an article, gets to keep that kind of article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a better and more properly sourced version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, what are you talking about? Having a broadcast license is not a qualification in any way. Radio stations must meet regular WP:GNG. See WP:BROADCAST —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect you're misunderstanding my point, if you think it's in conflict with yours. I didn't say that sources didn't have to be there — in fact, I specifically said that they do have to be there. If an article is properly sourced, however, then a radio station does not have to claim any special or unique notability above and beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — the broadcast license is all it takes for the radio station to be eligible to have a properly sourced article written about it, but the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided is still what determines whether we actually keep or delete any particular version of that article. And this isn't properly sourced in the least, which is why I argued to delete — but if a new, better article can be written which does cite proper sourcing, then it would be eligible to keep that version. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bearcat, I know what you're saying and you're not correct - the broadcast license is totally irrelevant to eligibility and irrelevant to anything relating to a Wikipedia article. Have you never heard of Category:Pirate radio stations? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're still misunderstanding (and I'm a longstanding member of WP:WPRS, actually one of the original creators of that project and one of the drafters of WP:NMEDIA, so I'm hardly somebody who needs to be educated on the finer points of a guideline I wrote in the first place.) Nothing I said above discounts the possibility of a pirate radio station also being considered notable — but that takes being able to properly source enough notability, above and beyond the mere fact of its existence, to counter the lack of a license with a "got covered enough to satisfy WP:GNG" claim. For a duly licensed radio station, however, the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article — that article can still be deleted as an advertisement if it's written and sourced this badly, but if the article were properly sourced then the license itself would be all the notability that it takes to make the article keepable. That doesn't negate the necessity of sourcing the article properly — an article can still be deleted if it's this bad, but we just can't deem it permanently ineligible to have a better article recreated in the future. And neither does it discount the possibility of a pirate station also clearing the bar for other reasons independent of its licensing status — pirates can still qualify if there's enough sourcing to demonstrate a cultural influence beyond the mere fact of existing, and just don't get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article."← This does not make sense so I must not be understanding. The license is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with anything, and it's not a factor in any way, shape or form. It makes no difference toward "eligibility" for an article. If this is any kind of guideline, why is not mentioned in WP:NMEDIA (or anywhere else)? Maybe things have changed since the "old days" because there is no "eligibility" for anything. Any possible thing in the world is "eligible" if it meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me try this in different words, then: if an article about a duly licensed radio station is properly sourced (which, again, I said right up front that this isn't), then you cannot take it to AFD on the grounds that it would have to pass any higher notability bar beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — we do not separate licensed radio stations into distinct "notable" and "non-notable" classes on any criterion beyond their licensing status. If it's written and sourced this badly, then yes, it can absolutely be nuked and paved as a WP:NOTADVERT violation, with no prejudice and no permanent injunction against the future recreation of a properly sourced new article. (Pirate stations can still be eligible for articles if you can source a substantive claim of notability independent of their licensing status, but they're not automatically eligible to have an article just because they exist — it takes a higher volume of reliable source coverage to get a pirate into Wikipedia than it does for a licensed radio station, but neither class of radio station gets to rest on no reliable sourcing.) Again, this article is not properly sourced, and is fully deletable in this form — we're in complete agreement on that. But if the article were properly sourced, then the fact of having a broadcast license would be the only notability claim it had to make, and it would not have to demonstrate any special level of notability beyond that fact. But for the moment, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion — even though we both expressed the same opinion on the keepability or deletability of this article, you're quibbling with something I said about how the article might become salvageable, instead of with the position that we share on the actual article that we're actually looking at? Even though, when you get right down to it, we're actually saying the same thing (i.e. reliable sourcing) about how the article might become keepable too — and so you're really just arguing with the wording I'm using to express the same thing you are? Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I see what you're saying, however, I don't see anywhere that information is listed; ie if someone were to claim that in an AfD, where would they find that vital piece of information? It seems that that might be something that was discussed at some point, but is not in the actual guideline or any essays. As you see, it's not in WP:NMEDIA. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think what Мандичка was trying to say is that the license does not give notability to an article. I wasn't able to find anything that says otherwise. Having a license does not allow an article to pass WP:GNG, at least from what I have seen. I might be missing something on the finer details of what a license does and does not entitle an article to. I was basing this AFD an the sole grounds that there was nothing specifically notable about it, not as much so the references and writing of the article. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article is sourced properly — which this absolutely isn't — then a radio station doesn't have to have anything "special" about it beyond the fact of having a broadcast license. The license doesn't get the station over GNG by itself if proper sourcing isn't present, but I never said that it did. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, lets assume that the article is properly written and with quality secondary sources. I haven't been able to find where a broadcasting license alone would give it notability? Maybe im missing something, but I havent found anything on that. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 03:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NMEDIA, primary criterion: A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. In other words, as long as proper sourcing is present in the article to give it a WP:GNG pass, no media outlet — no newspaper, no radio station, no television station, etc. — actually has to make any special claim of notability above and beyond "it exists and these reliable sources prove it". See also WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't want to start posting links as which is greater than the other but WP:ORG is wikipedia policy. I know that your a lot, lot more experienced on wikipedia than I am, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your trying to say. On WP:ORG it says that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." and this should be deferred to over any conflict over the WP:NMEDIA or WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing I said in that comment, or indeed anywhere in this entire discussion, is in any kind of conflict with that passage from WP:ORG — that passage is exactly what I've been saying the whole freaking time: if proper reliable sources are present in the article — though they aren't here, which is why I argued to delete — then the radio station does not need to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact of existing as a licensed radio station, because the sources satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG in and of themselves. There's no conflict between what I said and what WP:ORG says, which is why I don't understand how we've gotten so bogged down on this tangent. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youtube, Twitter, etc. are not reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and others above. There aren't enough reliable sources to make a page on this. Page has been tagged for a year and a half and nothing has come forward since then. mikeman67 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented in the nomination. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. While it's arguable that the nominator could theoretically intend #14 at DEL-REASON as a basis for the nomination, this is not stated, the rationale herein is subjective, and the fact that this article went through and passed a GA review in 2012 serves to negate the notions presented in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom

I believe this article is unnecessary since we don't have any other fandom pages, and besides the brony community was never really relevant. Yeahbsolutely! Wanna talk? LOOK @ ME, DADDY, I'M A FARMER! 01:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Previous AFD in June 2012 closed the same. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Nominator as not outlined why it meets AFD criteria for deletion WP:DEL-REASON. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Sad that it is, this GA rated article does meet GNG as it has had significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. The nominator has made an inappropriate AFD with no AFD tag to the page or notified anyone about this nom, or specified a valid reason. Cowlibob (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Cowlibob - clearly notable, and already speedily kept back in 2012. We don't determine to keep an article based on whether or not other fandom pages exist. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:17, 24 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Amateurs FC

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

Inadequately sourced article about an amateur football club. I was only able to find one source that makes a passing mention about the club. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 00:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nominator, there is a website with information about them but they don't meet WP:GNG LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 00:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added, further ones to come once I am given their direct link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinkydink84 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very low-level amateur team. The general consensus for base club notability is that they must have played in a national league / cup competition, which I do not believe this club has. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way way way below the level at which teams are deemed notable, fails all relevant policies/guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has not fixed the issues that caused it to be A7d last week. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY- will never be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:01, 28 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.