Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 May	29 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Gospel Team

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

Poorly referenced article. I doubt there's much notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything that supports notability. Only source is album liner. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, my searches (even at Newspapers and nothing) found good aside from Books here (results fade by page 2) and thefreelibrary here (passing mention). SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is largely original research where no references exist to assert notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are shrouded in mystery for a reason, no references, and no impactful effects on music.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 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 redirect to Orb (optics). Clear consensus that a separate article is not merited and with no consensus between deletion and redirecting we default to a redirect to Orb (optics), which looks to be the preferred redirect option. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orb of Light

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

I suggest this article should be removed. It does not explain when and how this "orb of light" appears/appeared or what it is. We don't have an article titled "Howling noise", Content: "Howling noises are suggested to be created by ghosts." either. If ghosts sometimes appear as orbs of light, that should be noted in the Ghost article. We don't need a separate article consisting of a single paragraph, really. Ciaraleone (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-explaining compound with content that's a definition. If anyone were to search this term often, then the vote would be "redirect" to paranormal research or something similar. However, no one's going to come along and say, "I just watched "Ghost Busters"; I wonder what 'orb of light' is? I know! I'll use Wikipedia." Hithladaeus (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ghost: I've seen the term used fairly frequently, almost always in relation to the paranormal- although the term is occasionally used in relation to Christianity. A look at the page views shows that it gets about an average of 100-130 hits a month, so there are people searching for this term or at least coming across it somehow. You can see its usage in these types of places. Books ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) News ([7], [8], [9], [10]) Now I'm not saying that the use of the term in these books means that this should have its own page. Mostly I'm just listing these because I want to show that the term is used and has been used for years in relation to the paranormal. It's a pretty commonly used term, although there are variations like "light orb". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Orb (optics), which contains the scientific explanation and also mentions the WP:FRINGE views held by paranormalists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orb (optics) or delete. I'll go with LuckyLouie and say that this should probably go to the scientific explanation. Deletion is also fine, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hickford

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

Non-notable footballer, hasn't played a professional match. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 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) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tilney

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons I PRODed it- not played a professional game, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because while all of the above is true as of 29 May 2015, it will become untrue by August/September. The kid has just been given a senior football contract with Championship side, MK Dons [cited in article]. So yes, strictly according to the rules, the article should be deleted - but only for it to be created again in three months time. So I suggest we don't bother with the work to rule on this occasion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He's actually been on a contract with the club since last October and has not yet played a first team game, how can you be certain that he will be in the team come August/September.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Norwich fan, I know there are many players in their reserve squad who don't have articles, because they haven't played a competitive fixture. There's no evidence they'll make an appearance in 3 months time, and if they do, it can just be recreated then. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair comment. Delete.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EA Cup

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

Per WP:GAMECRUFT: a competition in the video game FIFA goes out of the encyclopedic scope. Also fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing specifically about this and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 29 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) 02:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page is just gibberish to anyone and everyone who has no understanding of the topic or FIFA in general. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable and clearly falls under WP:GAMECRUFT. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FIFA (video game series) or delete. It's an unlikely search term, but I guess it could happen. It's too bad we can't redirect people to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 4 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) 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Wandrowsky

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

We don't need an article about every person who took part in a reality TV show. Fails WP:N Rayukk (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Germany's_Next_Topmodel_(cycle_10) - I'm not familiar with this show but, of all my searches, only provided results and they fade by page 3. I'm not fluent with German but it's unlikely she's gotten significant and notable coverage there. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The title of the German wep page given as source translates as Gossip and chit-chat. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know redirect is usually preferred but in this case it's completely pointless as she's non notable and probably not even known beyond that one programme and I'd go as far as to say she'd probably be forgotten about in 2 weeks time!, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajša Selimović

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

We don't need an article about every person who took part in a reality TV show. Fails WP:N Rayukk (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a participant in a reality TV show does not automatically make one notable. The person either has to do something else, or we have to demonstrate their participation recieved multiple sources of coverage outside of the show itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:TELEVISION. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:35, 3 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. Overall consensus is to Keep, Those wanting Merge should obviously discuss it at the talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety

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

Non-notable department. Only 2 citations. Page basically just list the mission of the department (WP:PROMOTION) and then a WP:UNSOURCED list of the divisions of the department (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP its the largest public safety department in the united states.... pretty notable. Trains other departments on the public safety model and has been noted in the congressional record for theur successful use of the public safety model Zlassiter (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable police/fire department, if for only its unique status as both. Its 1983 formation from the separate police and fire departments predates Google's newspaper archiving, but the Kalamazoo Gazette published literally hundreds of articles about the department (note that number does not include the hundreds more about what the department does, fighting fires and doing law enforcement). It was a politically contentious issue for several years. In addition, there have been major scandals in the department (a LT addicited to crack and hookers and stealing evidence from the evidence impound, among others) These have received coverage in newspapers. The information does not have to be in the article or the references easily locate-able on Google for notability to attach. I am not in the Kalamazoo area to search out the sources anymore, but they are there. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet basic notability standards. --Jayron 32 00:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kalamazoo, Michigan. Of the page's three refs, one is a directory listing, one a YouTube video and the third is not about the department itself; fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Miniapolis 21:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm with Miniapolis. That seems like a good compromise. --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: This isn't about compromise Zackmann08 its about consensus. I looked through the articles you have created and am shocked you called this department not notable when I looked at some of the other departments which are much smaller that you are creating articles for. Zlassiter (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did some quick google searching and made some significant contributions to the article on just 20 minutes of looking around. Quite a bit of notable things about this department that I didn't even know about and I live in Kalamazoo. Looking through Google news shows results about this department from sources around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.16.122 (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks and elsewhere. Those arguing for deletion have only addressed the sources presently cited in the article. But NRVE says that if adequate sources exist, it is not necessary that they be present in the article. As an obvious redirect to the article on Kalamazoo, the page is not even theoretically eligible for deletion, and should not have been nominated (WP:R). James500 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to be a large enough department to merit an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 3 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) 17:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mop wedding

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

As said at Talk:Jumping the broom by dab:

"unfortunately, the "mop wedding" thing may also have been a hoax. Posted in 2008 by an editor whose contributions are basically limited to this item. The article cited the following sources:

Brand, John (1849) Observations on the popular antiquities of Great Britain, Henry G Bohn, London.

Fiennes, Celia (1947) The Journeys of Celia Fiennes, Cresset Press, London.

Maurice, Ashley (1952) England in the Seventeenth Century, Pelican, London.

Cobbett, William (1885) Rural Rides, Reeves and Turner, London.

Borrow, George Henry (1862) Wild Wales, John Murray, London.

Stone, Lawrence (1990) Road to Divorce, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Brand (1849) is accessible online, and it does not contain any material on "mop weddings" which should be enough to give us pause. Likewise, Cobbett (1885) is online here and it does not contain any references to mops. This should be enough to treat the entire thing as a hoax pending confirmation." See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jumping_the_broom&type=revision&diff=656874839&oldid=656874185

Although User:Andrew Davidson deprodded this article and noted: "Such a source is Brian Jewell (1976), Fairs and Revels, Midas, p. 22, the Mop Fair became something of a marriage market", I agree with dab that the sources provided do not support this content and that other reliable sources cannot be found; two sources available online don't even mention mop fairs, let alone mop weddings: https://archive.org/stream/observationsonp07elligoog#page/n0/mode/2up http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34238/34238-h/34238-h.htm

The mention that mop fairs might be somewhere people looked for marriage partners can be mentioned at that article - it does not support the concept of a specific type of wedding associated with mop fairs. I will of course withdraw if significant coverage of "mop weddings" can be found and verified. Fences&Windows 20:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost certainly a hoax. Completely fails the burden of proof. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I too think it's a hoax, not to mention that the PROD was expired at the time before it was removed. The Snowager-is awake 03:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete but make a note of the "runaway matches" item at the mop fair page. This is a strange case of a "hoax", as it seems to use false references to substantiate something that isn't really false. Here and here are references mentioning the term "Runaway Fair" for a "hiring fair at which runaway matches were made". We don't need a "mop wedding" page to point this out, it is enough just to have the mop fair page take note of it. --dab (𒁳) 05:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I see more sources which indicate that there's something to this. For example, The Victorian Village — "hence it was also known as a 'mop fair'. ... Young workers used the fairs as a good opportunity for match-making, and many a happy marriage had its origin in a meeting at the statute fair." Geographic School Bulletins — "the Onion Fair at Birmingham, and the picturesque old "Mop Fair" at Stratford-on-Avon. ... The hiring of servants and the settlement of marriage contracts were deals no more out of place on medieval midways ..." Merger into mop fair seems a reasonable way forward. Andrew D. (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the point is not that people never married at mop fairs, the point is that the term "mop wedding" is completely unsubstantiated, and Wikipedia should try not to establish as "legitimate" terms that did not previously exist... so at best this would become a "non-printworthy redirect". It turns out, though, that the term "runaway match" does exist, and that such "runaway matches" were often made at mop fairs. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HOAX - DELETE -- Mop fairs were about hiring servants, not marrying them. I have a copy of Cobbett and have checked its index. It has one reference to the Marriage Act (Dent Everyman edn 1912, repr. 1941, i, 155), as part of a discussion of turnpikes; the reference is to Clandestine Marriage Act 1753. I cannot check Fiennes as my copy is only indexed by place (not subject) or Borrow as my copy is not indexed. Fairs would certainly be means for youngh people to make matches, but "common law marriage" was an exception, based on a promise of marriage followed by living together. Marriage was the province of the clergy. Couples would have the banns of marriage read in church on three Sundays, after which they could marry in church. There may have been a few "peculiar" jurisdictions, where a licence could be obtained quickly. Otherwise couples had to resort to a journey (run-away) to Scotland where the law was different, noteably Gretna Green. Merging this to the article on Mop fairs would be to vandalise that (decent) article. Going before a magistrate is highly improbable: the magistrate would be likely to refer them to the vicar. His involvement would be more when a clandestine marriage went wrong, when he was called upon to make an affiliation order after the man deserted his "wife". I do not think the two referneces to runaway matches help: the second refers to Ireland (where the law was - and is - different), whereas they alleged sources all concern England and Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- nobody suggested "merging" the existing article via copy-paste, because, as you point out, it contains fake references. But I fail to see how it would constitute "vandalism" to add to the mop fair page sourced statements such as "the Mop Fair became something of a marriage market" (Brian Jewell, Fairs and Revels, 1976, p. 22). --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 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. As the delete argument that the articles does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources has not been refuted. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Mundi Records

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NCORP. The article makes no claim of notability and has no sources. All sources I can find on the web seem to be things like Facebook and Soundcloud. Jbh ^Talk 20:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous blogs/interviews that cover these artists. The page is in its early stages, but will be up and functioning very soon with many notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleiter10 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added multiple references to sites such as Billboard and Spin.com that premiered album releases' for said artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleiter10 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jleiter10: What the article needs to show notability are articles from independent, third party reliable sources which talk about the company not about the artists. Please see WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:ORGDEPTH for some of the specific guidelines. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh ^Talk 23:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jbhunley: People like myself who are fans of music like to find new music by searching for record labels. I am a fan of Crystal Fighters and was recently introduced to IS TROPICAL and saw they joined a new label. I began searching for other releases from the label and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia page. If you look at a lot of independent record labels (Carpark Records, Gnar Tapes...) you will notice they pretty much only list the releases by the label That doesn't make those pages useless. I have discovered many great bands from both of the mentioned wiki pages so wanted to compile a page for this label to reciprocate for those who have put the time in to provide me with ways to find new music over the years. Jleiter10 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSome sources, but not of them show any WP:ORGDEPTH. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now simply because there isn't significant and notable coverage and News for example gave me Brown Bird's song "Axis Mundi" with Highbeam and thefreelibrary. A recently started label with a few artists but no notability for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contest As I said before, there are a number of labels on Wikipedia, that do not have secondary sources mentioning them. I am simply a fan attempting to spread good music. Jleiter10 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please nominate them for deletion as they are non-notable as well. Jbh ^Talk 14:27, 1 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2019 UEFA European Under-17 Championship

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

Textbook WP:CRYSTAL case. Tournament so far in the future that not even the hosting country/location or a date more specific than season-year has been determined. Tournament is not large enough to warrant a 4-years-in-advance listing like the Olympics does; basically the only things that can be said about it right now are things like which edition it will be and on/after which day players must have been born to be eligible. (See also its close sibling the 2020 UEFA European Under-17 Championship, which was listed on AFD earlier today) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A case of WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated when there is more information bar the names of two bidding countries to add. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too far in the future for such a small youth tournament. Giant Snowman 18:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon to create an article like this and it is only 2015! Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create it in 4 years time!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:21, 4 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 redirect to International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. If SwisterTwister wants to merge it I have no objections. –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Lakshapathi Mamada Lakshapathi

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

As an alternative to deletion, I'd rather move this to International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? as my searches here and here found nothing significant (Books and the freelibrary also found nothing). I'm sure a lot of this information is accurate but there aren't any solid sources (not in English anyway) so similar to other versions that are mentioned on that list, it's better to move to International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. I would've moved it myself but I wanted a consensus. SwisterTwister talk 15:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - support User:SwisterTwister's views that the article should be redirected to International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. 01:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:56, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Collins (footballer)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth footballer who fails general notability guidelines as well as project specific guidelines. The 1 appearance is a falsification when compared to sources. While he is clearly no longer a youth footballer, and the concerns about false content have been addressed, the basic issue of notability remains. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG- Govindaharihari (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
he has played in a fully pro league - — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH Coaster (talk • contribs)
- The stats in the article say otherwise......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NFOOTY GNG –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anita F. Boorda

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

Biography, based on one primary source and one obituary, of a person notable primarily as an executive director of a local amateur theatre company. This is not a claim of notability that would normally get a person into Wikipedia, and the sourcing isn't nearly strong enough to claim a WP:GNG exception here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 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) 19:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization she directed is not even notable enough to have an article. The coverage is all local, with no indication of anyone outside South Bend thinking to report on her, and very little coverage from South Bend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of all my searches (News, Books, browser, newspapers, highbeam and thefreelibrary), only News found results but they're passing mentions through listings. She may have been locally notable but there's not much coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:28, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Sehu

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish her notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because there aren't even a few significant and notable sources and my multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing aside from some of the current links. I'm not Albanian so maybe someone familiar with this can improve the article but it's appears unlikely she's notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1361 Leuschneria

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

DOesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. The main subject of two old orbital studies [11] [12], used as one of two examples in a paper about a method for calculating orbits [13], and mentioned more recently as a candidate for a certain orbital resonance (but found not to be in that resonance) [14]. This last reference also cites a book chapter by Williams (1979) where its candidacy for the resonance was first proposed. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NASTRO is merely a guideline and should not be used to remove borderline asteroids as the the main-belt asteroid problem was created by bots and should not be over corrected. It would be better if borderline asteroids were actually dealt with by the Astro project. -- Kheider (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:50, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Independence Live Events

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

This was a contested speedy deletion. This reads entirely like an advert, and fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; only a handful of results and most related to crowdfunding —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grassroots media organisation ignored by mainstream media: doesn't meet WP:CORP - mainly results on social media, Reddit, Indiegogo, campaigning websites, etc. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organisation is most widely known as "Independence Live", so that should really be the pagename rather than "Scottish Independence Live Events" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulvenna (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for notability consider the recent round-up of alternative media coverage of the UK general election as reported by the Scottish Television news^[1], the Common Space feature^[2] and the scholarly request for access to the Independence Live archive from the National Library of Scotland. (Note that Common Space is staffed by professional journalists.) Mulvenna (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC) — Mulvenna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 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) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content doesn't measure up, and one reason is, as was noted above, the actually notable topic/keyword would be Independence Live, not "Scottish Independence Live Events." The unwieldly name is an indicator of the intent and source of the article, I suspect. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOVEWORLD

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

An album which is not at all notable and with not even a single cite to demonstrate the notability. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 19:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced, which heavily implies zero notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems to be a case of WP:BEFORE. I've found reviews of the album from The A.V. Club, Pitchfork Media and Spin after a quick Google search, all of which are considered reliable sources, per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep I'd like to see sources, obviously, but this album by a notable band does seem to have received enough mainstream coverage to pass WP:NALBUM. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reviews in reliable sources is good enough to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Kokoro20. — sparklism ^hey! 12:33, 4 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffic

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Neither company nor product appear inherently notable. I also suspect the author has a COI. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 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, Davewild (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Adweek and Digital Trends both look like sources worth keeping around. CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:17, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the coverage is reliable and significant enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Sidika

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

Subject fails the notability criterion; article more of a promotional text than anything. Sources cited belong strictly to gossip outlets. The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and hopefully as soon as possible) —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 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 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even the most cursory of google searches (nevermind WP:BEFORE) returns hundreds of thousands of hits (more than 4k in Google News alone). Many articles call her "Kenya's Kim Kardashian". Some from the first few pages of hits: BBC, New York Post's Page Six, 32 pages of articles tagged with "Vera Sidika" at Ghalfa, Buzz Kenya, 6 pages of articles tagged at Nairobi Wire, Black America Web, Naij, Pulse, Clutch Magazine, 2 pages of articles at The Net, Gossip News Africa, Sahan Journal, Nairobi News, Medical Daily, Afro Parazi, Eurweb, AllAfrica...

According to Google's Year in Search 2014 (mentioned in AllAfrica here), Vera Sidika was one of Kenya's leading searches. Also says she "was the top trending person in 2014" (I don't know if that's Google, Twitter, or what).

This is a class example of current article content being really poor, but the subject very clearly notable (I don't even know how notability could be the basis for this nom). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt to check for background before proposing a deletion on the basis of lack of notability. For what it's worth, and not surprisingly, the same results you listed above were returned in my search and I found them almost all within the category of gossip columns. (Yes, even the BBC has gossip aplenty! They're "getting with the times", presumably.) I believe that self-promotion can be accepted as justification for a Wikipedia BLP only if it reaches critical mass in mainstream media, as in the case of Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Otherwise, every "trending" topic or any "top google search" is fair game. Wikipedia's rules state that "persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Notice that having a "high profile" due to self-sοught media attention does not make one necessarily notable. But I could be mistaken. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient information and references Shad Innet (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), including in the BBC and Ghafla!. Though as The Gnome notes, many of the sources in the Google search are gossip, there is enough coverage from reputable sources to establish notability. That the subject was covered by the BBC, a well respected news source not known for being a gossip publication, strongly indicates that she is notable.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vera Sidika to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:57, 7 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. Consensus for deletion here, with the sources found not swaying any of those who are arguing for deletion from their view that the notability guidelines are not met. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rattikorn Kunsom

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

Effectively unsourced BLP (no sources, just an external link that is related to the subject) The Banner talk 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any in depth coverage from reliable sources. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has won a national beauty pageant, about two weeks ago. That alone should be enough to presume notability, analogous to other notability guidelines on people, like national sports champions. (I couldn't find a guideline on beaty queens, off-hand, but I think there is something like that.) The photoes are all over the web, I added some sources, some have text with desciptions of her. She will appear in the news quite a bit when the international beauty pageant, to which the one she won is affiliated, will happen later this year. Kraxler (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, more related external links (= no sources) and still just one event... The Banner talk 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangkok Post is a reliable metro newspaper, like the New York Times. The other refs are not "related" to the event, except the official site. The other refs are news outlets that talk about this segment, like music magazines talk about music without being related to the musicians. But yes, it's only one event so far. As I said, there should be a guideline for national beauty queens. In the absence of one, I'd like to say that "in-depth" coverage for beauty queens should consist in the publication of their images, not of written texts, because they are notable for their beauty, not for their utterings. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine smattering of press release style coverage for appearing in a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A national beauty pageant is not "minor", and winning is not adequately described as "appearing". Your !vote looks like you WP:DONTLIKE it. Kraxler (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I actually value your opinion, I'll let you know. There are apparently already several well-established pageants in Thailand, this is a newcomer as as of yet does not appear to be that big of a deal. "Winning" a non-notable pageant does not guarantee notability for the subject. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Winning a national beauty competition is not always winning a national beauty competition, inasmuch as there is some proliferation of the pageants. Given that her promotion is apparently outside of the "Miss Universe" structure, it's very hard to say that this is a clear indication of notability. I'm sure that this is a great accomplishment, but not sufficiently clear notability for Wikipedia. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a national beauty competition is definitely winning a national beauty competition, especially in a place where beauty is highly appreciated. See more in-depth coverage here: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. Her name in Thai letters gives 83,700 google hits. She's certainly a major celebrity in Thailand. Besides, she was among the Top 10 in the Thai Supermodel contest in 2013, according to her article in the Thai Wikipedia which is well sourced. I'll add something here too. Kraxler (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But still the article has no sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 22:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I added conform to WP:RS, and all except the offical site of Thai Supermodel, are also independent sources. I suggest you read the guideline again. Besides, apparently you didn't get it yet, so I'll spell it out for you: Miss Grand International is based in Thailand. The winner of Miss Grand Thailand will take on the rest of the world, at home. Moreover, in developing countries to win a beauty pageant is the dream of a vast majority of girls, and the actual winners are envied, revered, adored, and talked about in the media, no end. That is the essence of notability and the subject of this article is a major celebrity in Thailand, as is demonstrated by the many sources. The notion that newspapers in Thailand would need, or even take, press releases to report on Miss Grand Thailand is absurd. All major media have their own correspondents there, at the pageant and later at any event where she appears. Kraxler (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Clearly there is a difference of opinion on this and the related AfD. I think that after endless back and forth it is time to admit that we are not going to reach agreement and further debate is pointless. We will just have to let other editors weigh in and hope for consensus. I stand by my delete vote based on the source coverage being trivial and incidental. Subject fails GNG and BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 1 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) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2020 UEFA European Under-17 Championship

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

A football competition that will occur in 2020 that violates WP:CRYSTAL. This event is so far into the future that even the location of it has not been decided yet. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too far in the future for such a small youth tournament. Giant Snowman 18:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way too soon!, Create it in 5 years time!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too soon indeed. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the very definition of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not even close to 2020 and it's only 2015! Way too soon to create this article. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:24, 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) 17:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Deacon

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO as no reliable sources directly discuss her roles. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep: It's true that there won't be a lot of press discussing the actress's performance, as she's terribly young. She did play in the Showtime series Penny Dreadful as "Young Mina," and she has UK television appearances (IMDB profile was not easy to find: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4313039/). There is no reason to believe that the upcoming appearances won't be true. So, Wikipedia is not IMDB, so the question is only whether this level of consistent work and exposure is a warrant for eventual (or unfound) third party reference or not? I think so, but weakly. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources do show she did these things, but they don't show why she's notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Also, she's young isn't a good argument, and probably shows it's also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches and IMDb show there's not much and only News found passing mentions, I would've suggested moving elsewhere but with only three episodes each for the two shows, that's not much weight for a move. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Majorly WP:TOOSOON. Also remember, that Wikipedia has a duty to protect minors from coverage that is disproportional to their notability. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:04, 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) 17:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Stand Up

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

No claims of notability, and fails wp:gng. The only independent reference I was able to find is this wikipedia article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let me be the first one to ever say it: If you think Wikipedia is a way to advertise your business, service, or show, then you are already failing at your business, service, or show. (Delete for no indication of notability. Seems to be a way to generate buzz.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unremarkable Youtube show with no assertion of notability. My only surprise is that this was not speedy deleted under A7. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references or any evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to exist at YouTube but there's no significant and notable coverage even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 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 Speedy delete A3 by Deb. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALF New Life

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

Article contains no substantive content beyond a copy-pasted infobox. On top of that, the subject of the article is a nonexistent TV show. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shouldn't this be speedily deleted? There's nothing here. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references or evidence that makes this TV show eligible for notability at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 as a precaution as every single search I performed found nothing (not even an IMDb) and this isn't listed under any Alf or Paul Fusco list. Absolutely nothing to support this and see SPI and user contributions, this user has history of adding unsourced information and changes. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 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 Mendham Borough, New Jersey#Education. Davewild (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Westmont Montessori School

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

Non notable primary school, without any claim of significance, delete per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was deleted before as a G11, and the user was given good advice on how to improve it by @Chrislk02:, but decided to ignore it and recreate this non-notable article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42: Could we move it back to draftspace? At their talkpages and Chrislk02's talkpage, they have said they didn't intend to republish it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link: User_talk:Chrislk02#The_Westmont_Montessori_School – czar 17:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this. Speedily draft it if you wish. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now all these other people have commented, I feel like "Speedy move" to draftspace wouldn't be appropriate, unless they all agree to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The version previously moved back to draft at User:Mthiesse/draft is a copyvio of [21]. I don't see the point of multiple user drafts, ~~especially as the creator is not engaging in any discussion~~. Bazj (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redir to Mendham Borough, New Jersey#Education. Bazj (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Mendham Borough Elementary schools are infrequently notable; Nursery schools even more rarely. There is nothing here to establish notability, nor could I find anything in a Google search to add to what's in the article that would meet the GNG standard. A redirect will preserve the link and any meaningful will be merged into the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to borough. No meaningful hits in the major news databases (LexisNexis, ProQuest, Google Books/Scholar). Possible that there are offline or non-English sources, and please ping me if you find them. I'm skeptical about the need for a redirect without having secondary source coverage, but whatever, at the very least, it doesn't make sense to stay in draftspace since the secondary sources do not exist. – czar 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer of the Westmont wiki page. I'm sorry for my novice mistakes. I have added more citations and links, as it was suggested to me to do. Although they are a primary school they are heavily involved in the community and I feel that they are worthy of a wiki page. Mthiesse (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Do the new citations and links I have added help the page?Mthiesse (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant their own pages. The article's current sourcing consists of passing mentions and listings, not any in-depth coverage about the school. I did a search myself, as mentioned above, and didn't find more. Redirection is the best fate for this article until it has more media coverage. – czar 23:10, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhouse Partners

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

Subject does not appear notable. They have worked for an impressive client list, but notability is not inherited. The references are mostly either to their website or only mention the subject in passing. A Google search does not provide anything much better. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only assertion of notability is clients that they worked for, and being the recipient of a local "best place to work" award. most of the references for the content come from the organizations site.
- NOTE I speedy deleted this, and reversed it based on a discussion that started here [22]

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

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

Delete: It looks like two ads merged together -- one text advertising "Rockhouse Partners" and one text probably taken from the E-tix site's "acquisitions" section on how great E-tix is! Advertising, and lacking notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited from their clients. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - This has actually gotten news coverage as shown here, here and here (only press releases) but nothing significant and notable so let's give them some more time. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:11, 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 Speedy Deleted G11 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine "Chuks" Chukwu

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

Article has no reliable independent sources to establish notability (and a possible COI problem). Google searches for the author's name, the "ground-breaking" bestseller A Dictionary of Nigerian Pidgin and Slang and the award-winning poem Tree of Life in connection with the author all come up empty or show only self-published activity and 1-2 passing mentions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable, no any reliable source available to find notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Article seems to exist only to promote person. All sources point to self published web blogs like this one. --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 14:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I wrote when I PRODded the article, "I find no evidence of notability, including any references in independent sources to the one claim of significance, about having written the first Nigerian colloquialism dictionary. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but it isn't clear that any note of him as its author has been achieved." The article has been expanded since, but with no new sources identified beyond Chukwu's blog (and I believe, based on the user's name, that Chukwu is this article's creator, which makes this article original research, a primary source). As for the listing of Chukwu's "other notable works", I ran Google searches on several of them and found no mention of them outside of Chukwu's own web outlets. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pune bus information

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

Totally unsourced list of bus routes, bus depots and bus stops in Pune, India. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor a travel guide. Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that volunteers will contribute to this article. e.g. Someone can get accurate and complete information about routes from PMPML (the bus service operator) and write it on this page. Also, others may make similar wikipedia page for other cities in India (or world?)Pvranade (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, other contributors will keep the format same and only add or edit content. I have attempted to keep the format such that the content can be easily copied into a database. The database can then be used to create user friendly applications. Also the format is not bad for a human reader.Pvranade (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvranade: It's outside the scope of Wikipedia, we're an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Try adding the material to Wikitravel instead. Thomas.W ^talk 13:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are wikipedia pages about public transport in various cities (e.g. Mumbai, Sydney...). Isn't this page similar to those? Only difference is the way information is formatted (in lists, tables etc.) This format is suitable for extracting to database, yet is good enough for human readers.Pvranade (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This content is un-encylopdic, and Wikipedia is not a directory of bus/transportation routes. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopedic. Surprisingly, the 5:15 bus arrives at 5:15 and not 5:25. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. If I wanted to look for a bus timetable, I'd look on the company website, not Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anyone with bloody common sense would look at a bus timetable and or the companies website - Fails NOTDIR. –Davey2010^Talk 03:29, 4 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 redirect to Pokemon#Fan community. Consensus is clear that a separate article is not justified and with no real consensus between redirect and delete we default to redirect. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuzlocke

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

Contested PROD, rationale being that the article has sources. Nevertheless I really don't think this Pokemon trivia is worthy of a standalone article: essentially it's fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 28 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) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete non-notable thing made up by a bored kid that got posted online, not encyclopedic, and definitely not notable enough for a standalone article.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrislk02:It may have been made up by someone but isn't everything? The multitude of Kotaku articles on this matter and that entire 1000 word article don't prove this is notable? --☣Anar chyte☣ 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above: a subpopulation's private interest in an ephemeral passtime. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Pokemon#Fan community as suggested below. I also considered moving I saw no obvious target but this is a good option. ~~Delete~~ unfortunately because News found several results while Books found a recently published book and thefreelibrary had the IBTimes link. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. It's worth mentioning if no one else has noticed that this was nominated for a DYK. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Pokemon#Fan community Nuzlocke is worthy of mention wrt. the reliable sources (Kotaku, IBTimes, iDigital Times etc.) in the article, but I don't see it deserveing a separate article, especially not in this state. Pokemon#Fan community already has a bullet point about this which I think well sums up everything needed to be mentioned.野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any relevant content to Pokemon#Fan community. Separate article not required.Blethering Scot 16:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Anarchyte said, the amount of sources in the article establishes notability. At this point, you're just arbitrarily deciding what's notable and what's not. User:Logan The Master
Delete or redirect. The sources are of low-quality (mostly just what looks like WP:NEWSBLOG posts, one of which is sourced to Reddit; plus a cite to Bulbapedia, which is a wiki, and several what looks like the personal website of the person who invented it.) This is perhaps enough to give it a sentence in the Pokemon article's fan community section, but not remotely enough to justify giving it its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Of the 6 references, 1 is from a news blog, 1 is from the official site and 4 are valid and reliable sources. --Anar chyte 08:11, 4 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; page protection requested. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar people

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

a page consist of full vandalism please delete it PSEUDO Mr.X (talk) 11:46, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Currently a chain of redirects that should be fixed to point to the final page, but there is no "vandalism" to speak of. The page is about an ethnic group of Pakistan numbering some 375,000 or so. The user has nominated similar pages for deletion for the same reason, which suggests he might have something against the group in question. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - not reason for AfD —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:49, 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 Speedy keep; page protection requested. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar language

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

a page consist of full vandalism please delete it PSEUDO Mr.X (talk) 11:48, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP--- Laughing...this is a nomination to delete a language spoken by 240,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Page is a redirect to a language spoken in Pakistan with more than 200,000 speakers. The user's contributions suggest he has something against the region, language, or people; there's no "vandalism" to be seen. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 13:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - there's even a Khowar Wikipedia! —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:46, 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 Speedy keep; page protection requested. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar

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

a page consist of full vandalism please delete it PSEUDO Mr.X (talk) 11:48, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Disambiguation page for two related articles, neither of which is vandalism. The user apparently has something against the subject of these articles, as he's nominated others for deletion, too, under the same rationale. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 13:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - please withdraw these —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:48, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heath Heating

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

A solid, competent boiler service company. Now, I like my central heating to keep on running, so I'm glad they exist, but that's doesn't mean they're of encyclopedic importance. There are a few trivial mentions in news outlets (eg: here), but not much else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion whatsoever of notability & sound thoroughly ordinary.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever, just a place that serves to list the companies name and what they do on Wikipedia. I went to speedy it for A7, but it was contested on the talk page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep your Robert Heaths hot: I'm glad that there are people out there Robert Heath heating, because a cold one would be intolerable. (No indication of notability, although the company may be large.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest this has gotten considerable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 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 Speedy Deleted WP:A10 of Embryo transfer Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embryo transfer technology:applications

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. No decent sources to show why it's important, and Wikipedia is not a place for essays. Not my area of expertise, but seems like a WP:CONTENTFORK from another topic, and might be a candidate for speedy deletion as an A10. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; not essay, WP:FORK/WP:OR of Embryo transfer —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the article I was looking for. Couldn't find it, which is why I put it up for AfD not speedy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 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 keep all. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Green

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

I am also nominating the following related page of John Zimmer because these two pages are similar in that they are BLP pages of the two founders of the company Lyft. These two dont have clear evidence of notability other other than founding Lyft.

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

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly passes the threshold of WP:GNG based on the multitude of WP:RS. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both – Both subjects pass WP:BASIC, as evidenced per articles from various Google News searches: [23], [24], [25], [26]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (both). Per Chrislk02 and Northamerica1000. do ncr am 18:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because, founded Lyft.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Addison (Scottish writer)

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:AUTHOR. The subject wrote only one, evidently non-notable (Held in only 14 libraries according to WorldCat [27]), book. The article makes no claim of notability beyond writing a single book. Jbh ^Talk 11:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find virtually no independent coverage about the life of this writer falls way short of GNG --_nonsense ferret 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google and HighBeam return nothing that shows the subject meets notability criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to be encyclopedic in the context of authors. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did in fact find a source for his sole novel, Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada - Page 1020 is about "Tesseracts anthologies and the subsequent emergence of Tesseract Books (not to be confused with Tesser- act, 1988, a weak SF novel by Joseph Addison)." Very persuasive of the appropriateness of deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One can find more evidence of the author's existence (the Ox. Companion that merely lists all books published in a year; National Union Catalog), but that's not sufficient, I'm afraid, and the poor guy will always be dwarfed by his namesake, Atticus (a Dunciad allusion). Hithladaeus (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no substantive claim of notability that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE, and doesn't cite nearly enough reliable source coverage to claim WP:GNG instead. I also note from the edit history that the article was previously tagged for prod as an unsourced BLP, but the creator removed the tag with the edit summary "No references? Why don't you try READING THE ARTICLE?!" — but while the article does list an external link, that link is to a source which fails to satisfy GNG or to demonstrate any reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article on any criterion more substantive than "he exists". Mere existence is not what gets a writer into Wikipedia, however — reliable source coverage, supporting a substantive claim of notability, is what it takes. But that's lacking. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Hyde F.C. season

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

Consensus has developed that club season articles are not appropriate for clubs not playing in fully-professional leagues. The 2013–14 Hyde season article was also deleted at AfD, and there are multiple other examples, e.g. here, here, here, here etc (more can be provided if required). Number 5 7 09:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per consensus noted above. There is significant sourced prose in this article in terms of volume, but neither the text presented, nor the sources cited, discuss the season itself, it is merely an aggregation of routine match reports and essentially only duplicates the list of results in word form in the main. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear delete per consensus --_nonsense ferret 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season, and in the absence of the team/league promotion to the appropriate level of professional play, allowing future articles in the line to be deleted WP:G4 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Hyde F.C. season was for an article that wasn't very well referenced in comparison to this one. The other referenced discussions were or articles that well may not meet general football notability requirements, however they also didn't seem to meet WP:GNG. A few of the 120 references in this article do meet WP:GNG, and thus the other examples are not relevant. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...? Fenix down (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from number 1 ... 4 looks good [28]. Looking elsewhere, [29], [30]. In particular, they received coverage about their promotion to Conference National for this season [31]. People are acting like this is some kind of aberration - yet most teams in this league have seasons pages. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the ones that have been taken to AfD (this and this) were both deleted. I will be nominating the remainder for deletion after this discussion is closed. Number 5 7 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - my point is that it meets WP:GNG. It's not surprising that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS given that the teams are in a national level league where some of the teams are fully professional and all get national level coverage that most of the seasons of teams that play in this level will meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could create a fully referenced season article for clubs playing in the ninth and tenth levels of English football, but it doesn't mean they are in any way notable. Consensus is fairly clear that season notability follows player notability, and that seasons for non-fully pro clubs are not notable. Number 5 7 10:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is most certainly not clear. There have been a handful of low profile AFDs for some poorly referenced articles that may well not have met WP:GNG. However we shouldn't ignore that the meeting WP:GNG trumps anything else. If local teams playing in a county league at the tenth level of English football somehow meet WP:GNG with the extensive national coverage that the often fully-professional teams in this national league get ... then they should have individual seasons articles - though that does seem unlikely. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that pretty much everyone else disagrees with you re consensus. Number 5 7 07:36, 8 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) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tamara Coorg Resort

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

Pure promotion. Article created purely for a novel way of spamming, first creating a promotional article and then sneaking in internal links to it from various articles ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]). Thomas.W ^talk 08:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a recreation of The Tamara Coorg, an article that was speedily deleted as pure promotion on 24 May. Thomas.W ^talk 09:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and article is clearly promotional.TheLongTone (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Article is promotional, and much of the content is not on the organization in question, just providing definitions of words that are used in the organizations name. The much of the rest of the content is a list of activities. I only say weak delete because one of the refs does follow through to an award the site won, but it would require an entire re-write to be encyclopedic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a thoroughly non-notable award not reported in mainstream media, with the winners chosen through online voting, where anyone could cast a vote. Thomas.W ^talk 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotion, wild-wild east -- the imagined perfect article would document a resort that may be valuable, but not notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - My searches actually found quite a few links here and here but nothing considered solid notability (listed as "most romantic resort" and "Top Five Most Luxurious Resorts in Coorg" but likely not notable for this). SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furqan Shayk

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

lacks notability, most of the sources are unreliable and self published.... Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 08:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete part of the assertion of notability is "significant following on social media". The rest of the article explains that minor things that he did and that he no longer does them (e.g. mentions an "abrupt departure"), not encyclopedic in terms of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exceptionally ephemeral in even its claims. I could almost say no claims for notability, because vaguely saying one's vines were popular is. . . well . . . making one comparable to numberless unnamed owls, cats, and squirrels. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough as a Biography category on wikipedia Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 03:19, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sežana Bus Station

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

Despite effort, I can't find any external source that would describe it in detail or otherwise confirm its notability. Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; Slovenian article is also not sourced —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything either, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 4 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 delete and redirect to Connected (docu-series)#Episodes. Content duplicates list already in parent series article, and was copied and pasted from there without attribution. Editors can discuss at that article's talk page whether this is the kind of series that merits such a list of episodes. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connected episodes

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

Non-notable list fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Leppert

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

Biographical article whose only 'sources' / external links are to sites apparently owned or in some way linked to the article's subject. Unreliably sourced at best, and original research at worst. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 06:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to establish notability at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Lawson

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

Completely unsourced, has been for years. The one "reference" is a website selling a book. The book does not sound impartial. Article has a dedicated speculations and rumour section. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable and there are other sources and it appears in newspaper archives. This book is semi-rare and kept isolated in Reference rooms under the eyes of librarians because copies were often stolen. Subject of song "The Murder of the Lawson Family" by Stanley Brothers. Article 1, Article 2, Documentary, This book and this one in addition to the one in the article. There is also wide coverage in sources of that era, particularly contemporary newspapers (not immediately online). Very disappointed that the nominator made zero effort in finding sources.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm disappointed that nobody else had ever made an effort, until you came along. You wouldn't be here if I hadn't nominated it. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You wouldn't be here if I hadn't nominated it." We don't want to be here. That reply reveals an ignorance of the deletion process. Please study WP:BEFORE and take note of Part B. Carry out these checks, #2 "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." and Part D. "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."

Filing AfD's without doing your due diligence is unacceptable and if you make a habit of it, it may be seen as disruptive. Do this again and we'll be seeking out a ban from you filing another AfD. Your nomination is lazy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy or not, it was far more productive than slapping a "Multiple issues" tag on a piece of original research, and calling it a day for over six years. These things should be deleted, and brought back after someone drafts a reasonably proper article. Leaving it up till whenever that is doesn't make sense. Just sends the message that verifiability and notabilty are merely preferred, and publishing garbage is Wikipedia's second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't productive. Trying now to belittle my editing when you have done nothing to improve the article at all? You're in no position to critique as you've done nothing to fix it. But we'll see what others think of your actions as this AfD runs its course.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to belittle your editing, I didn't even know you touched the page. I'm just saying the article is garbage, and this clearly led to sources appearing on the Talk Page. Those make it a little better, so it was productive. I'd bet this survives an AfD, so if you want to clean that turd up using those sources, you'll be undoubtedly more productive than I've been. I'm not looking to win a contest or make an enemy here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - zero effort nom. notable per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article could be improved, because there are sources that could help it now. I suspect the article was written when there was less online than now. (I hear that in the early days, state historical societies were only spotty in their online sourcing and people used to have to rely on paper.) However, this is an infamous crime from a time when the nation could be shocked by a murder. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So that they don't get lost, I added some of the links above to the talk page for the article. LaMona (talk) 20:38, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gunda Beeg

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

No real indication of importance. All the article says is the person was a dress maker. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The AfD has brought out more references and thus I want to close this --☣Anar chyte☣ 10:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's statement "All the article says is the person was a dress maker" is completely untrue. It states clearly that she was one of the founders of the women's dress reform movement in Germany. The Brooklyn Museum seems to think she's significant enough, and there are quite a few books that come up in GBooks that cover her, most in German, but also several in English, e.g. [38], [39], [40]. --Michig (talk) 10:26, 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. Due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sibu Town Mosque

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. mosques like churches are not inherently notable. I can't see it being historically significant as it is not old as it opened in 1983. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because it also has a prominent mausoleum; I've worked on a number of articles about cemeteries etc and they seem to pass GNG if they have anyone prominent buried there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.it will pass GNG if it has significant coverage. It doesn't appear to have that coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: It's a pretty article, and it's well written, comparatively, but it is still essentially a testimony to a particular house of worship that doesn't have significance attested inside the article. Therefore, while I like the effort of the author (esp. compared to "is a phylum of insect" auto-content article), it's a non-notability delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found no significant and notable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Modi

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

A7/G11 candidate. Article appears to be for the promotion of person and allied organisation. The subject is not notable. MahenSingha (Talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable as searches show here, here (browser and Books), here and here. I would've suggested moving to Mtandt but I'm not sure how notable that company is. Either way this man is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination and Gene93k: the subject of the article is a businessman. It's probably a good thing, for him, if he's not getting news coverage. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:01, 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.

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). The potential for a merge can continue to be discussed on the article talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Slate Films

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

Contested prod, subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources, refs 1 and 5 are trivial mentions, refs 2,3,4 don't mention the subject, 6 and 7 are also trivial mentions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments. I will try and look for better citations and references. Can you help me with it? There is limited coverage online for Clean Slate Films since it is a new motion picture production house, established only in September, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhikaGopal91 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to Anushka Sharma for now (under a small mention) as it is a new company with no significant or released films, a News search found results of course but only one film has been released, there's not much for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Clean Slate Films Anushka Sharma Films

Keep as meeting WP:CORP for a suitable and sourcable (see searches) stub that can build to serve the project. Yes, it's a new company... but notability is found through coverage not through their produced films. A merge and redirect to co-founder Anushka Sharma is worth considering, but there should then be no squawks or balking in a few months when this is undeleted or recreated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Serebryakov

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

Notability is in doubt. No sources found using Google and philatelic databases. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea but you may want to specifically ask some of the Russian speaking philatelists. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. I'm not a philatelist but there is simply nothing found that supports notability, as a stamp guy or for anything. Profiles in a few other wikis with mention of his treatise about the destruction of the Russian ethnic identity that appears to be FRINGE at best. I couldn't even link to it here because it's on a blacklisted site. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 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 03:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still sourced only to a deadlink and a wiki, after all this time at AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 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 redirect to Kick-Ass 2 (film). Consensus is that the notability guidelines are not currently met and I see no argument that the redirect suggested is not appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Fear

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

Not notable. Lacks significant roles in notable productions. Prod removed without comment or improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kick-Ass 2 (film) as that's the only major film she's been in, Can't find anything on her to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kick-Ass 2 (film). Obviously fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kick-Ass 2 is a dab page. The suggested redirect target would be to Kick-Ass 2 (film). • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that observation. I know User:Davey2010 mean the same thing, so I corrected both suggestion above. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops somehow pasted the wrong link so sorry about that!, Thanks Wikicology for amending the link :) –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 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 03:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Before someone accuses me of hypocrisy, my view is that an actress or actor with three roles on national television or better is probably a lock for notability, even if that actress is playing character roles, while one who has only a single film role and then stage work is not a lock. Without such certainty, I'd say that the guidelines trump the benefit of the doubt and milk of human kindness. The actress may well need a Wikipedia article in a few years, but not yet, it seems. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:12, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan SWAT

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

Not notable. Junior B Tier 1 team in local league. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources beyond a purely local audience WP:AUD. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 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 03:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this team is notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability, and it's sitting on a misleading search term as an added bonus. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:14, 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 redirect to Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Rogers

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

Non-encyclopedic. http://www.bustle.com/articles/37299-what-is-million-dollar-listing-las-chad-rogers-doing-now-hes-put-all-of-the-drama is an article that talks about him directly but his notability is still very small. GlenBungs (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete or preferably move to Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles - Searches here, here, here and here all suggest he is best known for the reality show rather than a realtor and a search here found the same, but as he's best known for it and mentioned there, this can be moved to the show's article. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 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 03:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Starred in notable reality television series, plus he has received coverage from reliable, third-party sources. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 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 no consensus. With no prejudice to a speedy relist to allow more discussion Davewild (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bagamoyo Arts and Cultural Institute

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

No evidence of notability. Sourced only to its own web site. (A PROD was removed without any explanation, and without addition of any independent source.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:57, 19 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 03:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 9 results for the name in English, 5,500 for the native name in Swahili. It's a government organization that hosts international events and exchanges and sponsors cultural and health education through the arts. I went through about five pages of Google results. [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:26, 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 redirect to List_of_Plan_9_programs#Web_browsers. The single "Keep" vote here concedes that it is not based in policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mothra (web browser)

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

I'm not convinced this software meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. It gets a short mention in a workshop paper about GUIs for the Plan 9 operating system, but otherwise I couldn't find coverage in reliable, third-party sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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 03:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a requirement for being listed in List of web browsers as an actual browser which exists. I know that is not a policy reason, but consensus is that a browser cannot be in the list unless it has an article. I believe that reasoning is bogus, but it is what it is. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @VMS Mosaic: how about removing it from that list, then? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be when it goes red unless the article title is left as a redirect to Plan 9. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a fine alternative, although I would suggest the List of Plan 9 programs instead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 06:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent coverage in reliable sources = no notability = delete --_nonsense ferret 10:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears to not really be, or not be notable, if it be. The "List" article might solve its problem with a prose section that describes other browser implementations and developments? Hithladaeus (talk) 20:18, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Museum

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

This website has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The most attention this website receives from video game journalists is a thanks in their photo captions. After filtering out "screenshot courtesy of" in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, we're left with nothing. Fails the general notability guideline and subject-specific (WEB/ORG) notability guidelines. – czar 02:53, 21 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) 16:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything that supports GNG. Only articles about a possible video game museum in Houston and one in Japan. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail an old one: WP is not a web guide. The text here seems to be vague promotion for an Internet site rather than a sited place. Given the chances of three-dimensional museums being attempted or gaining notability, the problems with this article only intensify. So, no notability, promotional (vaguely), and running into other search concepts (a concern of mine, but I play Pong on the Odyssey). Hithladaeus (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG --Anar chyte 09:49, 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. Consensus is to delete this article, discussion of the other two articles mentioned here and how best to cover the topic can happen elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convergent and divergent production

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

This looks like a "content fork" of the more established pages convergent thinking and divergent thinking. It doesn't help that it is poorly referenced, and the title is wrong anyway, as convergent thinking is not necessarily "productive" OsFish (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in spirit, unsure about the letter - Per nom, this is a "content fork" of better pages, or more likely a poor rewrite from scratch. I do not see much of value to be kept.

This being said, it may be better for organization to have a unique article for convergent thinking and divergent thinking since those notions seem to exist primarily in opposition to each other, or an article that compares them (in the vein of good and evil coexisting with evil). Hence I could see a move and rewrite (from scratch). Is there a guideline for such cases? Tigraan (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had a more critical look at the convergent thinking page, and it's not very good either. Some of the references just don't match the claims in the text. I agree that convergent and divergent thinking as I understand them are considered frequently as a pair, and that merging the two pages would be a good idea, and then overhauling. Would a joint page be more likely to be better maintained? OsFish (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't solve the "merge" issue. Therefore, the question is about this article. This article could not be searched. It could only be hit by a link. Very well, so what does it illuminate or contextualize? Is the thing itself notable? Well, no: X & Y "production?" Production? The article isn't actually about the title, the title is not notable, and the content is a sketch, at best, of bullet points. Whatever people do about the purported master terms, this article is a delete, and it's not a "redirect," because the keyword isn't a search (as evidenced by its lack of hits). Hithladaeus (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point that should be clarified. "Production" is wrong. Any merged article should be to Convergent and divergent thinking.OsFish (talk) 09:03, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine

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

Article was PRODded with an invalid reason ("orphan") and rightfully dePRODded, which unfortunately means that we have to take it to AfD now: Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - not seeing any widely cited papers released by the journal; however, some of its papers have attracted popular media attention. It's a close call, but I'd say the journal has not really had enough impact to be inherently notable yet and not seeing any in depth coverage to make it generally notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ryan (fire chief)

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

Non-notable person Zackmann08 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found some local historic references, but not enough to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as the article is completely a copy of webpage found here [46]. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: That article is a copy of the Wikipedia article. A big clue is the bottom part that says "Source is from Wikipedia". —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: You are quite right. My mistake. --Non-Dropframe _talk 07:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 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 02:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteA minor official, neither notoble in their own right or ex officio. TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Ambedkar Bus Station, Karimnagar

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

Earlier same type of article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. T. R. Bus Station as per WP:GNG Vin09 (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 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 02:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, only mention is here, but no coverage of the actual station. Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 4 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) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graversen

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

Lacks reliable sources for a WP:BLP, only reference (now a dead link) was from the subject's own website, written by himself?. I also don't see how a director of just 2 documentary films—one 29 minutes, the other 32—is notable. Timmyshin (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing to suggest he has gotten coverage in the slightest aside from this from the NFTS he graduated. I'll have to see if No Man's Land (2013 British film) is notable. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two short films, fails WP:FILMMAKER, despite this interview in a movie magazine. Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 4 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. If somebody finds a good home for this material on some other project, please ping me and I'll be happy to userfy the contents for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calibrating Dissolution Test Apparatus and U.V. Spectrophotometers

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

Not sure if the author has finished the article yet, but Wikipedia is not a manual. Adam9007 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is kept it should be split into two separate articles Dissolution test apparatus calibration and Ultraviolet spectrophotometer calibration. However at this point the content is entirely a how-to and not appropriate for Wikipedia, so perhaps it should be transwikied to Wikversity or deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity per WP:NOT#HOWTO. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:58, 19 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 02:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a how-to guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete howto. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:34, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Social Club

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

Dubious notability, no refs, probably defunct since 2013, own web presence disappeared: domain expired. Web search with Google or Bing reveals next to nothing and certainly nothing notable. Guffydrawers (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be 1 reference to it anywhere, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGANISATION. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 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 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - there is just nothing to support this being notable now or ever. Just that one notice. Let's assume that first meeting was so successful that everybody in Helsinki is now best friends. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:02, 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 Userify. Article already moved to draft space by User:सुमित सिंह on 19th May. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015 North India Unseasonal Rain

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

This article is not remotely ready to be published. The writing is so bad as to be unintelligible, and the title needs to be fixed to something that is not nonsensical, as well as notability established (just because there is more rain then usual does not mean there is anything special about it! It's weather!). This article, if it fits as a valid inclusion in Wikipedia, should be moved to the user's page and sent for the improvements on drafts, and definitely not be published until the English is fixed and intelligible if it does fit. ~Rayvn 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This article published information about the current disaster caused by the weather in North India. On neutral point of view this article may seem just a usual incident but it affected on vast scale to locals. In March there was not only extra rain then usual but the very heavy rainfall on vast scale that damaged crop in the half area of the country.

Damages are : The 20% seasonal crop of the half area of country (Damage worth of approx Rs 10 thousand crore)
Fatalities around over 100 till now.
caused flood in Jammu & Kashmir.
- Also the name of the article is given as it is the name given to this incident by local and affected peoples, media, and also in official documents. Please see January_2015_North_American_blizzard.Grammatically errors may need to be fixed and welcomes to make this article more effective. सुमित सिंह (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete/userfy I think that comparing this to the article January_2015_North_American_blizzard shows what this article does not have -- no historical data, no scientific data, very little information on why this isn't just another bad weather year. None of the references I could access refer to the suicides (unfortunately I am unable to view the video as it just hangs; ditto the PDF.) If the creator of this wishes to continue to work on it, it can be done in user space, and then go through the articles for creation process. LaMona (talk) 21:55, 18 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 02:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Abnormal weather patterns are going to be the norm due to global warming. Come back when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My Point It surprising that rather than trying to improve article, most reply indicating straight away deletion of this article. Also the comments came from those user who do not have any information and details about this incident and circumstances. The presentation of views and words used is also very disappointing and against the reputation of Wikipedia users. This event caused a major loss that almost equal to the GDP of some countries. on wikipedia there are thousand of articles that do not have proper information or need to be published. (I am not interested to provide their list). Still for some users it is difficult to judge which article required Wikipedia status or not. I am not the against of this discussion but it should on neutral basis. Please help to improve this article or nothing to do with it.

Mr. Rayan please sign your comment properly so we can reach to you easily.सुमित सिंह (talk) 06:53, 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. I've chosen not to redirect as it's not a likely search term, however I'm happy to userfy/draftify the article upon request for anyone that wants to take a crack at incorporating the content elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special When Lit (album)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Allmusic source is just a listing. Lacks reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No apparent sources to indicate notability. All I found was a documentary with the same name. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Looking at the first AfD for this album, I don't know why this was not deleted. Defense of keeping the article was "IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to start AfD" and this gem, "The band is notable and the album having an article is good because all of Arthur Loves Plastic's other albums have articles as well. What could possibly make this album less notable than them?" —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel to your claim that "IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to start AfD", there is no Wikipedia policy which supports this treatment, since IP edits are not anonymous and there are several long-term and constructive Wikipedia editors who edit solely under a fixed IP. The treatment of IP editors as second-class editors is unacceptable because IPs are human too and Not every IP is a vandal. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: I just saw this now. That's not my claim - I was pointing out that was said in the earlier AfD and is not a valid argument. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arthur Loves Plastic. We certainly cannot delete this one. An album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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 03:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 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 merge to Robert A. Clifford. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Law Offices

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

The notability is in the cases they dealt with. Every single one of the references are about the cases, not about the firm. (except for the bestlawyers listing in USNews) The article is indistinguishable from what law firms use for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what makes a law firm notable other than its cases and lawyers. It cases are notable and it has at least one notable lawyer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News coverage consists of nothing but passing mentions and press releases. I can't find any significant coverage of the law firm itself. Fails GNG. APerson (talk!) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Their international prominence makes them notable. Seems like they're the go-to guys for plane crashes and other things. this profile on Clifford, with some detail and history of the firm, goes to notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia, if you have a source saying that the law firm is internationally prominent, I'd consider that as showing notability. APerson (talk!) 16:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect The law office is not separately notable from its main partner Robert A. Clifford WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and redirect" is not a valid outcome unless the entire page history meets the criteria of REVDEL. Otherwise WP:R directs that the outcome will just be redirect. James500 (talk) 11:40, 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 03:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Robert Clifford as this firm is not independently notable with searches News, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and thefreelibrary only giving these few thefreelibrary results and Books; but it seems Robert Clifford may be notable so this can be moved there. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Robert A. Clifford - no independent notability for firm. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert A. Clifford, not independently notable, despite some WP:ITSNOTABLE claims above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Robert A. Clifford - no independent notability for firm.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 8 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SN 1961i

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, and not discovered before 1850. Article was dePRODed with the rationale that it was the first type II supernova, but this is blatantly false (e.g. SN 1961f was a type II supernova). StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Messier 61. Apparently Zwicki considered it a prototype of "spectral type III" supernovae.[47] But there isn't much else to add. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a special supernovae. It is a type III, and the only type of its kind so we should keep it and maybe expand it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. (talk • contribs)
- Note that Type III is a defunct type; it's now considered to be just a peculiar Type II. Praemonitus (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that its historical role as the prototypical (and only?) member of type III gives it notability even though that classification has become obsolete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein:, wouldn't it make more sense to merge the article to Supernova#Types III.2C IV.2C and V if that's the case, rather than keeping an article which can't really be expanded beyond a database entry? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:12, 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) 07:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 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 merge to Ciel Bleu. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Okura Amsterdam

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

This dropped into CAT:CSD just now. On the face of it, it looks like a borderline CSD A7 and definitely looks like a CSD G11. However, a quick news search throws up some hits and shows me the hotel is over 50 years old and might have some history behind it. In any case, I could argue the case for redirecting somewhere in Amsterdam#Tourism, but I'm not sure where. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it reads like an advertisement/promotional and should be deleted on those grounds, and I'm not sure it's worth redirecting somewhere, but I wouldn't oppose doing so. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on its principal restaurant Ciel Bleu which has 2 Michelin stars and some reviews, and is therefore notable. I cleaned up the article but couldn't find a lot on the hotel beyond short reviews in the usual places (though I don't read Dutch). Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best source I could find was this one, though it looks awfully press-release ish. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Ciel Bleu, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP on its own. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 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 11:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Ciel Bleu, per Joseph2302. Bazj (talk) 12:02, 6 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) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Rengle

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

In terms of "sources", we have three links to Wikipedia and four to YouTube, which I think can be summarily dismissed. We then have a dead link and two functional links to the subject's official sites/business ventures, which again are dismissible. Finally, two other things:

A tabloid article; I think the headline speaks for itself: "Shocking scenes involving Antonia at the mall! The whole time, she held hands with a cute lad and let him fondle her behind!"

A blurb in the local Forbes; even if it sounds vaguely impressive, we should note that a) the same issue featured nonentity (encyclopedically speaking) after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity after nonentity under the very same headline ("portrait of a trendsetter") - in other words, being part of this feature in no way suggests notability; and b) in any event, even if it did, WP:BIO requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", which we don't have. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note As an administrator, I declined the A7 because it made some assertion of notability.

Delete lack of WP:RS. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 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 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If nothing else WP:TOOSOON for this performer. It's hard to judge the reliability of the publications here, but there are only a few that would remain after deleting the youtube and WP sources, and also the sources that do not mention the subject of the article (i.e. #13 "WorldRedEye"). Also, I seriously suspect that the article was created as a promotion; it has much promotional language; the professional-looking photo portrait was uploaded by the article's SPA and is listed as "own work;" said SPA deleted the first Speedy Delete tag from the article. This might have been a simple mis-understanding of WP procedure, but it doesn't bode well. LaMona (talk) 21:06, 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 procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sock, and no formal !votes are present in the discussion. The notions of renaming the article, etc. can continue to be discussed on the article talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nirnnayakam

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

This is a 2015 film article created with the wrong name spelling and there are no sources at all. Another article with the correct name was created unknowingly (by me) Nirnaayakam which had all reliable supporting sources and external link. So i suggest either do delete this page or to move/merge to the later. Recommending to delete as no use with moving. VagaboundWind (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Nirnaayakam Nirnnayakam Nirnayakam

Comment In the Anglifying of many Indian film titles, occurrences of double-vowels and double-consonants are common. As spellings Nirnnayakam (double-N) and Nirnaayakam] (double-A) are both sourcable, We need input from Indian Wikipedians and keep the one that those-in-the-know agree with.
However it may perhaps be best to delete the double-N and move the double-A latter to the sourcable title which does NOT use double letters... Nirnayakam Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 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 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet and the article they created about this film has been deleted under WP:CSD#G5. I don't see any point in deleting this now as it's no longer a duplicate article, although we could still move it if desired. Hut 8.5 21:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the nomination, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 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 deleted per WP:IAR by Keegan. Esquivalience ^t 03:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Mass

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

Since we apparently have no CSD categories that non-notable films fall under, and because the PROD was contested. No indication of significance, a quick google search didn't pull up any WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the policy that relates directly to unreleased films, which states that the production itself must be notable as well if the film is unreleased, and shooting must have begun for the unreleased film. No sources, reliable or otherwise, appear to mention that. Appable (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing in the least to suggest this film is notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NFF. This article is way TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:20, 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 current hotel article for now. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 Park Lane

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

Article about a proposed Manhattan skyscraper. ~~Article contains no references~~ and I have found only a couple third-party mentions. I'm sure that if this construction goes forward, it will become notable but for now, I'm of the opinion that it's WP:TOOSOON. --Non-Dropframe _talk 03:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content/redirect link to Park Lane Hotel (Manhattan), which is what's currently at 36 Central Park South. They plan to tear down the Park Lane Hotel and build the new skyscraper by 2020. As of now the hotel is currently still open - I don't know if this bid here to save it has any chance now. Eventually 1 Park Lane can fork off to be its own article depending on developments. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ passes WP:GNG, without even doing any searches the article currently contains four reliable sources that offer significant coverage, and it's pretty common to have articles for planned skyscrapers that haven't been built yet. This is due to such a high-level of interest in skyscrapers that they normally do see significant coverage long before they are built. Disagree with merging to Park Lane Hotel (Manhattan), as they are separate buildings that will have separate histories, even if they effect each other. Whether or not this new skyscraper is ultimately built doesn't matter as it constitutes WP:CRYSTAL, and based off of what we currently know this passes the general notability guidelines as a planned skyscraper. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I am biased, but in addition to War wizard90's comments, the building is being designed by Rafael Viñoly, an architect responsible for buildings such as 432 Park Avenue, Jongno Tower, and 20 Fenchurch Street.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article currently contain four WP:RS? The only really RS is the NYT article from last year, and it's about saving the Park Lane Hotel. The only source for the new building details is [48] Yimby, which seems like blog. The Curbed and the Real Deal sites/blogs both cite the Yimby article as a source; so that means you have one source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the Curbed and Real Deal sites using YIMBY as a source. However, YIMBY is not a blog, but a news site and can be considered a reliable source. New York Times is a reliable source, and both of those sites are offering significant coverage. However, a search does find other sources, such as this one from Wall Street Journal. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a closer look at those articles. The NYT article is completely about saving the Park Lane Hotel and who thinks what about the effort to save it. The only mention of anything to do with what will replace it is this sentence: "Those following the effort are fairly certain that it has a particular purpose: halting plans to replace the hotel with yet another cloud-buster overlooking Central Park." That's it. The WSJ is from two years ago and says the an agreement was made to sell the building but it hadn't been decided what was going to happen, if they were going to tear down the current building or just remodel it and make it bigger. And it says two important things: 1) if they tear it down, the zoning laws mean they only build something 2/3 of its current size (so not the fourth-tallest skyscraper in Manhattan) and 2) They can't close the hotel unless they work out a deal with the hotel union to keep the jobs by building a new hotel, or do some kind of other negotiation. The name "1 Park Lane" could be just a proposal, since it's not anywhere except YIMBY, which based on its own article, doesn't seem too strong of a source. But fortunately AfDs stay open seven days, so if this is really happening, there will undoubtedly be better sources showing up soon. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if some better sourcing doesn't come along before the end of this AfD I will reconsider my position. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my !vote per this newly revealed information. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for staying on top of this, War wizard90. Instead of delete, would you object to a simple redirect? That way the article as it is now can be restored if/when more information is confirmed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a redirect. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done! —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:43, 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 and salt. Page creation for this article has been salted per repeated deleted versions at Vikash singh, Tiger saraf and User:Vikash9097 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikash Singh

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

Prod removed-a autobio that does not reach notability yet. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotional page with no evidence of notability at all. In fact it might well have been speedily deleted under criterion CSD A7. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of notability. No evidence of any Google hits at all other than this actor promoting himself in every possible venue. Salt because of the repeated attempts by this person to use Wikipedia to promote himself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Would you clarify this? The logs show this article has not been deleted or restarted.

@SwisterTwister: Try checking Vikash singh (lower case last name). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Also Tiger saraf and a user-space copy, which has now been deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing for this actor despite using the TV shows and IMDb only lists an assistant editor with this name. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note I tried to put a not webhost on the users page but it kept on getting deleted. Wgolf (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not notable and never will be, unless they actually do something notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to User talk:Vikash9097, the user is a sockpuppet, and so this could also be deleted under G5. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. I suppose I could delete it for that reason, but having commented in this discussion, perhaps to avoid any doubt it's better if I don't. Another administrator could do it, but the article is no doubt going to be deleted anyway, and whether it's done speedily or after a few more days really makes very little difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francetelemarketing

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

Unfortunately, we have to go through the process of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French telemarketing all over again as User:Nyttend doesn't believe it's sufficiently similar. It's the same crap. The same as Montrealtelemarketing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec telemarketing. All of them are very WP:COAT articles with external links to related non-notable companies, and no references conferring any notability. Yes, French telemarketing was a bit more of a padded COAT article but they are all the same and Wikipedia is being played, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the content is completely different. Let me quote the intro to the deleted article: French Telemarketing is representing telemarketing company business in French. French telemarketing operates in various methods of Teleselling includes; inbound telemarketing, outbound telemarketing, B2B telemarketing and B2C telemarketing to identify business qualify leads and operates in different countries in additional to France, USA, Canada, Indonesia, and Belgium. Care to explain where you find that content in the current page? Meanwhile, I see nothing in the current page that appears in the deleted content. It's nowhere even close to a repost. Please observe that the WP:CSD policy specifies that Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases; kindly stop abusing administrators who refuse to break the policy. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WITHDRAWN~~ Fine, let this article stand. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now what do you mean? Whether it qualifies for speedy deletion is completely irrelevant to whether it should be deleted here. The point is that it didn't qualify to be deleted without discussion, not that it needed to be kept. Nyttend (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal, I do not know were you're going WITHDRAWING; Wikipedia is being played. Maybe we're not on it for CSD but I think there is a matter for addition to the guidelines not far from the question. Nyttend, I wouldn't have wanted to come this near, it's just that I have the Wright Brothers on my watchlist. There is a style problem with adding what I'd call "allusive internal links", such as, "the kid was helpful during the crisis", let's link to the crisis and we don't need rewriting for the link to make sense otherwise than allusive. Nyttend, if I remove: As a part of direct marketing, France telemarketing operates..., which is an abusive assumption; if I remove It operates in telecommunication service and respect to telemarketing rules and regulation under The French government, which is an abusive assumption, what we have is bare and simple crap. All that remains to the article supports itself with a ref claiming it observes a Do Not Call List. I think, that is shiny, and you're blinded. --Askedonty (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Now bring on Antarcticatelemarketing (pizza delivered to your research station within 21 days, or it's free!!!), Naurutelemarketing, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just stay out of it, then. There are by my count three SPA editors creating a walled garden of related spam articles, as well as an IP in the Philippines. It's a bit like playing whack-a-mole if we don't start salting and blocking. I guess I felt like it's not being taken seriously enough but of course at any given moment there's a huge backload of similar garbage to deal with. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are generally about telemarketing in France, not about this particular company, although in some cases the company gets mentions. Oddly, the web site takes me to "Quebec Telemarketing" not to a company based in Paris. In any case, I don't see this passing WP:CORP. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's been my point, which I know I haven't expressed clearly enough: these are all WP:COAT articles to promote "Quebec Telemarketing". All of them. There's been about five now, by my count, using either France/French, Quebec or Montreal, with a variety of strategies to make it seem like these are bona fide articles about different things. They are not -- we're getting serially played here in an SEO gaming attempt. I should mention that I've started an SPI for all these SPA spammers at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nopirosyadi, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator, it's the same rubbish as the Quebec one, WP:ADMASQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is at least the ~~eighth~~ ~~tenth~~ ~~eleventh~~ twelfth article (still counting, because they keep creating them) about this company, created under half a dozen different titles by various socks. (For the list, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nopirosyadi.) IMO any article that even mentions Quebec Telemarketing (as this one does, see the "official website" link) should be deleted and salted on sight. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 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) 18:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoolley

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

No evidence this search engine/company satisfies GNG - there is only one source not directly related to the subject (yourstory.com), and it does not look particularly reliable. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources after several searches; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a nice little article but multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from that YourStory link. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2018 NCAA Division I Tennis Championships

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

Too far in the future to require an article. Wolbo (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just because the date and venue have been finalized is not reason to create an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the event will more than likely take place, one cannot assume it will happen this far from the future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I totally agree with the nominator. It's way too early to create an article like this. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:42, 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.

[1] "How the alternative media is covering the general election polling day".

[2] "Common Space article about Independence Live".

[1]

[2]