Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Stevens (media consultant)

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. There are many brief mentions in RSs but nothing substantial about the subject. Searches including "which?" and "consumer association" (his former employers) didn't turn up anything useful. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of the live references merely quote the subject; they do not discuss the subject and they do not indicate his notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG , only passing references to this person. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most people who give a TED talk are notable, but he has never given one, despite what the article claims. The actual reference is to a TEDx talk, which anyone can give. Did the paid editor who wrote this not know the difference? I'm beginning to think this is a question of WP:CIR. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak sources, seems very promotional. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS only brief mentions created by a paid editor and clearly Promotional .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails lacks WP:RS and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 13 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dizradio

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

Non-notable podcast. Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The show is the first show to focus on entertainers of Disney productions. It has been resourced many times. It has been resourced for many television shows as well as a contributing author and writer to WDW magazine publication. This is the first of its kind podcast that set the tone for a new trend in podcasts. I say keep as viable source and remove the choice to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.60.213 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable external sources for assertion of notability Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 10 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walker (Attorney and Politician)

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

Non-notable attorney lacking non-trivial support. Although the individual ran for office, he was not elected. reddogsix (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Subject of the article is known for politics and judiciary. Per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources, WP:BASIC may be satisfied. Apart from the sources already in the article, I also found University College London, The Columbian News, this review and this one. However, having contested an election does not confers notablity and losing such election does not undermine the notability of a subject if they are notable for other event. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure how you can infer from my comment a lost election negates notability and not sure how the articles you referred to confer notability. The first one just just shows he was part of a project team, the second is not about him and only quotes him as the defense attorney, and the last two are simply listings. Am I missing something here? reddogsix (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not show notability, either as an attorney or a politician.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election he didn't win — Walker's eligibility for an article rests entirely on being able to make a credible and properly sourced case that he gets over WP:LAWYERS for his work as a lawyer. But that hasn't been demonstrated here, as this relies almost entirely on primary sources such as his profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly involved in. And Wikicology's sources above do not improve the case — two of the four are promotional profiles on directory sites (which is not what gets a person into Wikipedia); one is a WordPress blog entry in which he's not the subject, but the author; and the only one which counts as media coverage (The Columbian) is a small regional newspaper that's not widely distributed enough to power a person over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source you've got. And further, Walker isn't the subject of the article, but merely a side player who appears only as a soundbite provider in an article about something else. So no, his notability as a lawyer has not been adequately demonstrated here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if a sufficient volume of proper media coverage shows up. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 9 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gunma Diamond Pegasus

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

Non-notable semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. I'm fine with a redirect, certainly shouldn't be kept though. Wizardman 20:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baseball Challenge League. Spanneraol (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has a number of proper citations from reputable sources (Wall Street Journal, Tampa Bay Times), and a player from the 2014 squad (Robert Zarate) is now a member of MLB's Tampa Bay Rays organization. In addition, team has been in existence for eight years, showing stability. -- stoshmaster (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spanneraol. The sources provide do not demonstrate the club's notability and neither does having one former player in an MLB organization. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an indy league team like the Atlantic League and Frontier League and Can-Am League teams are in the United States. A bunch of Nippon Pro guys play for this team and in the league in general. Are we going to nominate all the U.S. independent team pages for deletion next? Alex (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spannelaol, similar to other similar teams. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Keep, or Redirect to Baseball Challenge League? Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish keep. I say "weak-ish" because I'm relying on the effectiveness of Google Translate because I can't read Japanese, but this team appears to get some coverage in major Japanese language newspapers. Not a lot, but some. Here is some of what I found: [1] [2][3] [4][5] [6]. One of the other papers, Mainichi, also appeared to have coverage, but even the ledes of their articles are behind a paywall. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability (even if just barely). Nikkei coverage is the equivalent of coverage in the Wall Street Journal, so definitely adds notability. Asahi Shimbun is also a major paper, as is the Yomiuri Shimbun. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:05, 14 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged from this discussion. Note that the notion of a merge can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Waste Heat Engine

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

I consider this essentially an attack page, devoted to an attack upon the company and their product, but speedy was declined. I note that it is entirely based upon the SYNTHESIS of primary sources. It may appear straight description at first, but keep reading., DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems clearly notable to me, possibly it could be merged back to the related article. I tagged it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles on the talk page; as it's a highly technical article, relevant projects should be consulted before running straight to AfD. Wikipedia also has this feature that lets you delete things you think are undue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way to deal with the decent material is to add it to the main article, rather than by keeping an unsatisfactory article. It was never a justified split. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot see why the article has to have what is basically an entire treatise on steam engine thermal design, but in any case I cannot find any evidence of real notability. The most promising book reference turned out to be a paranoid work in the Orwellian vein—self-published, naturally. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The synthesis and attack elements seem to be mostly gone... I am a bit confused by the "merge back" comments as this does not seem to have been split from anywhere. What is the proposed "main article"?... I'm not sure about the engine, but the company does appear to be notable. Since the remaining content seems OK (albeit probably too detailed), creating an article for the company & merging would be a viable option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete for now because that News search shows a concerning more than half press releases in a 15-page range with reliable and notable sources zig zagging in and out of pages. Books also found a few things. The information is good but having most of the sources press releases is outstanding. I'm uncertain but I think the company could be notable later with more actual news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of press release to quality coverage does not matter, only the amount of quality coverage. If say 1/3 of the stories are not press releases, that leaves 5 pages of sources, more than enough to establish notability (for the company). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Re the original proposal, I don't find any attack elements and we haven't been told which article it would be merged back into. WP:SYNTH is specific to generating unjustifiable conclusions from sources; the accusation has been made here, but I don't see the evidence for it. Spicemix (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I am the original author of the article. DGG - you are right, I read up on it and I did put in synthesis. It looks like that's gone now. If I might make a plea starting with the bigger picture, it goes like this: Waste heat and waste heat recovery unit is a bigger area than is now covered in Wikipedia and is growing in importance. I could dig out a number of examples (and hope to write them up over time), but, for instance, there is a lot of research worldwide on using the waste heat from automobiles and commercial vehicles (EU project), application to combined heat and power systems, especially at the micro scale, and things like direct solar heat conversion to work such as this Solar Steam Irrigation Pump. That last one is illustrative in showing that steam engines are competitive against technologies such as photovoltaics. There is a lot of developed knowledge for this technology, but it is scattered. I think there is an opportunity to collect the scattered knowledge. Then the question is, where to start? Googling waste heat engine gets 3,580,000 results while Cyclone waste heat engine gets 99,200 results. Obviously I think this is an important technology, and, frankly, I feel this particular company has been "hurting the cause", hence the criticisms and synthesis. Please forgive this newbie mistake. I see that material has all been taken out, and I won't be putting it back in. So, could I make a request that the reasons for deletion be updated and summarized? The article was not split from another article. I think all the synthesis has been removed. It's technical and there is more information than necessary, certainly, but a big part of the technical detail are the features that contrast this engine from others. Thank you for your indulgence. BuddyWhazhizname (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. As stated above, I feel the content would be better off trimmed and used as part of an article on the company. However, the content should be retained in some fashion regardless and the original rationale for deletion offered no longer applies. Thus, I say keep, with the strong possibility of a later merger. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the sort of article that looks just ... off to me. Excessive technical detail, the sources are an unappealing mixture of press releases, Youtube videos and primary sources... This is either an attempt at promoting, or discrediting, something that doesn't just look very notable. Maybe rewrite by somebody unrelated to the topic in amore condensed and comprehensible form? Sandstein 12:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: No consensus reached yet. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a notable topic and there is plenty there that it would be preferred to clean it up and salvage it than to just outright delete it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whittier Street Health Center

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

Promotional article dealing mainly with general public health problems in the region, and a list of non-specificservices . The references are best seen as similar PR to this article. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although a lot of promotional material needs to be cut from the article, the center has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including the following. – --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kong, Dolores. "City-BRA fight hurts Roxbury medical center". The Boston Globe. February 10, 1992.

Salsberg, Bob. "New inner-city health center opens in Boston". The Boston Globe. February 4, 2012.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:39, 6 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) 20:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Ehrlich

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

non notable consultant. Trivial content, minor award. One of the 3 coauthors of a unsuccessful book with only 86 library holdings. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has won a significant award in the early era of digital media. That is just enough to satisfy WP:BIO. CooperDB (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reliable sources. Sources here are things like a Youtube video and a LinkedIn site. The "knives thrown at a pizza" award is a joke. Literally. LaMona (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several reliable sources cited in the article. True, none of them are really independent, but since the subject satisfies the award criteria of WP:BIO, the WP:GNG is not necessary for the subject to be considered notable. CooperDB (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - CooperDB, other than the page linked, I can find no other evidence that the Showtime Alternative Media festival exists. The domain name alt.sho.com redirects to sho.com. The link cited is to a press release. So we need something more to make this a significant award. As it is, it looks like alt.sho.com was quite short-lived. It appears to have been launched in 2000 [7], and not heard from again after the first round of awards. There's no year on the PR Newswire article. LaMona (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a violation of WP:BLP. There are zero reliable sources, and even assuming everything is true, his work has been run of the mill, to be blunt. We are not a web host for every radio host. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 15 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 Ratt. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from the Cellar: The Atlantic Years

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

DVD that does not seem to go for wiki guidelines at all on here. Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:35, 6 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 FUBAR (film). – czar 15:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawrence (actor)

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

Looks to fail WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FUBAR: The Movie which seems to be the thing he is best known for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 14 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. slakr^\ talk / 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stressed Out (Twenty One Pilots song)

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

Article fails WP:GNG which states, in part, "has received significant coverage". The five references here are the best available on the net.

http://genius.com/Twenty-one-pilots-stressed-out-lyrics is the song's lyrics, which doesn't lend any credibility to the song.
http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/twenty_one_pilots_long_for_the_good_old_days_in_somber_stressed_out_video is a three-sentence description of the video. Not significant coverage.
http://www.mtv.com/news/2145391/twenty-one-pilots-blurry-face-stressed-out-video/ now nine sentences. Borderline significant coverage.
http://radio.com/2015/04/28/twenty-one-pilots-stressed-out-video/ Down to seven sentences. Again, not significant coverage.
http://diffuser.fm/twenty-one-pilots-stressed-out-music-video/ Finally, four sentences. Again, not significant coverage.

It's likely a case of WP:TOOSOON and I placed a N:Music tag on it, but an editor seems to think that it doesn't belong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm the editor who doesn't believe the tag needs to be there as this clearly passes WP:NSONG, I added references to the articles to better establish notability before this AfD. If nothing else, at least the MTV and Radio.com references are reliable sources, and with this many google news hits so shortly after it's release it's obviously a notable single from a notable artist. It's unfair for the nominator to state that the above links are the "best available" on the net, he just picked the refs directly from the article, the first one is just a lyric yes (added by the original page creator) and is obviously not a good source, even more obviously not one of the "best available" (although the fact that it is already up on every major lyrics website says something about the notability of this song as well) so I encourage other editors to do their own research before giving their input. Finally, since when do we start counting the number of sentences per article to determine if something is significant coverage or not? Articles specifically talking about the song, and it's meaning are plenty for a start or stub class article, and will obviously expand beyond that quickly. The coverage is significant enough. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the authors of WP:NSONG, I can assure you it's not a stand-alone criteria, it's a way to help determine if GNG has been met, and as I pointed out above, it clearly hasn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 veteran editors that should know better bickering

::*Sigh, you seem to be under the impression that I am unaware of GNG, which is not the case, our opinion on what constitutes a significant amount of coverage for a song just released is the issue, hence why we are here. Maybe my standards are simply too low, but we need to be wary of a deletionist mentality (something I myself struggle with at times). Don't get me wrong, my intentions towards you individually were not to edit war or assume bad faith, in fact, I have come across your edits several times in the past and have never taken issue with them, this just happens to be one thing we disagree on. I'm somewhat off-topic from the deletion discussion now, but I don't want to create any bad blood over a disagreement about policy. That being said, sorry if I've offended or annoyed you or if I seemed a little more heated than I should've been. We will let this AfD run its course and resolve the issue. Cheers.-War wizard90 (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to be wary of anything is WP:OWNership as has been shown here. I don't think the article must be deleted, but it clearly fails notability guidelines and an editor didn't see that and edit warred to remove a simple maintenance template. Seems like that editor doesn't understand WP:N. oh that's you. I guess you don't understand GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, ok whatever you say. Have a nice day. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, the page can now stay, the song officially charted on Billboard Hot 100. --Tartufo (msg) 10:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as it gets press for making that chart it can stay. Charting is not a stand-alone guarantee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it didn't chart, it could still stay due to the fact there there is plenty of coverage for a good WP:STUB, this chart position just proves that it will continue to improve in article quality. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But none of those sources meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: But Alternative Press isn't a reliable source? MYS 77 ^✉ 04:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? Please quote where I stated it wasn't a RS? I don't believe I stated it wasn't a RS. I wrote three sentences about a video isn't significant coverage. And to counter Kokoro20, even if ten sources had only three sentences, it would only be the equivalent of one RS giving it significant coverage. We don't even have ten. We have very few. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources I mentioned have several sentences, not just three. You might disagree with me, but I am quite convinced that this passes the notability guidelines. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those sources. I listed and analyzed the ones I've seen above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the MTV and Radio.com sources. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on those above. Between the two souces I count sixteen sentences. Not paragraphs, sentences. Not significant coverage by any standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Don't understand why this rudeness. I only asked a simple question. Back to the subject: 99% of Wikipedia pages don't have a reference for every single sentence wrote in it. Three reliable sources and making through the charts is more than enough to pass the notability guidelines. Other song articles have less content (and references) than this one and nobody is complaining about it. MYS 77 ^✉ 05:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I am not trying to be rude. I called you no names. I didn't question your ability to count. All I did was state that I counted sentences and length of works and in my opinion the sources do not in any way merit significant coverage. As for other articles, please read WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's plenty of coverage for the music video. You don't need sources with 10 paragraphs or whatever for significant coverage. The MTV and Radio.com sources should at least be good enough for that. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Already made the charts, thus passing WP:NSONG. MYS77 ^✉ 04:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand NSONG. Show me were others have written about it making a chart? It's not notable because it made a chart. It's notable when someone writes about it charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: Two articles (One and two) talking about the song's charting. The first one, with far more details than the second, but still mentioned at both. MYS77 ^✉ 05:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first offers nice coverage in the first of three paragraphs, and is starting to add weight to significant coverage, albeit across multiple sources. The second reference is a one-line mention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to at least survive as a stub. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:35, 14 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) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give Me the Sunlight (Noni Ene song)

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

No real indication of notability, as defined by WP:NSONG. All the sources given are cruft, with one partial exception. Tellingly, that one notes that the song "has all the attributes it needs to become a hit soon". Four years and three months have elapsed since that prediction was made, but hit status remains elusive. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The song does not appear to meet notability requirements. Random86 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability requirements per WP:NSONG, nor state any notability in the article. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 14 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jajang Maulana

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

PROD rejected, reason was WP:NFOOTY given. Fact is he is not notable at all. Havent played any professional match. Fails WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 7 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) 08:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:08, 7 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darker Than Blood (Linkin Park album)

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

There is no formal or official reliable source that confirms the title of this album. The source this article is based on, never confirms the name of the article. The introduction merely states, "...a very quick Q&A to talk about the band’s work on “Darker Than Blood,” their future 7th album, Hybrid Theory’s 15th anniversary, and rumors..." The 2nd source given makes no reference of this title either. StarScream1007 ►Talk 20:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Let this get in the studio first with some more reliable sources. Author of the article may have interpreted "“Darker Than Blood,” their future 7th album" as being the name of the next album, but those are two different topics. The best we're given here is that Linkin Park will be releasing another studio album at some point in the future. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing but an unconfirmed rumor. Delete per WP:Crystal Elassint ^Hi 03:15, 8 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 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary Technology Programs Accredited by the AVMA

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

This no article, just an excuses to name as many universities as possible The Banner talk 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles which are compromised of lists. This list is not an excuse to name as many universities as possible but instead is an article supported by a notable reference and well within Wikipedia's guidelines.Jaredsem (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, the community decides. The Banner talk 20:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you start reading WP:RS. Your "notable reference" is just a mention on the website of AVMA, so it is just a self-reference. The Banner talk 17:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic laundry list. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered in Accreditation section of Veterinary_education, which has link to the accrediting body AVMA. The list of accredited institutions will change over time so it is best to include a link to the source institution, not repeat the information here. LaMona (talk) 20:19, 12 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 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration developer

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

I can't find any evidence that this is a notable concept. The search "inspiration developer" turns up nothing relevant. The piece is an essay, original research and synthesis from various sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be some sort of promotion of a non-notable business concept in the form of an essay, as evidenced by the use of "we" and the business jargon. Pishcal — ♣ 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a mix of original research and a non-notable neologism. Huon (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, OR and neologism Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 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 Wilkins Estate. Zero secondary source coverage shown for the cemetery itself. – czar 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parklawn Memorial Park

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

NN company (cemetery) where the only references I've been able to find are to folks being buried there. Failed WP:CSD#A7. Note that I removed a fair amount of off-topic info about the former owners of the property, their coffee business and their family history as that info has pretty much nothing to do with the cemetery. The Dissident Aggressor 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions are where we differ. I think many people would agree that the history and presence of a landmark building is totally relevant to an institution, whether cemetery or golf course, and so is not "off-topic". It was your removal of this information that guts the article of relevant information. It is also interesting that you make a note about how a sentence is not supported by the citation after you removed the material to which the citation was in fact referring. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the article's talk page, there may be a case for an article about the Wilkins Estate, but not an article about the cemetery. I'd recommend breaking the redirect from WE and putting the info about the estate there. I'll do it myself if I can find some time. The Dissident Aggressor 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done The Dissident Aggressor 12:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Wilkins Estate, as suggested by DissidentAggressor. The Steve

Even with the separation of information about the estate (not necessary in my mind, and perhaps a violation of the MOS regarding cutting and pasting), I still dispute the claim made that the cemetery is not worth an entry here. Can you explain why you are singling out this cemetery with the claim that it does not meet the criteria as you see it as opposed to all the other cemeteries listed in its category? Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I stumbled across it. WP:OSE is not relevant.The Dissident Aggressor 16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what that guideline says. Cemeteries are generally considered notable based on the notability of those buried there. Do you hold some other criteria? Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline? I only know of an essay that asserts that and essays are neither policy or guidelines. Cemeteries fall under WP:CORP afaik. The Dissident Aggressor 19:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE, as these are guidelines, not rules. Again, I disagree that WP:CORP applies, as the article is not about the company which operates it, but rather the property and facility itself, which is a separate matter, and is more like a bridge or building. Daniel the Monk (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and WP:Cemeteries are mere essays, not guildelines. WP:CORP covers organizations (commercial or otherwise), or any of their products and services. For example hospitals are explicitly covered under CORP. Hospitals don't inherit notability from people who have been treated there. Similarly, cemeteries don't inherit notability from people who have been buried there. Schools don't inherit notability from pupils. etc.. The Dissident Aggressor 12:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we disagree. Hospitals are connected only temporarily with any individual. As the resting place for the dead, cemeteries are intimately connected with the information on those individuals buried there, as such, as I have already noted, it is not a product or service. Additionally, where do you see any difference in authority as a guideline between WP:CORP and WP:Cemeteries as having been established by consensus? Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's explicit at the top of each page. WP:CORP is a guideline which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and WP:Cemeteries is an essay which "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." There you have it.

I think we will continue to respectfully disagree on the cemetery business. The Dissident Aggressor 23:41, 14 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 19:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xera-

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

A coined prefix by a Wikipedia user who was excited to create this article. Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Only transmitting informations from Googology Wikia and a presumed leaker. I think it is better to wait before having confirmations. ExplosionRadiative 2.0 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brief mention here: Talk:Metric_prefix#xera (has 1 source, a dead link, doesn't seem promising) The only source in the article is [8] which describes it as being used in a new york times hoax and as a "leaked official prefix". How can a prefix be 'leaked'? The prefixes are international standards, if they aren't publicly known they don't exist. A search at the General Conference on Weights and Measures website has 0 results, I'm calling BS. Disclosure: I have removed a link to Xera from Yotta- which was added at this diff here ― Padenton|✉ 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEO. Not the subject of significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Wikis are not acceptable sources, and neither are things some guy told you late at night in a bar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline WP:CSD#A11 speedy as obviously made-up. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up or otherwise, it does not seem to have any coverage in any reliable source that I can find. If it does come into use, well, there is no deadline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a neologism. Spumuq (talq) 14:23, 11 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) 18:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium

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

Fails WP:GNG, corporate promo/selfpromo The Banner talk 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any RS on this, although the organization does produce data that is referenced in a few higher ed publications. None, though, are about the organization or specifically about its business, they just use its data. I removed the list of members from the article, and linked to the member list on the site. LaMona (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same as LaMona: The organization's reports are cited, both in journals and in news stories, but I could find virtually nothing ABOUT the organization as required for WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 14 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. Not relisting given the level of SPAs, socks and canvassing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Lang

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This page reads like a resume/autobiography. There are not sufficient secondary sources to show notability. Agtx (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does read a bit like a resume, but IMO it's not overly-promotional. Looking at the sources, they seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have reviewed this page and consider that many of the citations are reputable secondary sources. It does not seem like a resume or promotional piece to me. Adrian is an experienced, highly-regarding Toronto litigator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian Legal Eagle (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Canadian Legal Eagle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete because, in reality, the only claim to general notability is the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association award, which I don't think on its own is enough to pass WP:GNG. The Ryerson Review of Journalism article is about her sister, not her. Sionk (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Keep" - She is Chair of Canadian Stage, a significant Canadian Theatre Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyergal (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)~~ [reply]

'Keep' The page contains references to notable sources that goes beyond general 'resume' building. It cites respected legal directories and community organizations which can be of historical significance in the long term. TOJenX (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)TOJenX — TOJenX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Ms. Lang is a nationally recognized litigator and esteemed mentor for women in law. The citations listed only scratch the surface of her accomplishments both as a lawyer and a mentor for young professionals. Fergus19 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Fergus19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment given the recent influx of new accounts to this AFD I have added a "not a ballot" template to the top of this discussion and tagged two apparent SPAs. Everymorning talk 23:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that this page is even being considered for deletion is reflective of a general ignorance of the Canadian cultural community. Ms. Lang and her sister act as examples and mentors to young professional Canadian woman. Ms. Lang does a great service to Canadians, both through her work as a litigator and through her charitable and professional contributions. Please do not dismiss this as self-promotion simply because she is a woman who has achieved prominence. Canadians deserve recognition too!!! ProudCanadian2000 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — ProudCanadian2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Acting as examples and mentors to young professional Canadian women" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability standards. Reliable source coverage is the absolute be-all and end-all of whether a person qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To expand a bit, Ms. Lang may be a fantastic lawyer and a role model, but that doesn't make her sufficiently notable for WP. We usually look for significant coverage in secondary sources. Here, we see almost entirely primary sources: Ms. Lang's Twitter, the websites of organizations of which Ms. Lang is a member, Ms. Lang's employer. The only secondary source seems to be a picture of Ms. Lang taken at an event, which does not have any commentary attached. It looks to me from usernames like the many of the folks above are lawyers, so I'd encourage them to read the guidelines at WP:BIO and consider how they apply to this case. I certainly don't want folks to get the idea that I've nominated this because I have ill will toward Ms. Lang or Canada. That's not what this is about. Agtx (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As there appear to be many new users/Single-purpose accounts on here, I've added them all to a sockpuppet investigation. Apologies in advance to anyone who is editing legitimately, but I'm certain some of the users aren't. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the newspaper database, there are articles that can confirm some of this content where she is quoted (in articles about court decisions like "Bell suspends late fee for TV following ruling; The Ottawa Citizen, 22 Dec 2008") or mentioned (involving some The Canadian Stage items) but I don't think those individually meet the criteria for "Significant coverage". The most substantial piece is "East meets West in fight for rights; National Post, 04 July 2009" about a fundraiser held at her house that made a national newspaper but that is all I can find for coverage in media outlets. maclean (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachelksilber, I have removed Lawyergal's comments, as they are a confirmed sockpuppet of Rachelksilber. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the original creator of this article. I'm not sure why lawyergal is considered a "sock-puppet" but I don't know who "lawyergal" is and he/she is certainly not a sock-puppet of mine - but could potentially be a colleague. I have added more secondary sources and urge you to strongly consider keeping this article. Ms. Lang is a well-recognized member of Canadian society and a person of considerable notability in Toronto.Rachelksilber (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachelksilber/Archive, all the SPAs comments (except for Rachelksilber) have been struck out. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of what is on the page is very poorly supported by the references, and therefore should not be allowed to stand. Of the references there, I only see mentions of her, and her name in quite a few membership lists. It is possible that this person will be notable in the future, given her activity, but I don't see it today. LaMona (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Changing my vote, the sources looked good, but really aren't, so they probably fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG the award from the Canadian Corporate Counsel is not sufficient and and none of the other references give indepth coverage about the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 13 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) 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikis Avenue

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

Unsourced, no evidence that this meets the general notability guideline, Article creator removed earlier PROD. Drm310 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1,100 news hits for "λεωφόρος νίκης" which is the actual name of this street ("Nikis Avenue" = obviously the English translation). This is a prominent street in a prominent city in Greece, and it's also a promenade where at certain times it's closed to car traffic. Just needs references. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Мандичка. A ton of articles by a recent g-news search alone.[9] We need to follow WP:BEFORE and do a search in the appropriate language before determining "no evidence that this meets the general notability guideline." This is looking like systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about WP:BURDEN - the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - which is required to establish notability? There were no reliable English sources and as a non-Greek speaker, it's unreasonable to expect me to evaluate the reliability of machine-translated Greek-language sources. Even the corresponding article at Greek Wikipedia is no help. --Drm310 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is part of WP:VERIFIABILITY (Not WP:GNG) which of course this passes as it's totally verifiable. WP:GNG is crystal clear that sources do not have to be in English. That you're unwilling to even try to look for non-English sources is an admitted violation of WP:BEFORE and the essence of why Wikipedia:Systemic bias was established. If you'd like to change WP:GNG to require English language sources, you need to make your case on the GNG talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 7 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 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiha portal

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

Non-notable company. No secondary sources found. Agtx (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. My Google search for "mastiha portal" returned 16 hits. I know that's not a notability criteria, but it helps explain why the article has no sources and implies a lack of notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:19, 11 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 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Watson

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

Keeps on getting her speedy removed-this almost comes across as a advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~possible keep~~; probably delete She's young; it reads like an advertisement; was created by a SPA - which also took tags down. However, the shows she has curated got really nice coverage, and she gets more than mere name-checks [10]. SPA, User:Wong Siu Ming, if you are reading this, what is needed to keep this page up are profiles of and interviews with Watson in edited periodicals, covering her life and work in some detail. If such cannot be found, then this article will be deleted as WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage does not equate to notability. Most (or all?) of the links are merely the name mentioned. Moondyne (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 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 one "keep" opinion is not based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sandstein 11:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaznova

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

DJ with questionable notability. (looks like it was deleted yesterday by another user with the same name even!) But yes not much to say other then it almost sounds like a advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be self-made and lack significant reliable sources. mb12427 16:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one single source to be found. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia. this account is giving information about himself, that people need to know if they need answers. "the lack of sources" can be justified overtime. A notable artist that doesn't have large amount of songs written about/for it. Article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete. What kind of sources would the critic find suitable? — Status Zibu057 10:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Zibu057 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is not how Wikipedia works; it is not an "anything goes" Encyclopedia, but it has a high standard for itself. The guidelines for notability for musicians is here: WP:MUSICBIO —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides guidelines for notability as written here: WP:MUSICBIO note it says "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" this article has more than one criteria needed, being "Has won or placed in a major music competition", "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.", "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." and "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." at Zibu057 13:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC) cc User talk:Wikimandia[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet of Zibu057. Mike V • Talk 20:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as per refs- Status Papawathato — Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — Papawathato (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the Sparrow

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

Song of the Sparrow young adult novel by Lisa Ann Sandell, an author whose notability I also doubt. The page for the novel was started by an SPA the year the novel was published, sourced only to the author, publisher, blogs and bookstores. It has sold some copies on Amazon.com, where real people appear to have reviewed it. I did find a review on the blog bookslut and on other Blogs/websites: [11], [12], [13] but have turned up no coverage/reviews in anything that I can identify as an edited publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to dig pretty deep for sources since the majority of them don't show up in a regular search. I actually had to use a school database to find most of these. It also didn't help that the article had some pretty big WP:OR vibes going on with various sections, which I've removed. In any case, there's enough here now to where it'd pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nom. Thanks to User:Tokyogirl79 for finding sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:46, 10 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bojack Horseman (character)

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

Non notable fictional character. There is a page for BoJack Horseman but this says its from the 1980s. Not sure if the show has a page-trying to find it. Wgolf (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The article content is a hoax, referring to an in-show backstory gag used in one episode of Bojack Horseman. Horsin' Around doesn't exist.[14] "Bojack Horseman (character)" seems like a plausable redirect. Blackguard 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to just be an exact replicate of the show's page, no need to redirect just delete. mb12427 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was good content, I'd say redirect, but there isn't, just a copy of the show's page. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same content as the article about the show, but less of it. I'd suggest a redirect if the name of the character wasn't also the name of the show, but it is. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:07, 7 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) 21:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Una hotels & resorts

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

Notability tag has been there for 6 years, no evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Looks like a possibly self-published advert for a non-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Can't find any independent writing about the subject. this google search consists solely of self-created social media pages, self-created websites, and self-written press releases. Almost no independent sources seem to be available. --Jayron 32 14:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per source found below. The assurances of employees of the company that it is notable means nothing, but Wikimandia's source is good stuff. --Jayron 32 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Jayron32 the proper way to search is to put the term in quotes and it will find that exact match, as Unapamela pointed out. Otherwise you get 1 billion search results because it looks for all pages that have "UNA", and pages that have "hotels", and pages with the word "resorts" (and not necessarily all those words together). —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no difference, because either way the top 50 results are still social media pages created by the company itself, either with or without the quotes. --Jayron 32 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 That is because you're not actually searching the Google NEWS section.... ie the one that is linked at the top of this page... where it says "Find sources: News" ..... The link to the Google search you posted above shows that you are not searching the NEWS section. Let's sum up: Search the news section for news. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you arguing with me? Are you hoping to get me to change my vote back to delete? I can find no reasonable answer why you would want to pick a fight with someone who specifically changed their vote to agree with you. You're not making any sense. Can't you just let me agree with you and be done with it? I've been here for 10 years, and I've probably commented on more AFDs than you have total edits. I think I know what I'm doing, thank you very much. You really don't have to pick a fight with me anymore, I've already agreed with you. --Jayron 32 22:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable company and you can find it with the exact name "UNA Hotels & Resorts". It is an Italian Hotel Chain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unapamela (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the above user is connected to the company, see Wikipedia:Help desk#Change title of an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 31 hotels in the chain is a pretty good size and the Wall Street Journal thinks so too. WSJ does not publish news stories about investors making bids for "non-notable" companies. One of several articles that have covered the ownership of the hotel, people bidding to buy it etc. There are 186 results in news search. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per all of above. —HaRvEyWaRbUrN^TaLk 14:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Simply needs expanding. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 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 G3 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabhaktikamanuruddha

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

The topic, a bodhisattva Sabhaktikamanuruddha appears to be unknown (Google scholar). The article tries to identify this unknown bodhisattva with Lee Kuan Yew, violating WP:NOT (promotional), WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY. It should be deleted. JimRenge (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Many unreliable sources and the reliable ones do not actually mention the bodhisattva. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched in references 11-18 and did not find the subject listed in any of them.--Rpclod (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources do not actually specify anything about "Sabhaktikamanuruddha" mb12427 12:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in the sources, probably a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Ogress _smash! 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense-article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete this as a hoax. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Block the creator - looking through Ronggy's contrib and talk history, the user seems to be more interested in creating hoaxes than writing useful content. It's been going on for way too long. Closing admin please take action. -Zanhe (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I said, Wikipedia needs an urgent close account button, the Foundation have insisted that because content may be lost if the delete button is added, thusly despite requesting that the delete button is added, Wikipedia failed in looking into this request! Go ahead and kill the Ronggy account by all means! That was the original request in the first place! 林榮祥 05:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment All you had to do was stop logging in... (smh) Scr★pIron^IV 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block user Hoaxes are not acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block user for creating hoax, and complete competence failure. Scr★pIron^IV 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this not tagged for speedy deletion under G3 before? I have done the honors now, and the page was deleted by Chrislk02. JZ CL 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you may or may not be interested in the outcome of WP:ANI#User: Ronggy creating probable hoax series. JZ CL 15:27, 8 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 19:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Moe

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

Unremarkable music producer. A search failed to find enough significant, reliable coverage for him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A pinch of salt might also be in order as this was deleted last year at AFD. Everymorning talk 12:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as typical rapspam, and salt. Fails GNG, BLP, MUSICBIO, and everthing else.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:12, 13 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 19:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Thompson

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. Nothing shows he meets WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course, one must also consider his college career and whether he satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, Thompson played three years as a receiver at Idaho for two seasons (2002-2003) and had only 5 career catches for 64 yards. Not an impressive collegiate career, no awards, not selected in the NFL draft, and, importantly, not finding significant coverage to satisfy the standard of WP:GNG. Also, it appears that Joeykai appears to be correct that he did not play in a regular season NFL or CFL game. Cbl62 (talk) 20:06, 12 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) 18:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Barber

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

This article about an athlete and later cross-fit trainer appears to have no coverage in reliable sources for Ms Barber's soccer career. Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 14 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) 21:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muneesh Sappel

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

An apparent vanity project (the article creator has the same name as the subject). All six sources at present are unsuitable. Pax 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Per rule, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not establish the notability. Google search does not support notability except couple of trivial news items.Justice007 (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:ANYBIO... the GNG is not the only "rule". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

and WP:INDAFD: Muneesh Sappel

keep as while yes PAX & Justice007, the current article has issues, his wining of multiple notable awards meets WP:ANYBIO and proper sources for improvements are available. We then simply instruct author of WP:COI and suggest that he edit some other article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this based upon a seemingly reasonable request. If the AfD results in article-improvement and/or clarification as to the notability merits of various Indian awards (thereby generating lots of Keep !votes), then all is for the good. Pax 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and I will try to do something about it even though WP:NOTCLEANUP.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Granted I never heard of this guy till now, but he looks to be quite notable in India just seeing the awards he has won! Wgolf (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-though there is a COI with the creator of the page and the article. Wgolf (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to judge the topic, not the article's author... which is specifically why I suggested above "instruct author of WP:COI and suggest that he edit some other article". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awards demonstrate notability, I have cleaned up article per NPOV. Justice007 (talk) 21:09, 11 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Trainor discography

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

Creation of this article is drastically premature and a result of WP:FANCRUFT by User:MaranoFan. Trainor has released four albums, but only one is a major record released with chart and sales info. The other three are just blank. Trainor has only released three singles, too. Her discography is far too small to warrant a separate, standalone article. This article should be deleted and a simple table for both albums and her few singles should be included on Meghan Trainor and Title (Meghan Trainor album). Sales and chart info are present on Title (Meghan Trainor album), "All About That Bass", "Lips Are Movin" and "Dear Future Husband" in the form of tables and prose anyway. Article is currently nominated for FLC, but it clearly fails 3B of the FL criteria "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I laid out these issues on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1 nomination, and two other editors concurred with me (Winkelvi and Chasewc91). I have also raised a similar issue with regard to WP:FORK and WP:FANCRUFT by the same user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP). — ₳aron 10:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: I've seen larger discographies listed on artist pages, agree that one studio album and three singles shouldn't constitute as reason for a separate page. don't see any issue with a merge to Trainor's main page. Azealia911 _talk 11:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You support this article being deleted, but you've also pledged your support to see it promoted to FL status on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1 nomination? If you're supporting to see the article deleted, then you will have to strike your support for promotion to FL at the very least. — ₳aron 11:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has released 4 studio albums, nevermind that three of them were non-notable, they still deserve to stand on its place. There are smaller discographies than this on Wikipedia and they still exist. In my opinion this should stay. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see little difference between this and Lorde discography. Someone want to enlighten me? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As opposed to my prior comments, there are similarly short discographies, some are even featured, like the one mentioned above. Most of the singles/albums are certified. Azealia911 _talk 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has multiple studio albums, one of which has charted, and multiple charted songs. There is enough content to justify a discography. If you feel it's better merged into Trainor's article, start a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 14:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see why this should be deleted. HĐ (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable artist it seems, with extensive discography. No reason to delete. mb12427 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems perfectly fine to me, passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any decent reasons as to why you are all voting keep? Reasons such as "I see little difference between this and Lorde discography. Someone want to enlighten me?", "Most of the singles/albums are certified.", "I can't see why this should be deleted", "This is a notable artist it seems" are not valid reasons. Can we start employing some Wikipedia rules and guidelines please? I have quite clearly stated that it fails section 3B of the FLC criteria, which none of you address. — ₳aron 18:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I disagree with your opinion that it fails 3B. It has enough detail for a standalone list and the parent article would not be served by a merge. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how one album with charting info and three singles equates to being enough detail uses criteria and guidelines please. — ₳aron 18:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One album with charting info and three singles" I think you mean four albums, two EP's, three lead singles, one featured single, five other charted songs, guest appearances, writing credits and music videos. Azealia911 _talk 18:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. The other three albums have no sales, charts or certification info at all and add nothing informational. Two of them don't even have articles. Even still, her discography is tiny and it is being forked. It's nothing that other articles don't already cover. — ₳aron 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the fact that the whole 'other articles already cover this information' point is a justifiable reason, if we took that approach with all discographies, we could nominate almost all of them for deletion. For example, take Katy Perry's at random, this article adds only tiny scraps of information that's not presented anywhere else. All of the albums, reissues, live albums and EP's have independent articles relaying this information listed, same with all of the lead, featured and promotional singles. The only new information on that particular discography that isn't on any other article is the charting positions for the 3/8 "other charted songs" that don't have independent articles. The fact that 'other articles already cover this information' really isn't much of a strong argument. Azealia911 _talk 18:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a community guideline on what a discography must contain? If no (and FLC is irrelevant when deciding a list article is kept), then I'm looking at other similar lists to see what the community has decided is appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discography doesn't have to have only successful albums with certifications and sales in order to exist. Having enough material (even though most of it unsuccessful like here) is enough for having a separate discography. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. — ₳aron 23:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge/redirect per WP:ATD. I see no valid basis for deletion when there are clear alternatives. Even if a standalone list is premature at this point (and on that I have no strong opinion either way), there is a lot of good, usable content that would need to be merged back into the parent article, and a non-trivial edit history which could form the basis of a more viable article in the future. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has to stop; whatever issues the discography community has with MaranoFan, nominating an discography they worked on just because they attempted to delete others is just petty, no matter how much they've pushed the community's buttons. Did you attempt to work this out with MaranoFan through talk and the many other venues that exist before AfD? I don't really see that, and there's enough here that justifies the breakout into an individual discography. I also fail to see how this violates 3B outside of making the main article a little cleaner to read with this break-out here. Work out your issues with MaranoFan however you need to, but don't drop a WP:IDLI nom because you don't agree with their ways (note this isn't agreeing with MaranoFan in the slightest, but just my observation on what I've seen as a regular on AfD). Also as I've learned in the past from my own noms dealing with inane children's network detritus, WP:FANCRUFT is an inappropriate reason to nominate an article and not set policy; please change your rationale. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 6 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title (EP)

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

This article is clearly a case of WP:FORK. It is simply a regurgitation of Title (Meghan Trainor album), "All About That Bass", "Dear Future Husband", All About That Bass#Anti-feminism claims and Meghan Trainor, and is information already present in those more notable articles. I can't see how this even passed at GAN when this EP article is essentially what is already covered in the album article, two single release articles and her bio. This article should be deleted, and a short paragraph explaining what the EP is should be included as a section on Title (Meghan Trainor album). There is clearly some WP:FANCRUFT going on here, specifically with User:MaranoFan, which has already been outlined by myself and concurred with by two other editors on MaranoFan's Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1 nomination. Both Title (EP) and Meghan Trainor discography are Trainor fan creations by MaranoFan.

WP:FORK in a nutshell: "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." — ₳aron 10:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Both Title (EP) and Meghan Trainor discography are Trainor fan creations by MaranoFan." Except neither were created by MaranoFan... Azealia911 _talk 12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He made it a GA, though. — ₳aron 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90 different users and IP addresses have edited this page. Why is one individual's contributions relevant to this deletion discussion? Would you still support deletion if MaranoFan never touched this article? Reach Out to the Truth 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, according to the page stats, MaranoFan isn't even the largest contributor to the page, Lips Are Movin has added over 70% of the text of the article, while MaranoFan only contributed 1.6%. Most of his edits on the page are cleanup or even removal edits, like this or this, so it's horribly unfair to scapegoat him in this, even more so with the fact that he has now retired and can't defend himself, even with us tagging him. Azealia911 _talk 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Title (EP) was created before Title (Meghan Trainor album). If content was copied from the EP article to the album article, which is likely, it needs to be kept for attribution. Deletion should not be considered. Reach Out to the Truth 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the album is the more notable release, and this EP article just regurgitates that info. — ₳aron 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is attribution for copyright purposes, not notability. Which article really regurgitated the other? I haven't thoroughly checked the page history to find out because I find that extremely uninteresting, but if there was content copied from this article to another, we cannot delete it. Reach Out to the Truth 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is copied, but Title as in the album is clearly the more notable, perhaps parent even, article. What does this EP article tell us that the album and single's articles don't? Nothing. It's the same as those more notable articles. — ₳aron 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not based on notability. Reach Out to the Truth 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Out is correct; if text was copied, at the very least a redirect (with history) needs to be left, so that attribution is available. This could be more explicit, but it's implied at WP:RUD ("If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing a coherent argument for deletion. How exactly does WP:FORK apply? What is the difference of opinion between the two articles? Forking is not the same as duplication: it means for instance if there's an article saying John F. Kennedy is a great president, creating another article saying he was a sex maniac and pervert. One article describes the chart performance, critical reaction, track listing etc of the album and the other does that for the EP; these are separate topics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no difference between Title the EP and Title the album. The EP is just a shortened version with the same info in differently worded prose. So, that is forking content. — Calvin999 18:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Proposal for deletion seems to come from dispute with another user, one who's now retired from Wikipedia, proposer seems to have flung together all the possible policies that could constitute deletion without actually backing them up, eg. how user MaranoFan working on a pre-existing article in aims to make it good is fancruft. Loosely expanding on what Colapeninsula said, this isn't one article that has been forked into two, the two articles are entirely different projects, that just share a title and some tracks from one are carried over from the EP to the album. Azealia911 _talk 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't got a dispute with MaranoFan, and never have. Please don't imply that. — Calvin999 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to Title (Meghan Trainor album). The EP article mostly contains details about its four songs, all of which appear on the full-length album. Perhaps a section about the EP with individual critics' reviews and chart positions could be made. As it stands, I don't think full-on deletion is necessary or appropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a merge discussion here for anyone who is interested. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a content fork. Has sufficient coverage in sources such as Stereogum and Knoxville News Sentinel, which both came before the full-length album or reviews for that were released. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula, Snuggums and Azealia911. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question- for the user who apparently goes by both ₳aron and Calvin999. Why are you using two different signatures during one deletion discussion? This seems confusing for people who might think some comment in support OP are from a different user than OP.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people simply happen to change their signature during ongoing events, nothing of concern here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems confusing...--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. — Calvin999 07:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

????? you clearly are. Both ₳aron and Calvin999 go to the same user page. Also, Aaron/Calvin999, please do not delete the talk page comments of others, as you did here [15]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. Why deny it? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My signature doesn't say it anymore, so no, it's not. No one ever mentioned anything to me in more than 3 years of using Aaron. I've changed it now, that's all that matters. And I don't know what your diff is meant to show?? I didn't delete anyones comment. Assume good faith please. — Calvin999 14:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did change your signature. Plain and simple. You did. You also did delete several comments, even if it was an accident. If you want us to assume good faith, please don't tell us that you didn't do things you clearly did do. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Snuggums' sources are more than enough for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that the nominator attempted to remove Crisco's !vote and several other comments. It is unlikely that it was an edit conflict, since the previous edit had been almost two hours earlier. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never deleted anyone's comment! I don't know what that diff is mean to be showing! — Calvin999 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999, It shows you removing 906 bytes, of which a users !vote was included. Azealia911 _talk 14:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't delete anything! All I said was "I'm not". I really don't what has happened, but I never selected or highlighted anything to remove! Not that anyone cares, apparently I'm already convicted of it. — Calvin999 14:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't already convicted of it, it was simply highlighted that an edit under your name removed a users !vote, which is obviously unacceptable, but if you say you didn't mean to, you didn't. We all make blips and mistakes. Apologize and move on. Azealia911 _talk 14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already am at ANI by MeowCar and Crisco. I've been given a bad faith warning by Cirsco. I'm being ganged up on at ANI. But none of them are talking to me, just amongst themselves. — Calvin999 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I, myself am not going to get involved, this whole situation seems to stem off into various different topics and users so I'm just keeping clear, but if removing the !vote was a legitimate mistake, just voice that, apologizing would be a good start. Azealia911 _talk 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not apologising for something I haven't done. I should be apologised to for being chatted shit about! — Calvin999 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been an accident, but the dif definitely shows that it happened. Look at the view history. Your account made an edit that removed 906 bytes of information. Somehow, it defintely happened. Beyond that, no need to take it so personally, no one's said anything about it other than it happened, and due the timing, an edit conflict was unlikely. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that you did do it, but whether you meant to or not. There's proof that you did it, and the other users are not "chatting shit" about you, they're reporting a violation of policy that you committed, don't demonize them for following guidelines on how to respond to disruptive edits. Azealia911 _talk 15:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I never deleted anything! I just typed a two word reply!! And yes people are chatting shit about me, I've seen it with my own eyes. — Calvin999 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the diff. The content was deleted by your edit. Even if it was an accident, it still happened. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, Floquenbeam has suggested a way it may have been done accidentally. Calvin, this is the same distinction I made on my talk page: just because you didn't do something deliberately, doesn't mean that you didn't do something. If you read up on law, compare mens rea to actus reus; it's a similar distinction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ludicrous nomination. The EP itself has received plenty of significant coverage dedicated to it specifically, so it meets the GNG. Very straightforward. I don't know what it is about Trainor that makes people so irrational, but here we are again. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Merge the article into the main album, Title (Meghan Trainor album). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really the main article. They do share songs, but these are two different albums, with different release dates, and these respective albums charted differently.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? You're an experienced user, so you must know that this isn't a vote, and that you have to explain your stance for it to hold any weight in the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per everybody who !voted Keep above. This has to be one of the most ridiculous and laughable AfD nominations I have ever seen. 'Nuff said. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 05:29, 10 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 Bernard Lepkofker. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lepkofker

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

Non-notable as a Judo athlete. None of the triva cited contributes to notability including appearing on the Jonney Carson show. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernard Lepkofker There was a book on the "judo twins", but that was mainly because of Bernard's success. Robert doesn't inherit his twin's notability and once finishing third in a NYC event doesn't meet any notability criteria. Robert doesn't merit his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granted Bernard is more notable but even his notability is questionable.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Don't think Robert is notable enough for his own article, but between the book and being a 5 time medalist at the U.S. championships I'd say Bernard is (although that article could use some additional sourcing). 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Notability is not achieved by being the twin of someone who is notable. I don't see the accomplishments for Robert that meet [[WP:MANOTE] or WP:ATHLETE and most of the coverage I found for him are either listings of results or are focused on his brother. I'm inclined to say delete, but I'm OK with redirecting to his brother's article. Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 10 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ver

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

Non-notable individual, fails even WP:ONEEVENT. Minor criminal and tax protestor/self-exile, nothing of note except criminal activities. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 09:31, 6 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, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article had been heavily vandalized back in March.[16] I've restored the deleted sources and content. Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention! (Oh and the name of the vandal was, drum roll, User:Rogerver) -- Kendrick7^talk 00:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, based on Google News Search, we seem to have clear notability. Or at least notoriety. A few recent mainstream news articles about Mr. Ver and his activities: [17][18][19][20] John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear notability when doing a simple google news search.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meal preparation

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

This looks like a nonsense article with content, but absolutely not notable one Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow time for expansion. A very notable topic. Sources include entire books dedicated to the topic and aspects of it, among other various sources. Some examples: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be an unacceptable essay.--Rpclod (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the potential for OR here is enormous, I don't see how one can imagine it's an essay when there's hardly anything in it. Sources certainly exist for the term, so we ought to wait and see what is done to the article before declaring it OR. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Meal. The one point the article makes, that meals can be prepared ahead of time, is worth mentioning there. WP has an article (for example) on Letter but not one on Letter writing. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be merge if the subject of the article is not widely covered in multiple reliable sources. Since the article is widely discussed, then it could stand alone. While we have Chemical compound here we also have Chemical substance and in fact we have Chemical element. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The point I was trying to make is that since a meal is something that is prepared, in a sense Meal and Meal preparation are the same thing. I was not at all trying to say meal preparation is not notable, in fact it is one of the most notable things going on. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not the same thing as meal itself; in most places there are actual laws concerning meal preparation; there are cultural/gender role aspects to meal preparation; additionally, as pointed out, not making/having time for proper meal preparation has negative health effects for society etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Northamerica1000 and Wikimandia. A very notable topic that had been widely discussed by multiple independent reliable source. I have no clue why the nominator wanted the deletion of this notable topic of encyclopedic importance after they inappropriately nominated it for deletion per A1 here, a criterion that does not applied by any standard. I saved the page here and many thanks to NorthAmerica100 for expanding the article. However, I'm highly disappointed that the same editor who wrongly nominated the page for deletion with CSD#A1 decided to bring it here again. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I oppose a merge to meal, as per Wikimandia's reasoning. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DINC so while the article is in bad shape currently deletion isn't clean up. per WP:GNG I see a lot of secondary sources talking about this so I see it as notable. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article definitely needs work, but as it concerns a common and legitimate process, it should stay. As a legitimately encyclopedic topic, notability does not come into play here and as such is not a valid argument for deletion. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:54, 7 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 hist merged to draft space by Deryck Chan. KTC (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Prentis

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

Delete. the only claim to notability is political, and she fails WP:NPOL. This article is WP:TOOSOON if ever. By the way she was not the head of a government department, she lead the "justice and security team" at the Treasury's Solicitor's Department. --Bejnar (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL with no objection to recreation if she is elected to Parliament or other high office. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Draft. I created the article, but was not involved in its move to mainspace. In any event, this AfD is moot, as Prentis will be notable after tomorrow's election. Edwardx (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was perhaps premature but as a practical matter, her constituency has been "Conservative since 1922" [21][22], so as EdwardX says, this will almost certainly become moot tomorrow. (fivethirtyeight.com is currently projecting her to win with 49.8% of the vote to Labour's 24.4%.[23])--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I moved the article as I was looking for information on Wikipedia on likely new MPs and found Edwardx's draft and thought it would be helpful for other users. I think this discussion is a pointless waste of everyone's time. Catchpole (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless today, but within the span of this AfD it will become very obvious one way or the other. Opinions expressed before that vote is counted are unlikely to count for much in this !vote. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 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, good argumentation--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanessa Milhomem

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

I had this as a blp prod then I noticed the refs are here but put oddly. I'm not sure if she reaches guidelines for wiki or not. Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After going through the references listed in the article, then most of the potential sources I could find on the internet, I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails GNG. APerson (talk!) 04:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanessa is a recognized model all over the world! Have been worked with the most important fashion clients. Is represented by most important agencies such as Marilyn NY , Elite London , Metropolitan Paris , Wilhelmina Miami and should have a profile talking about her! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leozitchus (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is a great model and she has lots of references she is been in the spot light and very recognised in fashion . She has more things online then a lot other fashion models who are on Wikipedia . She should be in it .

Note: Struck sockpuppet comment, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLPNOTE for lack of significant coverage. Mere directory listings such as the cited NY Magazine, and tabloid stuff about being Anthony Kiedis's main squeeze are not that kind of coverage. Notability is not inherited. Neither is passing mention in articles about fashions shows, anything more than "passing mention". --Bejnar (talk) 07:07, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EP 2 (Basement Jaxx EP)

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [24], which lead me to [25]. Other mentions: guardian.com[26], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [27], the BBC [28] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple search shows that this has plenty of reliable sources in addition even to those provided. mb12427 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:32, 16 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High range book of world records

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

No secondary sources, book/organization does not appear notable. Agtx (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original statement in proposed deletion that topic has not been subject to third party coverage – I found no such sources directly addressing the book and its value, nor widespread usage of this book as a standard reference. SFB 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically just an advert for the book. Deb (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO and also probably fails WP:GNG. Comes under the category of advert masquaerading as an article (can't remember the code for the page that talks about that). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure this is even published. The single non-primary source does not even mention the subject.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 8 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EP 1 (Basement Jaxx EP)

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [29], which lead me to [30]. Other mentions: guardian.com[31], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [32], the BBC [33] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleazycheeks

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [34], which lead me to [35]. Other mentions: guardian.com[36], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [37], the BBC [38] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that those reliable sources you've linked (Rolling Stone, BBC, The Guardian) mention "sleazycheeks" or "sleazy" anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography. I'd also recommend bundling some of these nominations. Note that the notability of the band is not in question here just this specific release from the band. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do those sources mention sleazycheeks?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 6 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 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do those reliable sources (Rolling Stone, BBC, The Guardian) mention "sleazycheeks" or "sleazy" anything?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Anythingyouwant - My bad I or Lugnuts should've looked - Anyway the sources don't even mention "Sleazycheeks! - Well spotted Anythingyouwant. –Davey2010^Talk 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User :Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Also, I don't see that the reliable sources cited here (Rolling Stone, BBC, The Guardian) mention "sleazycheeks" or "sleazy" anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxx Unreleased

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish notability for this subject outside of an AllMusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [39], which lead me to [40]. Other mentions: guardian.com[41], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [42], the BBC [43] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Jaxx Recordings: A Compilation Vol. 2

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [44], which lead me to [45]. Other mentions: guardian.com[46], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [47], the BBC [48] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs citations and references on the actual page. I did a brief look on the Internet and found lots of mentions and listings of "Atlantic Jaxx Recordings: A Compilation Vol. 2." If anyone can find some reviews would be helpful. I am neutral for now until more data emerges.--Groulsom (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on Atlantic Jaxx

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish this subject as deserving of its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [49], which lead me to [50]. Other mentions: guardian.com[51], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [52], the BBC [53] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxx Unreleased II

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [54], which lead me to [55]. Other mentions: guardian.com[56], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [57], the BBC [58] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basement Jaxx. The sources noted suggest the band is notable without any referernce to this particular album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:33, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Mixes

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [59], which lead me to [60]. Other mentions: guardian.com[61], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [62], the BBC [63] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basement Jaxx. The sources noted suggest the band is notable but reliable sources for this album are sorely lacking. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:34, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes (Basement Jaxx EP)

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [64], which lead me to [65]. Other mentions: guardian.com[66], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [67], the BBC [68] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography. Band is notable. This release is not. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:34, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junction (EP)

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [69], which lead me to [70]. Other mentions: guardian.com[71], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [72], the BBC [73] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:34, 16 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 Basement Jaxx discography. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EP3 (Basement Jaxx EP)

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily verified notability. Google mentions books reviewing them that were published to the Library of Congress, Amazon, there's professionally made music videos, vice.com has articles on them etc. [74], which lead me to [75]. Other mentions: guardian.com[76], MTV[www.mtv.com/artists/basement-jaxx], Rolling Stone Mag [77], the BBC [78] -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The band has not been nominated for deletion as this is just for a specific release from the band. A band being notable does not make every album they release notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). However, if even some non-substantial and trivial sources can be found, a redirect is probably in order. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: ... did you know that this particular release made it into a top 50 list published in a book release in Britain before you posted? I pulled 6 references, not going to bother to copypasta here, just making sure you're informed about this specific report and the nature of all related reports for Jaxx. I did a copy & paste to all of the Jaxx albums, because that's exactly what the poster here did to all of the albums without fact checking the band or the albums. Read down the list of deletes for this particular day and you will see they reported a reputable and notable band that put these out too - which shows that they did not do any research as required by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. It essentially wastes the time of other wiki users as they did not do due diligence or even have the courtesy of using a "bundle" report. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Creating User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ...not sure what happened here, but it looks like this person might have been trolling people or their account seized by someone & they were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by IamM1rv Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Basement Jaxx discography - The sources above don't even mention the EP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Basement Jaxx discography as Davey2010 (talk · contribs) pointed out. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG are not met in this particular case, and the sources given by IamM1rv (talk · contribs) are either directory listings or mentions of the band. Furthermore, this nomination has been applied to the following AfDs, as well (instead of having them all be on a nice, single AfD), and the same arguments and rationales are pretty much being shared by the same participants (e.g., people arguing "keep" because they're assuming that the albums inherit the band's notability).

Cheers --slakr^\ talk / 19:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr - You little shit I've just got 10 notifications from you all saying you've mentioned me - I've never had 10 at once in my entire life here - You nearly gave me a heart attack . –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muahahaha. :P @Davey2010: (and, now that you mention it, @IamM1rv:). Sorry about that; I totally forgot about the notification pings from the user links earlier in the post. I was just in a hurry to copy the text between the various AfDs and move on, and I used the text from the first one I commented on and just added more to the end of it to link the other AfDs. --slakr^\ talk / 19:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha It's all cool, I gathered you pasted it constantly

. Bloody echo!!!!!

–Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 16 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 The Chemical Brothers discography. – czar 15:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides Volume 1

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 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) 18:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Remixes Volume 06

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

I have been unsuccessful in establishing the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find sources establishing notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 14 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) 21:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live 05

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

I have been unsuccessful in establishing the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the normal music sales, streaming services and additionally, this album is mentioned in billboard magazine. Found a google book of it[79]. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above - Notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 6 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. Do to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sateliti

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

Pretty obscure band. Seems to be a non-notable one. malconfort (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find mention of them in an English language book here. I am reluctant to delete without a search for sources in the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 6 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To je zivot pravi

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

Non-notable album. malconfort (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling doesn't come up with any reason why we'd keep this around. Agtx (talk) 04:00, 7 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 List of Hustle characters. Nobody seems to disagree... Sandstein 08:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Monroe

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

Fictional character who might not meet wiki guidelines for this. Wgolf (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I put up a prod for Billy Bond who seems to be the only other character for this show that has a page. Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger discussion seemed to result in enough of a consensus for merging. Boleyn (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually noticed the merger thing right after I put this up. Though I notice it says since 2012-so did the merger convo actually happen then? Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge The article can be combined with an article about either hustle or the hustle characters Alligators1974 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 6 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Meads

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

Contested prod. Clearly fails WP:RLN, and not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG either. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rugby League European Federation is an official governing body of the sport of rugby league and the Newcastle Thunder are a professional club. How are they not reliable enough to satisfy criteria. I have loads more references if you want them? (sorry I'm new to the whole wiki thing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeStilly (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're a third tier club who are semi-pro at best - far below the requirement in WP:RLN (playing in either Super League or NRL). If you can provide evidence that's he received significant coverage (i.e. not just trivial mentions or routine coverage such as match reports or transfer news), then people will vote to keep it. I was only able to find this article [80], but multiple independent sources are needed to satisfy WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep~~ as WP:RLN looks like it may need reviewing. The Balkans Cup is an international event and in most other sports these generally take players across the notability threshhold. NealeFamily (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline was reviewed quite recently (see here), as if anything the notability bar was too low. Rugby league is a very minor sport in all but a handful of countries – even at international level, it receives minimal coverage aside from the major tournaments. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per guidelines NealeFamily (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RLN has clear guidelines for notability requirements. subject falls short of RLN and WP:GNG

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binka: To Tell a Story About Silence

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

A film I'm trying to find any notability for-all I can find though are just stuff about the director Binka Zhelyazkova-which I guess at best this should be merged or redirected to if not deleted. Wgolf (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as Bulgarian language Bulgarian films are difficult to source, but it seems some are available if one searches under its native language (NOT English).[81][82] and others needing translation... so keep per WP:NONENG and just meeting WP:NF. Suitable stub. We can hope readers of that language can help out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, who is a trusted, experienced editor on film topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-Thanks, as I said it was pretty difficult to find anything as all I could find was basically sources for the person and not the film! (BTW is there a Bulgarian article? Just thought I ask) Wgolf (talk) 15:51, 6 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 Soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JabberMixClient

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

A instant messaging client that I'm not sure if it meets wiki guidelines or not. I'm finding a few sources but not enough it seems though. Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites, but no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 14:19, 5 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 06:44, 6 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) 21:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin Records

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

NN record company. The only in-depth coverage found was about the death of its founder (i.e. WP:BLP1E). This company worked with some notable acts, but notability of companies isn't inherited from their suppliers. The Dissident Aggressor 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin Records was a fundamental recording label as well as an instrumental force behind dance music in the United Kingdom in the late 1980's and early 1990's The Dissident Aggressor clearly has some personal issues with record label and it's activities!

This company worked with some notable acts but notability of companies isn't inherited from their suppliers??? Then if this the case you must delete EMI Records & Virgin Records plus Warner, Creation records etc etc delete all of the record companies on wikipedia too!

The Kickin Records label, which pioneered early rave music, in 1988. source http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/kickin-records-founder-dies/036768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.30.80 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Companies have to demonstrate notability on their own as do people. EMI, Virgin and Warner easily pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG while this firm does not. As stated in the nomination, the only hint of any notability is presented in this obituary. If the company was truly notable, there would be other coverage.

Just to clarify, I have no connection whatsoever with this or any record company. Please WP:AGF. The Dissident Aggressor 18:20, 6 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 06:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music, which is extracted from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Topics covered in respected specialist encyclopedias are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig, and the amount of notable music produced by the label. How else are record labels to be judged, except by their output? Appears to be one of the "more important indie labels" per WP:MUSICBIO #5 based on roster and length of operation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 12 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) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of Life (fiction)

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

I see no notability regarding this term. The short examples provided can easily be summed up in a sentence in their respectable plot summaries, and feel this does not need to be a stand alone article. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect this subject does not appears to have been covered significantly in secondary sources unlike the Robotech Wars. I was able to find a few in universe sources, a merge or redirect to an existing article may be optimal. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 10:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that but it looks to be a term used in multiple media. I made a mention of it over at List of Robotech characters#The Invid as that is where it fits in the storyline for that series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG I can't significant coverage of "Flower of life". per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend moving the content to tvTropes.org
Delete Per nom. Seems like unnecessary terminology and usage to me. —Kirt^Message 07:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:02, 15 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 Dawat-e-Islami. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madani Channel

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

Based on the provided sources, this TV channel does not seem independently notable of Dawat-e-Islami Dolescum (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMadani Channel is a first and only one Pakistani television channel who free of advertising and television commercials.

What is the law for them? ARY Qtv, Labbaik TV what is this?--Obaid Raza (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is a poor argument. Please suggest reasons why this channel is independently notable of it's parent company Dolescum (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale or merge into the parent article. sami ^talk 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dawat-e-Islami and lock no notability established-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 7 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 Inductive charging, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARK (wireless charger)

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

This item has no individual notability as a product. If anything, it should be included in the article, Inductive charging. On its own, separate from all other inductive charging devices, this has no notability. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 06:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What about Ark was ranked among "the top 3 Kickstarter projects" in the Technology category for the entirety of the campaign period and was featured by TechCrunch,[8] Buzzfeed[9] during the campaign. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Buzzfeed is meaningless, and a product's notability isn't determined by it's kickstarter campaign, unless this article is about said campaign. 205.133.129.251 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to inductive charging where it is already adequately covered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 03:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Inductive charging. 205.133.129.251 (talk) 18:00, 6 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 Emergency (NGO). --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency USA

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

This is merely a US fundraising group for an international organization, with no separate notability of its own. The references are essentialy about the organization in general, or amount DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emergency (NGO). While I agree that a standalone article is not necessary here, "Emergency USA" is certainly a plausible search term for someone looking for info on the charity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 5 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 06:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not notable, but ThaddeusB is right, a redirect can help. Spumuq (talq) 13:53, 11 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. slakr^\ talk / 19:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Mar

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

Non notable and promotional--I removed a good deal else, including her self-published books, in an attempt to rescue the article, but there is not enough left. The fox " article" is PR DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete As a fashion model, it is WP:TOOSOON, and as an author she has pretty much nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' This article is a true and balanced account of a well known and notable fashion model and author.50.75.215.90 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC) — 50.75.215.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IP is SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 10 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 06:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. SarahKrauch (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — SarahKrauch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

New users, like SarahKrauch are welcome to learn how WP works by ivoting in AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Article is described accurately and fairly balanced. There seems to be correct references to back up modeling work.CathyMiller (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC) — CathyMiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This new user made 5 edits in 1 day, disappeared.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE as a model and as an author. The only credible source is the Fox News article and it's just a "model tells us her fave bikinis!" throwaway piece. (Plus, the only claim sourced to it is almost certainly not true, as VS hires many models for swimwear, not just one.) Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable as seen in reliable sources quoted. She has also clearly worked with notable names in the fashion industry. Some more sources for writing work needed Waconzy (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Waconzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user has made a total of 3 (highly unusual) edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing notable about the subject, none of the sources rise to anything resembling reliability, she fails WP:GNG, nevermind anything else, and all these single-purpose accounts make me believe we're dealing with some serious paid editing issues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 13 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 as hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's Falaffa

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

The rest of the web has not heard about this upcoming album so this might be a hoax. Even if it's real, an article is way premature since it's only due out in 2016. Pichpich (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't tell if it's a hoax, but if it is accurate it certainly isn't notable and violates WP:CRYSTAL. 12:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sources at all and a crystal. 205.133.129.251 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the username of the article's creator is Orangutan's stinky turd in a zoo, and the user is blocked as a result of their username. The user with that name likely wasn't here to contribute quality articles, so this should be speedily deleted now. 205.133.129.251 (talk) 18:05, 6 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. --MelanieN (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine (song)

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

Contested PROD. The article has one reference that is a primary source and no references that I can find. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you here. And it doesn't appears to have charted, not sourced, except for one primary, you are correct. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:38, 5 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 06:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The song is not notable enough for a standalone article. Random86 (talk) 00:19, 12 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 (A7) by Stifle. –Davey2010^Talk 12:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gather Williams II

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

Does not appear to be notable. Google does not turn up secondary source references suggesting notability. Agtx (talk) 06:30, 6 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. Speedy deleted as G12 (the entire article is copied from various commercial yoga sites), as well as G11. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blooming Lotus Yoga

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This doesn't quite meet the qualifications for speedy, but it should be deleted. The citations are all promotional/press release in nature, and the company does not appear notable. Agtx (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, and spam. At least three different accounts have been used to promote BLY on Wikipedia -- BirdBath0239 (article creator), ShriKailasha, and SriKailasha -- the last two add ref spam links to the BLY website in other articles. The article as it is is written like a piece of spam and most if not all of the references are press releases or other promotional material that doesn't add to notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding more to my comment after reading other people's !votes. If you have some personal reason why you want this article to be kept then I don't know what to say to you. But if you're neutral and voted for keep, then hear me out. Some of the references used may sound like reliable sources with titles like "Yoga Journal" or "Creative Times" or "Infity House Magazine". But I wouldn't be so sure, and I've never heard of those sites. Myanmar Times does seem like a reliable source that can add to notability, but looking at that specific page I'm not so sure anymore. It's not written like a news piece or opinion piece, it's written like an advertisement. Maybe it is an advertisement.

The page in Yoga Journal? Also not a news piece or even a review, the text is written from the point of view of Blooming Lotus Yoga. It's a business listing/advert, and I don't think it adds to notability.

The Yoga Alliance advert/listing? Does not add to notability, even if that site happens to be a RS.

motherearthliving.com is possibly just a random website that can't add to notability, plus the article there is written by Lily Goncalves, who works for or is associated with BLY, as you can see from the namaste.tv ref (which also doesn't add to notability).

creativetimes.co.uk? Is that actually a reliable source because the name has the word "Times" in it? I don't think so. I don't have the time right now to do full checks on all of these websites so please correct me when I'm wrong, but the article itself is written like something from a personal development blog, not a legit journalistic source.

The namaste.tv page looks like a primary source and advert.

The keyc.com page: I'm pretty sure that site itself in general would qualify here as a reliable source, but that specific page looks suspiciously like a press release, what with the disclaimers in the beginning and end of the article, and the article itself appears to be written by someone representing BLY.

leisuredaily.com -- as far as I can tell it's just a random website.

The infinityhousemagazine.com page, it's really dubious to me that that site is a reliable source/can add to notability, and, again, the piece is written like a completely biased advertisement, not an honest opinion piece. Entries like these are are really suspicious in my opinion, like the site was paid to publish that piece on their website or the publisher had some other ulterior motive for posting that.

balispiritfestival.com - primary source, can't add to notability.

digitaljournal.com - the page clearly says it's a press release and there's no indication that that site itself is a reliable source.

And that's all. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ "Namaste TV," cited as a source is nothing more than a commercial website registered in the nation of Tuvalu. Do these spammers take us for fools? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - School appears to be internationally recognized based on the recently added third-party media, establishing notability. Links mentioned are not spam but are reliable resources. ShriKailasha (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — ShriKailasha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The latest reference, a Myanmar Times page, is obviously an advertisement, not a journalistic piece or a review. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The page mentioned above is a review by a free-lance writer who has done other travel pieces. I found her at https://www.bing.com/search?q=Rachna Sachasinh myanmar&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is an advert. Spumuq (talq) 13:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has several citations from reliable sources that are not reviews. It meets WP:GNG. The article is fairly well-documented, including references from newspapers far away from the subject's locations. As well, the article is recently added - give it some time to develop. Also suggest following WP:BEFORE, eg If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.SoulFlames (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — SoulFlames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But no amount of editing can save an article if the topic is non-notable. It looks to me like the author(s) looked for and found the best possible sources that exist out there, and they're not enough (if my above analysis of the sources is correct).

And I'm not seeing the well-documented parts, the article lists the company's services (the last three sections) and includes language like "the school offers an evolutionary integration of the sacred wisdom of yoga...", "... introducing a balanced, holistic and safe flow sequence" etc. Without all the puffery, the article would be three sentences long at best. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have some concerns about the votes from users ShriKailasha and SoulFlames. Both are recently created accounts. Both have user pages that are only their signatures. All of the edits for both accounts are comments on this page or adding links on Yoga-related pages. Agtx (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Something weird going on here. :/ See: the last two !voters marking their votes as "minor" and not leaving any space or punctuation before the four tildes. (That's not enough evidence for anything so I'm not making any accusations, but it does look suspicious.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I agree that some of the language is "puffy" and recommend to BirdBath0239 (article creator) to clean up some of the text, I see no reason to delete the article. There is easily verified notability in the references cited. Google mentions them extensively and there is plenty of in-depth coverage in independent publications. I went through the list of references, and they offer enough sources with non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNGSarahKrauch (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me which parts of my analysis of the sources (see my comment above) are wrong? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The references are all different and they have been mentioned multiple times by very well known and respected publications and reliable sources. This organization has multiple international locations and the due to their locations in Asia media coverage maybe invisible to English-speaking researchers. The current number of references all indicate significant notability, as well as the significant number of fans on their social media sites. I agree that the article can be expanded in the future as more resources emerge. But currently I have found that there are enough credible references to give the necessary independent coverage required to meet WP:RSLord Subro (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "...mentioned multiple times by very well known and respected publications and reliable sources..." -- which are...? Also we would need extensive coverage, not "mentions". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am surprised to see this has been nominated as AfD. I do not see any real argument to delete. It meets WP:V and also meets WP:N; The organisation spans 2 countries and is well known in southeast Asia. They have significant involvement with accrediting centers and authoritative institutions in the field of yoga around the world. The subject of the article clearly meets WP:ORG. Legendarybroly (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Legendarybroly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Should be speedid as G11. Article says nothing more than we have a business to offer,WP:NOTPROMOTION. BTW nice meeting of paid asian editors here, hi guys!--Ben Ben (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI: I am not a "paid editor" nor Asian for that matter. I'm simply pointing out the obvious (i.e. this article meets the qualification criteria and should be given time to develop). It's actually very rude of you to bring race into this discussion. ShriKailasha (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This wasn't meant rude. For me Asia is a continent, not a race. Someone who has choosen an Indian sounding user name should know this.--Ben Ben (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Took the issue here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_paid_editing_going_on. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:58, 13 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. --MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous albums

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

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Normally, I'm more an inclusionist than a deletionist, but this is an indiscriminate list which is potentially endless. There is nothing that connects these albums other than their naming, which an exceedingly common way of naming albums. I could have speedied this, as it has beed deleted in the past, but that was eight years ago, so i though it worth bringing here in case anyone here can see any merit in this that (a) I can't and (b) the previous page didn't have. Grutness...wha? 06:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a matching category? Something this big and vague might be better handled that way. Even though there's no bar on having both category and list, some things are better handled one way or the other. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We wouldn't have a category based on nothing more than coincidence of naming. See WP:SHAREDNAME. And we're even less tolerant of vagueness in categories than in lists. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No informational value to having these listed together based on nothing but a very common album naming practice. No substantive relationship, and the album name doesn't tell you anything else about the album, such as whether it's a debut, etc. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Completely indiscriminate. Agree with postdlf about not categorizing these as well. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was indiscriminate then and it's indiscriminate now. Being eponymous doesn't tell us anything about an album aside from the title. Reach Out to the Truth 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 19:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Lin (martyr)

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

Essentially a rescuer who died while transporting earthquake victims. Certainly admirable, but notable? Page is orphaned. I personally believe there is a conflict of interest, as the contributor has only worked on this 1 article, and that none of the other 4 martyrs who died in the same crash has gotten a page. Timmyshin (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Weak merge With due respect for his work, this person just does not have a substantial enough role in the Wenchuan earthquake and would otherwise stay too low-profile for inclusion. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First off, he is not a martyr as is commonly defined in English; there is no evidence he was a religious person, and he died due to a very common risk. Secondly, we are not a memorial website. Finally, while tragic, his death was neither notable nor historic; there is no ongoing coverage of his death. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 15 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) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Von Porkchop

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

local tv personality, no indication of any attention outside Dayton tv market John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, not even notable locally as it seems News, Books (one link as a list) and browser found anything to suggest he is notable and has received significant or notable coverage. An alternative to deletion could be to move to Horror_host#2010s where he is listed. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Elgatodegato (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 7 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annuity Shopper Buyer's Guide

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

No real evidence of notability--just that it's been referred to. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Brianhe (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 7 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 as unambiguous advertising. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COUGAR SOLAR

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

Non-notable company lacking references. Advertisement. Was CSD, but removed, nit sure why. reddogsix (talk) 04:12, 6 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) 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Techdog

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

I can't find any evidence that the term "Techdog" is used to refer to robotic dogs, which is what this article appears to be about. In addition, it is unsourced, and what is here appears to be already covered at List of robotic dogs or the various articles on that list. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete - The word makes it challenging to search but from what I can see, there's no solid sources supporting this and the article reads more like an essay. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 1 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, Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely finding nothing that lends this term to being at all popularized or actually used anywhere. Need sources or delete ASAP. Kemosakeyouknow (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Stop

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

Sourced only to the network and production company, and poorly at that. Tagged for more than 4 years. No evident significant reliable coverage that is independent of the subject. Greykit (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable show, every tv show will have a few hits online, but that doesn't make it notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 21:51, 7 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. per WP:SNOW ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Street Names of Los Santos in Grand Theft Auto V

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

Pure listcruft and indiscriminate info, but I can't find a speedy deletion criteria that fits, so let's discuss. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Love, love, love this game, but yeah, this is the stuff for the Grand Theft Auto Wiki, not Wikipedia. Inappropriate as a standalone article, and while easily verifiable, may be overly detailed to merge into Grand Theft Auto V.-War wizard90 (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per others —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good article for those who want to know the street names. I think making the article was a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlliePop119 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and a thoroughly non-notable list. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete we really don't need a standalone article for this. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An indiscriminate collection of information without encyclopedic, significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar ⨹ 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. A non-notable list that's a highly unlikely search term for a redirect. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per czar, a number of reasons to delete this unencyclopedic article of indiscriminate information.Dialectric (talk) 15:27, 8 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) 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Sheng Wang

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

Extreme form of self-aggrandizing writing (by a single-article editor, Dragonspiritart (talk · contribs)) makes it impossible to tell whether this person actually has any notability. In any case, the article is a huge mess and is unsalvageable in present form, in my opinion. Delete. (If we still permitted it and still maintained it, I would have been tempted to send it to WP:BJAODN.) --Nlu (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "World's Culture Art Giant" Hilarious. Timmyshin (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JIVE Magazine

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

Multiple searches failed to find anything close to relevant or helpful, equal searches with Books and browser showed nothing. I actually found this article while searching for articles that needed cleaning, I searched and found nothing so here we are. This article has not significantly changed at all since its inception and I can't see any improvement as the "magazine" looked more like a forum/messageboard. If at all, the fact that there are three magazines with this name, the page can be remade as a disambiguation. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add and Redirect to List_of_online_magazines. I also didn't find any references to it, but adding it to the list would preserve the link. [83] LaMona (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? If at all, I think the redirect as suggested above would be the best option. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very cursory searching found nothing that makes this "magazine" notable, so it isn't worth including in a list of online magazines. If sources were found that said this online magazine was notable, that'd be a different story. Can always be recreated if sources are unearthed. – czar 15:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto what czar (talk · contribs) said. It doesn't look to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:ORG, and there's little point in sticking a de facto redlink (a bluelink with no blurb text and no future) in List of online magazines. --slakr^\ talk / 19:45, 16 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1394 Algoa

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted and redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this object has been the subject of three independent photometric studies between 2012 and 2014. Praemonitus (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's unclear to me why this object has been the subject of as much attention as it has, but I think the studies mentioned by Praemonitus are sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per convincing opinions given above. Thanks for your hard work looking into its notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 12 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 minor planets: 1001–2000. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1904 Massevitch

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete and redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: it does receive brief mention in a few scholarly articles, but the content is insufficient to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as having an unusual combination of characteristics (V-type but located in the outer main belt) [84] —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 — appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. --slakr^\ talk / 19:57, 16 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 Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Davewild (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Association of Broadcasters

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

A origination that I'm not sure if it meets wiki guidelines or not. I have gotten a couple results while most of them I'm just getting words that go with each other (like one going to Atlantic city) Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete According to this the organization formerly existed, but now with all stations amaglamated into ownership by Global, CBC or the CTVs it seems to have dissolved naturally since the corporations usually do what they used to do now. A redirect to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters might be appropriate if we can find what exactly happened to AAB. Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per the above rationale by Mrschimpf, it is not at all clear to me what exactly happened to the AAB though it seems as if the AAB has now been absorbed into the Canadian Association of Broadcasters or has merely changed its name. In either circumstance it would seem appropriate to add a redirect to the CAB. If the AAB simply dissolved then it would be appropriate to delete the page as it is not notable enough to stand on its own unless other sources can be found. It is however possible that I am completely wrong in my assumption of what happened to the AAB and if so another course of action might be necessary. Roborule (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a ProQuest search in a database that goes all the way back to the 1980s and includes plenty of Maritime newspapers, and found that this really doesn't get any coverage as a thing in its own right, but merely gets namechecked in coverage of other things or people. The most substantive source I found was the obituary of a former AAB president — which clarified quite well that his primary duty in that role was to serve as the Maritime representative on the Canadian Association of Broadcasters board. In other words, this was never really a standalone organization, but merely a regional chapter of the CAB which has since been dissolved by the structural reorganization noted in the CAB's article. Redirect to Canadian Association of Broadcasters (though, to be fair, that article needs some major fixing too.) Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 15 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. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia (Sirius XM)

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

This, along with other Sirius XM radio channels; are these notable? ViperSnake151 Talk 23:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With more than 25-million subscribers to SiriusXM [1], I have to assume that EVERY channel on SiriusXM is notable, obviously the audience is plenty large, and given that every station must produce content for listeners it would be hard to imagine that notability cannot be established for any SiriusXM channel. Haphazard nomination in my opinion as the nominator states, "along with other Sirius XM radio channels"....really? Are we going to start debating the Howard Stern Channels? How about Hits 1, the most listened to station on SiriusXM? -War wizard90 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 million subscribers means Sirius XM is notable and almost certainly has some individually notable stations. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. That seems to assume listeners are divided evenly rather than having a small number of extremely popular stations and a bunch of others, many of which are just rebroadcasts of terrestrial radio, playlists, etc. You just named a couple of the behemoths, but Stern's notability doesn't transfer to the traffic report stations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: That's true, I probably got hung up a bit too much on the "along with other channels" comment than I should have. That being said, even if only 1% of subscribers listened to this channel, that's still 250,000 listeners (and that's assuming only 1 person listens per subscription, which I don't think anyone believes is the case). So I still have a hard time imagining anything on SiriusXM isn't notable (I suspect where the real issue may come in is finding reliable sources to prove the notability, more than the actual notability itself). I'll see if I can't dredge up a few sources to help establish notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @ViperSnake151: what does "This, along with other Sirius XM radio channels" mean? That sounds like you're nominating more than just Utopia, but there are none others listed here. AfD also needs to include an assertion regarding reason for deletion rather than a broad inquiry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is mainly intended as a test case. Our presumption of notability for radio stations only applies to terrestrial stations. Most of their "channels" are no different than the endless automated music channels offered on cable providers through services such as Stingray Music and Music Choice. In the case of Sirius, there may be a few notable stations with a history and enough coverage to justify inclusion. This, however, is not one of them. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:44, 3 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 02:48, 6 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) 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Ann LaRocco

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

It appears to possibly be a non-notable journalist, the Squawk Box article doesn't list her and Google News searches along with Google Books don't provide anything. What troubles this article is that it was created and heavily edited by the subjects themselves, I don't see any improvement. Any comments? SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Senior Talent Producer" apparently means "booker"[85] (i.e. lining up guests), and being one for an early morning CNBC show isn't going to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep this self-promoting article. It's a common problem, Been tagged for years but attracts no editors. And yet her books have generated articles, even a profile in a local paper. [86] enough stuff out there to pass GNG. I went to make sure she was linked to her hometown, her sorority, her college - sometimes editors improve articles on home town girls. This one grew up in a suburb so faceless that the high school doesn't even have a WP page. I have sourced on AFDs of scoundrels; interesting scoundrels like Richard K. Diran and even horror novelists Tamara Thorne - it can be fun. But LaRocca sounds so dull I don't wanna read about her. I'm not sure the article is even interesting enough to blow up. I guess we just have to live with it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her role in a nationally broadcast television program, her authorship of multiple published books and her coverage in reliable media establish notability. I have edited the article, which still needs work, but that's not a justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Would you care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to lack of significant sources and notability. May be a broadcaster but seems to fall somewhere outside of encyclopedic unless more information can be provided. Kemosakeyouknow (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only element of notability is one significant book, Thriving in the new economy : lessons from today's top business minds , which is in 975 libraries, a/c WorldCat [87]. The other two books are in less than 20 libraries each. The overall career is not yet notable. A "profile in her local paper" is the weakest of evidence, especially for an author. Local papers profile everyone in the area who has written a book. E.M.Gregory is correct that there isn't enough material. Multiple published books can bring notability, but not when all but one of them are almost totally unnoticed. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I also note that, since almost none of her biography is sourcable, we'd be left with less than a stub. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 15 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) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Look Back into the Sun/Death on the Stairs

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

This article should be deleted because it only covers a single version of the Don't Look Back into the Sun EP. The complete information about the song and it's releases (as well as other EPs) are featured on the song's page, including information from this acticle. Therefore it's not worth existing. Twistandshout28 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage or anything to demonstrate sufficient independent notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DAJF. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:59, 14 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Sonishi

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

This author has one notable work but there is no indication that Kenji is notable on his own. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only one notable work a redirect to that particular work may be an option.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to Neko Rahmen, other notable works include the Leave it to PET! series. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the author notable though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion Since there are not any sources that detail WHY this topic is notable in any way, and the only source provided is a link to a book with no information, I would say this should be deleted. WHOISFANDOM (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — WHOISFANDOM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources indicating notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:00, 14 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 Newton fractal. Can be merged from the history as may be appropriate. Sandstein 08:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nova fractal

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

Non-notable fractal. There are a couple dozen sources on this in Google scholar and Google books, but as far as I can tell all of these sources were published subsequently to the 2008 addition of this material to Wikipedia, all give little or no detail (maybe a figure but not even the formula), and all are plagiarized from the 2008 version of the Wikipedia article Fractal, in particular copying the sentence "Examples of this type are the Mandelbrot set, Julia set, the Burning Ship fractal, the Nova fractal and the Lyapunov fractal." from that version. I can find no reliable in-depth sources that are independent of Wikipedia, so I believe the topic fails WP:GNG. The previous AfD, in 2008, did not seriously address the lack of sources, instead defaulting to a keep based on weak arguments such as claims that all mathematical formulae are inherently notable (which I don't believe). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/Redirect: I think I've found one example of its being implemented in a fractal software package (here), but I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that it's a part of "most" fractal art software, as the article currently claims. There are other mentions, but no definitive, specific coverage from a major, credible source that I could spot. I'd feel comfortable keeping it if we could find even just one clear definition of the term in a reliable source, but without that I'm leaning toward redirecting it until something more solid emerges. And, given the current state of the article, it's not as though the encyclopedia would be losing much. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Newton fractal. Not independently notable, not enough content for a standalone article. The previous AfD does seem to be more of a merge/delete than a keep, and probably should have been closed no consensus, but even if it were a solid keep seven years is more than enough time for consensus to change.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:03, 4 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, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - no sources, not enough evidence of notability to justify its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 8 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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Averis

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

They don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. No suitable redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page started off as a redirect to Avarice (disambiguation) before it was converted to an article. - Eureka Lott 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 6 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) 18:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macadoshis

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

Rapper who seems to have little notability. Maybe a redirect to one of his associated acts be the best if not deleted. Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find any sources--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 14 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 Richmond Sound Design. – czar 15:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ShowMan

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

Not sure if this passes Wiki guidelines or not. When I look up show man I get the expected stuff about people in show business. Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if this does get AFD might want to just do a redirect of Showman to here given that most of the terms seem to be about this not the processing chip outside of the Amiga article. Wgolf (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Richmond Sound Design the company that made the software. Article is an unreferenced stub of unclear notability, but redirects to the parent company article are a common solution for software which is not independently notable.Dialectric (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 6 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) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherise Donovan

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress Quis separabit? 16:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient evidence of major roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 3 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 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, and an internet search only brings up database entries. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:48, 6 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) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Haze

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the standards of notability in media, big 3 for direct sales, host of bigname stream services for the album. Also, book noting it's notability[88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 6 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 and redirect to Basement Jaxx. – czar 19:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Span Thang

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - This one has so many references in paid libraries like rhapsody / napster - which means it's being sought out and added by major companies for people to stream. The standard bigger direct sales amazon etc have it too. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources. Also I'm pretty sure anyone can self-publish things to music providers like self-published books. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:37, 6 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, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Basement_Jaxx. No sources, not notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 7 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) 20:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Goodman

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

Well trying to find Malcolm Goodman is hard enough given how common of a name it is-looking up shapeshifter I'm getting bands with the names but not sure if any are him or not! Wgolf (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 03:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 21:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:28, 6 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) 20:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Longstaff and Sons

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

Non notable bus company Fails NCORP GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only reliable source I could find was from a local newspaper, however, I do not think its enough to prove the subject's notability. If someone can find sufficient evidence to prove me wrong, go ahead. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 02:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BenLinus1214 - If anyone can find anything I... like this AFD would withdraw ASAP as I'd rather keep an article than delete :) –Davey2010^Talk 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 I was only talking about the same article as Wikimandia below. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say is I'm not one these "The page has be deleted regardless of your sources and your !vote", Nevermind

. –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only article I found says it got new owners in 2011. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:25, 6 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Plunkett

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

fails WP:BIO. the only coverage I could find merely confirmed she was ambassador. being from a "major country" does not grant inherent notability either LibStar (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. References are limited to primary sources (Australian government). Notability requires citation in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. WWGB (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:HEY, this may have looked more difficult to source than it is because there are lots of Anne Plunketts in the world. But if you limit searches with words like Ireland: lots of sources on this one. I've added a few of the news sources that come up on search engines. There are many more in which she appears at diplomatic events, shows up on national memorial days in the places she has served, sits on panels discussing stuff, etc. Note particularly the more personal interview in The Catholic Weekly, at least, as personal as an ambassador gets. It's pretty anodyne stuff. Irish papers have run entire long news interviews about things like tourism to Australia from Ireland, and how wonderful Irish/Aussie friendship is. yawn. I put in one or two more interesting tidbits, and sourced specifics. Long article in BBC at time of her appointment to Ireland lists every post she ever held. I didn't copy it all into article. She has done her job right, if that means avoiding controversy, notoriety, even colorful speech. But ambassadorial appointments are notable, and I believe that the extensive coverage (going back to her days at lower ranks) shows that she is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"But ambassadorial appointments are notable" no they're not, several ambassador articles have been deleted. "she has done her job right" is irrelevant to her notability. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What I meant to say was that ambassadorial appointments are viewed as significant by the world at large, and therefore contribute to WP notability which is established by the interviews with her and coverage of her activities in the press, although only if you use powerful search engines like proquest, if you use google news - not so much. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per EM Gregory.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:17, 6 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 02:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EM Gregory makes some very good points. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article includes reliable sources that demonstrate Plunkett's notability. Clare. (talk) 06:24, 7 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) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings

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

I believe that the term "Tournament Performance Rating" and the methodology were invented by the original editor, thus violating wp:OR and/or wp:synth. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of world records in chess. The highest PR (Performance Rating) itself is worthy of inclusion in List of world records in chess, though even for that (Fabiano Caruana's performance last year), I'm having trouble finding a WP:RS. (The Sinquefield Cup article claims it is the highest PR in history and gives this Slate article as its source, but the Slate article in turn relies on an unreferenced tweet as its source). Since it's relatively difficult to establish the top PR of all time, compiling a "list of the top X PRs" is a minefield of WP:OR, and it's something that no WP:RS seems to be interested in. Since the WP:RS aren't interested, we shouldn't be either. Adpete (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The terminology can be fixed by removing the word "Tournament", because "Performance Rating" is a widely used chess term. But there are bigger WP:OR and lack-of-WP:RS issues, as I argue above. Adpete (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer deleting to redirecting. The title of the page is not intuitive anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless (a) the community agrees that taking measures along the lines suggested by Adpete here would be sufficient to save the article and (b) someone is actually willing to do that work. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clear example of OR. I don't know how the author arrived at a TPR for Fischer in 1963 even with his original method of computing TPRs for perfect scores, since FIDE ratings didn't exist yet. Cobblet (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings can be calculated retroactively. Also, the USCF was using ratings in 1963, but they weren't quite the same as FIDE's. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The OR problem could be solved as it is common practice for tournaments to tell players their performance rating (I do not know how the calculation is done but FIDE certainly has guidelines). However I do not quite see the claim to notability of such a list when none of those performances would get more than routine coverage in the chess press, and I suspect it is "best performances in chess ever" masquerading as a legit article. No objection to a redirect. Tigraan (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by Cobblet. Krakatoa (talk) 18:57, 6 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) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth neighbour

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

A non-notable academician that fails WP:PROF. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Inother (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good indication of notability. Agtx (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The achievements listed in the article (head of department and editor of a journal) fall short of the corresponding WP:PROF criteria (head of university or editor-in-chief of journal) and I also don't see enough in the citation record to justify a keep that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 8 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. Just spam. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Did Not Go To Prison Because He Is Black In America

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

Rambling and incoherent essay worthy of a WP:CSD but cannot find an appropriate category. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:39, 6 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) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmanium

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

Borderline WP:A11, appears to be a non-notable in-game faction. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, especially in a real-world context. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be made up, no evidence whatsoever on this being a real thing. WHOISFANDOM talk 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible hoax, if not then it fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. czar ⨹ 02:19, 7 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] "Make-Ahead Meals". google.com.

[2] Foods and Meal Preparation.

[3] Kitchen Afloat.

[4] Meal Preparation as a Family Therapy Intervention.

[5] A Guide to Meal Management and Table Services' 2004 Ed..

[6] Planning Related to Meal Preparation.

[7] Space Allowances for Meal Preparation and Service in the Southern Rural Home.

[8] "A Value-Added Approach to Household Production: The Special Case of Meal Preparation". jstor.

[9] "The Effect of Homemakers' Employment on Meal Preparation Time, Meals at Home, and Meals Away from Home". wiley.com.

[10] "Consumers' convenience orientation towards meal preparation: conceptualization and measurement". sciencedirect.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]