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

The result was keep. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas_M._Loeb[edit]

Nicholas_M._Loeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous AfD debate was non-consensual regarding inclusion following notability criteria, individual appears to be using wikipedia for self-propagandizing purposes, reopening with hope of reaching definitive conclusion Bdbdd (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Bdbdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Most definitively meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

confused - What exactly is the justification for speedy keep? The page is an orphan, barring a self-produced film, and the edit history suggests reasonable doubt w/r/t CoI Bdbdd (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) it meets GNG, and (b) it seems that this AFD was your first edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which guideline are you using as a line of argument? It seems irrelevant what my first edit is within wikipedia - WP:DNB? My rationale is, I think, clear. The article is non-notable. What is yours? Bdbdd (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD was "no consensus to delete", and the subject easily meets WP:GNG. Your sudden appearance to nom this article for AFD is highly unusual. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. Almost the entire article is about who he is related to, married to, or working with. Read the article and try and find info about him. There's not much, and none of it is notable.--Dmol (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. He is currently the subject of significant media coverage in response to his op-ed in the New York Times. Moonboy54 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Comment - For some unknown reason the nominators first edit was to AFD this article, On the basis of the last AFD as well as the delete !vote here I think it's unfair for me to close as Speedy Keep, Anyway IMHO the article looks fine & NOTINHERITED doesn't apply but meh Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - His political involvement and his involvement in the two films are enough in my mind to meet notability requirements.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also note, it seems strange to me that the very first edit the nominator made as a wikipedia user was an AFD, to me it seems like he created the account solely for the purpose of AFDing this page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no real notability other than irrelevant WP:INHERITED.--Rpclod (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the coverage he gets is more down to his ability to get famous fiancés, rather than anything he's actually doing himself. While the NYT thing is pretty bizarre, nobody would care if they weren't also Sofía Vergara's embryos. WP:NOTINHERITED very much applies here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:INHERITED. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to improvements and for the solid notability generated from continuous political activity and the "Embryo controversy". He's basically doing a very good job of keeping his name in the news. Pax 04:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG. There are a lot of articles about him, where he is the subject like see here. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this person clearly seems to meet WP:GNG, the embryo controversy on it's own is probably almost enough coverage, but combined with other coverage, it's clearly enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I would not have wasted my time writing an article on the lackluster career of this unaccomplished scion of privilege. I am voting keep because his failure to accomplish anything has been so thoroughly documented by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Loads of sources, here is one, a profile in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/fashion/Nicholas-Loeb-Sofia-Vergara-Fiance-Forget-All-the-Rest-Hes-Mr-Condiment-.html, passes wp:GNG GuzzyG (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory, and as a test case for Estate tax in the United States. See Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, Jr.. See also condom. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Specialty Vehicles[edit]

Allied Specialty Vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not Notable. Some recent news stories announce a partnership with another firm, but that's about it. Yes, it has revenue of more than $1 billion, but that alone does not make a company Notable these days. Coverage in outside, independent sources, not based on press releases, would do it, but we don't have them. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is highly subjective these days. The fact that it does have revenue of >$1 billion alone makes it notable, regardless of BeenAroundAWhile's opinion. He is a deletionist, who regularly tags articles for deletion. ASV is a highly respected company doing business in many countries, not just the USA. It is notable as a builder of highly recognizable brands and products... i.e. Spartan ambulances; some of the biggest names in RVs today: Monaco, Holiday Rambler; various buses, etc.. Scoty6776 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a quick Google News search for this article's subject and found a fair number of independent news sources reporting on its activities. This confers notability. Rcsprinter¹²³ (interview) @ 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google News search seems to confirm GNG, and their revenues are very impressive. The sourcing in the article could be better considering what's out there, but that's no reflection on its notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are enough sources for GNG like here and here Elgatodegato (talk) 03:46, 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. Davewild (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Biriyani[edit]

Haji Biriyani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The subject is a restaurant with only three local branches, and the references are largely food reviews and a YouTube video.  Helenabella (Talk)  05:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simply not notable at this time, a News search found results but nothing significant as well as Books. Precautionary searches at Highbeam and the freelibrary found nothing which I suspected. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - From what I can gather from the sources I found, it's pretty well known for specializing in a single dish, mutton biriyani, since 1939. I found enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG despite the obvious language barrier:

• feature in the Daily Sun
• feature in Dhaka Calling
• feature in the Daily Star
• Lonely Planet (I can't remember if this site is ugc)
• Prothom Alo
• Dhaka Tribune (link is to the cached version)
• little blurb in this travel guide mentions it's an "institution"
• Qatar Airways guide - brief mention doesn't really contribute to notability but "Old Dhaka renowned for its Haji Biriyani" just makes me more confident there are even more sources out there — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Helenabella and SwisterTwister: are these enough to reconsider? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there; I think that's a question for the administrators to make - they're best placed to make a call based on the evidence. Thanks for putting all the support in your comment - I'm sure they will find that useful.  Helenabella (Talk)  02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep Yes, the article has issues and is an orphan, but the Daily Star article seems enough to establish notability, stating that it's very well known, significant, etc. I'm not a foodie but I am guessing restaurants are not businesses that tend to get a lot press outside of reviews and profiles on their chefs. I also imagine there are sources in the local language (which I am guessing is Bengali). —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:GNG: The New York Times, Daily Sun, The Daily Star, Dhaka Calling. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Rod Entertainment[edit]

Sir Rod Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local company piggybacking on the fame of some of the people it books; see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. None of the reference have in-depth coverage of the subject, and many don't mention the subject at all. All references I could find were press releases, announcements, and directory listings, all failing both WP:INDEPTH and WP:INDEPENDENT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The references in the article are from the company (2), trivial and tangential (2), or dead (1). Searches of GNews, GBooks, Austin American-Statesman, HighBeam Research, and ProQuest came up dry. Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryphena Sparks[edit]

Tryphena Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: being Thomas Hardy's cousin does not create notability. Any salient info can be manually included in Hardy's article. Quis separabit? 11:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes the WP:GNG with significant coverage which addresses the topic directly in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. She was not only his cousin but a possible lover and also inspiration for one of his poems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see it. She was Hardy's cousin and inspired him and some of his characters may have been based on aspects of her life and personality, but that does not in and of itself create notability which is not hereditary. Quis separabit? 13:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's really irrelevant that she was Hardy's cousin, she has received enough coverage about her life for a stand alone article. The WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only factoid (not even confirmed) I could find of notability is this:

Shortly after his return, Hardy probably entered into a passionate affair with Tryphena Sparks (1851-1890), an attractive sixteen-year-old cousin. Tryphena was the youngest child of James and Maria Sparks, Hardy’s uncle and aunt, who lived in a thatched cottage in the nearby village of Puddletown. Some biographers believe that in the years 1868 to 1870, when she was a trainee teacher in the Puddletown school, she had a romance with Hardy, although there is too little evidence of their relationship. Nevertheless, Tryphena must have exerted some profound effect on Hardy’s life since she appears in disguise in many of his novels and poems. After her death Hardy wrote a poem pervaded with personal memories, entitled, "Thoughts of Phena”. Quis separabit? 13:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sparks has received in depth coverage in a number of books as referenced in the article and there are more than 12,000 Google hits for her. I don't see a problem with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-direct to Thomas Hardy.--Rpclod (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any literary commentary on Hardy seems to also give space to Tryphena Sparks, and to see her as someone more than a minor footnote to him. [1][2][3] There's a credible book, Providence and Mr. Hardy whose central thesis is the significance of this relationship. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Thomas_Hardy#Life (there is currently no mention of the subject in that article). Notability is not inherited (as the person immediately above is actually arguing the case it is), however the person is apparently the subject of some of his poems and thus of somewhat more importance than a mere (alleged) romantic interest, and so CHEAPLY recommend "giving space" in Hardy. Pax 02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apart from agreeing with the above keep arguments, I see that there are 56 hits in JSTOR.  —SMALLJIM  09:47, 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) 17:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Van Monster[edit]

Lake Van Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The topic is based solely on newspaper gossip and reads like a tourist advertisement for Van Province. Note: Tried to fix the article before realizing I was essentially fixing an advertisement. --92slim (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean you are not instead patrolling anything related to a certain ethnicity, interesting... --176.239.33.146 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's nonsense. I am wary of anonymous IP's though. --92slim (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are transparent, traceable, u are anonymous and have certain enmity that you are not able to hide. Learn to pretend like some other folks do. --176.239.33.146 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I already know it's an unimportant article, traceable IP and possible sockpuppet of User:Tiptoethrutheminefield. --92slim (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation link here, for the interested. --92slim (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient evidence of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources for you. --176.239.33.146 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above IP is a suspected sockpuppet. See here. --92slim (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have a feeling that this might have regional notability (e.g. see CNN story), but I can only read English. I have placed a notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. Milliyet also appears to be a reliable source, but is there enough to meet our notability standards? I don't know. - Location (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course this is a gossip. But even gossips may be notable. See Loch Ness Monster and Martians. While nobody believed its existence, this monster has always been in the news and there were many articles on it. It is notable. (And one thing more, Lake Van area is not a potential touristic area and it is hard to explain the monster as a touristic blah.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable outside of Turkey, unlike the Loch Ness Monster, and as such the deletion is warranted. The creature first appeared in a news article; come on. --92slim (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming it has local notability is not a valid reason for deletion. If a thing is notable, then it is notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point, it's the fact that it originated from a gossipy newspaper article. --92slim (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. The 4th and 5th sources lack significant coverage, merely a listing and a mention. The third source is mostly an interview with the author of the first source. Multiple coverage by the same person does not increase notability. Both news columns are essentially blogs with no actual research and are not reliable sources. --Steverci (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Steverci: Actually, articles cannot fail GNG, although topics can. As per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While it obviously does not exist as a living creature, it exists as news reports in a wide range of media, from print to TV documentaries, including those that are in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (so the GNG argument expressed above fails). And it exists in visual forms as statues and a strip-cartoon character. A more detailed examination of local media might throw up some sources for this. There was also a Japanese documentary made about it. The proposer's allegation that the article reads like a tourist advertisement is a reason to improve it, not to delete it. Maybe some source places its appearance into its social context (rapidly rising water levels of the lake, economic depression, societal stress due to a change from a rural to urban economy, conflicts between the PKK and Turkish forces, etc.). It is notable enough to have several statues depicting it: including a new bronze one in Van city which has some artistic merit (a rare thing for statues in Turkey), and an older and very bizarre concrete one in Gevash that looks like a dinosaur. Again, a more detailed examination of local media might lead to sources for these. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So The Daily Mail UK type gossip warrants articles for touristic purposes? Sorry, not buying that. --92slim (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990s appearance of the Lake monster is mentioned on p47 in Professor James Russell's "Van and the Persistence of Memory" in "Armenian Van/Vaspurakan", ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, published in 2000. There is enough content in Russell's article to expand the current scope of the Wikipedia article beyond the mere 1990s supposed monster into the long-standing folk belief of monsters dwelling in Lake Van. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content from this source into the article. There is still more to add. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What does Delete I already know it's an unimportant article mean, User:92slim? Have you not been to the teahouse yet? This is lack of respect to other people. --141.196.205.35 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Maybe you should stop sockpuppeting for a change. Investigation link here. --92slim (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It doesn't seem very important, a lake monster from the Turkish hinterlands (Van Province is literally at the back end of Turkey.) But it does have sources and more could probably be found.--Auric talk 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having souces doesn't satisfy notability, because the article is based on a newspaper gossip article from 1889. The video is unverified and the "Armenian vishap" story is not even remotely related. --92slim (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources DOES satisfy notability. "Notability" does not mean "something a Wikipedia editor thinks is important". So, 92slim, notability is unconnected to what you personally think is important or unimportant. The subject is mentioned in newspaper sources and it is mentioned in an academic source. The existence of that last source alone nullifies all arguments to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting non-argument. Read Wikipedia:Notability before writing nonsensical things. --92slim (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples: [4], [5], [6], [7] (short article), [8] (short article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 which show that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources over many years demonstrate its notability wrt WP:GNG.
  It's been covered outside Turkey by, a print Japanese magazine whose crew included adventure writer Hideyuki Takano [9] & [10], been subject of a USA TV "documentary" [11], has been written on by James Russell, the professor at Harvard [12] etc; the story of the 1889 "sighting" featured in British (Reynolds's Newspaper, London) & USA newspapers [13], [14], and it's featured briefly in multiple English-language books like [15] and [16].
  Within Turkey, it's been subject of a book [17] that Worldcat shows ([18], [19], [20]) is published by a university press - YYU, as well as in various press sources, and used as the subject of a theatrically released film [21] & [22]. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 13:41, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karinca Logistics[edit]

Karinca Logistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can find no sources that indicate subject meets WP:CORP NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately, this company has not received the sufficient coverage needed and my searches found none (News, highbeam and thefreelibrary) aside from one result at Books. There's the one possibility that sources in Turkish but there would've at least been one good source so it's unlikely this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non Notable organization. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP lacks sufficient coverage and does not appear to have an article in Turkish Wikipedia .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 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. Davewild (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Sahu[edit]

Aditi Sahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable researcher Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded it. The author removed the prod as well as the adjective budding. It had stated she is "a budding researcher." He/she is mistaken in believing that removing the word improves her notability. They have done nothing to cite her current wiki worthiness. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. PamD 10:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still a Ph.D. student and a junior research fellow with no indication of passing WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:03, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dockland Rivalry (AFL)[edit]

Dockland Rivalry (AFL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. There are 153 rivalries in the AFL; only a few of them (like the Carlton–Collingwood AFL rivalry) are notable. This article has no references and thus fails to demonstrate why this is one of the notable ones. At present, it is not even mentioned at Rivalries in the Australian Football League. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a search for "Dockland Rivalry" brings pages and pages of it mentioned on.... Wikipedia. No news, no books, just Wikipedia. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found on a Google search- lots of mentions of them playing each other, none mention any rivalry. For note, this rivalry isn't even listed on Rivalries in the Australian Football League. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Rivalry is non-existent, trophy is non-existent, though the article is probably well-intentioned (rather than a hoax). IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As nominator, I should point out that there is [www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-04-06/WWL-round-1-port this article], which says "Yep, we reckon this rivalry is building into something special and is arguably the best rivalry between two non-Vic clubs right now." But since it was on the Port Adelaide website, I didn't think it constituted independent coverage. StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Falls well, well short of the notability required for its own article. Given the lack of references, I'm also opposed to merging the content into Rivalries in the Australian Football League. Outright deletion. Aspirex (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most club pairs can find a reason for a rivalry, but this isn't high on our list of rivalries. The-Pope (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutual Fund Store[edit]

The Mutual Fund Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP notability requirements, art smells like WP:ADMASQ. Recent press coverage is peripheral quotes fron corp officers, quotes in articles are self-pub or routine acquisition news. Brianhe (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - definitely WP:ADMASQ. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and don't forget to delete Adam Bold, their article about the boss of the company. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A few paltry awards does not make this organization notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - Searches found results here (Books), here (News), here (highbeam), here (thefreelibrary, press releases) and a few of the same News links with browser. Unfortunately, the company has not received sufficiently notable coverage at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep this article can be cleaned up and be a valid stub article. I don't read it as advertising (I'm okay being in the minority on that one). However, if someone would nominate the Adam Bold article as User:Orangemike suggests, I'd be on board because that one reads more like a resume and Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Just be sure to go through it by the numbers.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nominated Adam Bold for deletion per User:Orangemike and User:Paulmcdonald. — Brianhe (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:TNT. It's spam, but formatted as if it isn't, and badly written at that. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:CORP; passing mentions, yes, but no significant coverage. Else, stubify. Esquivalience ^t 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Request please merge all three deletion discussions, for The Mutual Fund Store, The Mutual Fund Show and Adam Bold. Much easier to discuss all in one place. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:47, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions[edit]

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Ostensibly this subject has many sources in poor-quality academic journals. However, after combing through them, I found that sources which mention "Fibonacci hyperbolic functions" do so only in passing, and all seem to refer to papers from Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals, which is a rag. I can't find reliable sources which discuss them in any depth. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Hardly qualifies as an article as it does not explain their significance or give any context as to why they are important, it's just a list of formulae and image. But looking at the definitions they are just trivial transformations of the hyperbolic functions by the golden ratio, so entirely uninteresting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP- A search with google on "hyperbolicfibonacci functions " comes up 243,000 results

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=-AVOVaKTCY6OyASNqoD4CQ#q=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&spell=1

including CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition (Poor quality???,ignorant !!) https://books.google.ca/books?id=aFDWuZZslUUC&pg=PA1038&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

There is even a book

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KkLfBQgYfdgC&pg=PA124&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

Very interesting subject indeed. , notability is clearly none issue. --唐戈 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia missing article

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions is an article requested by

Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Maths10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by --

Published on Official Fibonacci Quarterly

Fibonacci Quarter--Official Fibonacci Society

• Delete per Blackburne. Trivial modification of standard hyperbolic functions. There is no useful encyclopedic content. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment--It is listed in CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics,you are bloody ignorant

https://books.google.ca/books?id=aFDWuZZslUUC&pg=PA1038&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

and Mathworld,

Wikipedia:Coverage of Mathworld topics#F Can you explain why content listed in Mathworld should not appear on wikipedia

• Commment Provide valid reason an article requested by Wikipedia Mising Science topis should be deleted and remain missing ???????????

Wikipedia missing science topics--唐戈 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment-唐戈-sorry you can't vote more then once. Wgolf (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Regardless of the possible notability of this topic, the content of the article is a pointless explosion of formulas and plots that adds no value to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at one of the sources I can see where these are from. The similarity of Binet's formula to the hyperbolic functions means this straightforward transformation turns the latter into the former, and lets you e.g. generate Fibonacci numbers from them, and so plug them into formulae/properties of those numbers. But that’s the sum total what‘s interesting about them, it could easily be covered by a sentence in one or both of these articles, and none of it appears in this article. So yes, WP:TNT.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is kept, it desperately needs lots of TeX copy-editing. Stuff like this:

${\displaystyle \cdots +(2/5)*{\sqrt {())5)*(5+{\sqrt {())5))*ln(1/2+(1/2)*{\sqrt {())5))^{2}*x^{2}/({\sqrt {())5)+1)+\cdots }$

that ought to look like this:

${\displaystyle \cdots +{\frac {2}{5)){\sqrt {5))(5+{\sqrt {5)))\ln \left({\frac {1}{2))+{\frac {1}{2)){\sqrt {5))\right)^{2}\cdot {\frac {x^{2))((\sqrt {5))+1))+\cdots }$

Note ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {())5)}$ versus ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {5))}$, ${\displaystyle ln}$ versus </math>\ln</math> the vulgar asterisk, and other things. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after your cleanups that formula needs help. Notice, for instance, that the subexpression

${\displaystyle {\frac {2}{5)){\sqrt {5))(5+{\sqrt {5)))}$

can be simplified to

${\displaystyle 2+2{\sqrt {5)).}$

To me this sort of problem is illustrative of why we shouldn't just blindly paste computer-program output into Wikipedia without understanding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is also a factor of ${\displaystyle 1+{\sqrt {5))}$ in the denominator of that term. So the subexpression

${\displaystyle {\frac {2}{5)){\sqrt {5))(5+{\sqrt {5)))\cdot {\frac {1}{1+{\sqrt {5))))}$

can be simplified to

${\displaystyle 2}$.

--Sammy1339 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even worse. This is a fine example of Mathematics Made Difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essentially original research. While it is certainly useful and interesting, I don't see an encyclopedia article on the topic. 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Powers (baseball)[edit]

Steve Powers (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article states in the very first sentence that Powers 'is most notable for winning the 1976 College World Series Most Outstanding Player award'. This accomplishment does not satisfy BASE/N. Even if it did, Powers fails GNG. I would recommend a redirect to 'College World Series Most Outstanding Player', as per the precedent established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. L. Smith. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not gonna take a position on this guy just yet... but he did play in the 1975 Pan American Games which might satisfy BASE/N as it has in past afd discussions been considered as sufficient. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) After thinking it over, i'm gonna vote for the redirect. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand, but I'm not crazy about that reasoning. He doesn't magically go from non-notable to notable just by playing in a marginally significant tournament. The standard is GNG, even if BASE/N is often given higher prominence by inclusionists (this is a general comment and not personally addressed to Spanneraol). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per precedence. Never reached MLB and the article does not have any references to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• At least redirect, and I could see keeping per Spanneraol. It's not that he magically becomes notable for playing in a particular tournament, it's that he may well have had enough coverage to meet GNG regardless, and any Pan-Am coverage may well expand the amount of coverage he received. As a pre-internet player, any coverage about him is not as easy to find, but that is why we have these presumptions of notability. In any case, I am not sure why this is at AfD. A redirect could be achieved by simply editing the article to make it a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It's at AfD because 1) I'm not really comfortable with unilaterally redirecting without getting any input and 2) I think Alex would probably just revert me anyway. I get your point about presumptions of notability, but I really don't think the Pan-Am games rise to that level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His body of work makes him notable. Alex (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, coverage by a significant amount of third-party sources makes one notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So 75% of pre-1950 major leaguers aren't notable then, either. Alex (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) We aren't talking about someone who lived pre-1950. 2) They did have newspapers back then. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Seems reasonable for someone of dubious notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 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) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lee (British speaker and author)[edit]

Mark Lee (British speaker and author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO. This source is the best there is for establishing notability, but I don't think that's sufficient. The others are mostly primary sources. Searches for '"mark lee" accountant' in gnews and gbooks did not find any other sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources and couldn't find any earlier- so Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG, seems like an advertisement. Elgatodegato (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete press release, and not notable enough to be worth tryijg to rewrite
• Delete Looks like promotion,by someone whose main claim to fame is promotion. No neutral sources that I can find, mostly PR sites. LaMona (talk) 22:07, 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.  Sandstein  11:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music riots[edit]

List of classical music riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was prodded, and the prod rationale makes some valid points, but given the topic's potential to be a valid topic, this would benefit from the greater scrutiny of an AfD. The prod rationale was as follows: "This article has been around for a decade without any sufficient citations. When they are provided, they don't support the page's own definition of what a riot is. Given the persistent lack of evidence to support the notion that these pieces caused a riot, the page should be deleted and replaced with a category." Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I wrote on the nominator's talk page: If nothing else, then solely the most striking cases of music impacting on the world of art, this particular overlap between the domain of music and society, seems sufficient in itself to justify that the article should be retained. If there is music psychology, how would anyone question the most tangible instances of music sociology? Irrespective of the condition of the article (and a dozen examples are far from few), the topic itself lends significance to the article. (In the worst case, the specific incidents may be divided by whether they were riots as such or other obvious expressions of outrage.) In short, my vote is unequivocally keep. Adam78 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: There are 12 riots listed, 3/4ths of which have citations. Of the ones I could check out, all used the word "riot" without qualification or further details, but that should be enough for Wikipedia, they're proper secondary sources, right? The riot at the premiere of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is particularly well known, and I see the first listed, while not fitting the usual definition, emptied into a riot that sparked the independence of Belgium, which is no small thing; you might say it's more evidence of the Power of Music, echoing the general point Adam78 makes above. Hga (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete:There only 8 citations on the page, 3 of which are direct links to content where the word "riot" appears. Still, that is not enough for Wikipedia. There must be a definition of what a classical music riot actually is, and according to this page, it is "violent, disorderly behavior". Of the 3 available sources, none of them describe behavior that fits this definition. Most of the entries on this list were not actual riots. They were variations on the well-known practice of claquers. It is extremely misleading to label them as riots. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well-known phenomenon which passes WP:LISTN. For example, see The Social and Applied Psychology of Music. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That citation just demonstrates the reason why this article should be scrapped. The passage you linked to misstates basic historical facts and repeats myths which are untrue. That kind of bad history has no place on Wikipedia.Trumpetrep (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "riot" has many shades of meaning (the OED lists 12, covering various types of extreme emotion and protest). It seems clear that it is commonly used for occasions of this sort, regardless of the details. For another example of this usage, see 10 of the best: Musical riots. The author of that piece, Tom Service, has a doctorate and now lectures and writes on music. If you dispute his scholarship, then you must provide other sources as we can't delete such material purely on your say-so. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Service is a fine critic who wrote a dissertation about John Zorn, but did you actually read that article? He actually cites viewer's complaints to the BBC for broadcasting Birtwistle's Panic as a riot. Surely you see how ridiculous that is. There are no shortage of people who are happy to make money off of exaggerating what actually happened (and why) at these so-called riots, but that, however, is a separate issue from the one at hand.

Please take a moment to click through to the riot article that is used on the page to define a "Classical Music Riot". You will see how inappropriate the word "riot" is for the behaviors on display in these instances. This page is an indiscriminate collection of information, which is grounds for deletion on Wikipedia. Most of the listed "riots" do not meet the page's own definition of what a riot is. If you look at the Talk page, you will see the history of my suggestions on how to improve this page, which include redefining the word "riot" to one not found in English or another label that is in fact more accurate.

People seem emotionally attached to this page, and I have no objection to fixing it. But for three years no one has taken an interest in improving this page. If proof of a riot is to come in sources like a wildly overblown Guardian blog post or rote repetitions of myths, that is insufficient. So, it seems reasonable to just delete it altogether. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Two editors worked upon the article last year; they just didn't get much done. I turn up now and start producing substantial sources, which seem to be low-hanging fruit. Here's another one which has an extensive account of the matter. It uses the word riot too and links the topic to violent melees which occurred at exhibitions of modernist art: Movement, Manifesto, Melee. The ease with which one can turn up such sources demonstrates that this is just another case where more work is needed. This is quite normal for our topics because only about 1% have been recognised as good quality. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, does not have a deadline and so it is explicit policy that articles may be imperfect. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not misstate facts. There was no concerted effort by any editor other than myself last year to improve this article, as the edit history clearly shows. Hyacinth made three helpful edits one day, but that's it.

Moreover, let's not pretend like the sources you've provided aren't low-hanging fruit for a reason. They are repeating pernicious myths and grossly exaggerating historical events. Music scholarship has grown past the days when this kind of hyperbole was acceptable.

Lastly, you have provided your first good link: to Mr. Cohen's book. Perhaps unwittingly, you provided the very kind of language that should replace the word "riot" in this article, if it is to be kept. On page 147, he lists a handful of pieces that received a "hostile audience response". That is language that accurately describes what is being inaccurately called a "riot" in most of these instances. If this page were to remain on Wikipedia, it should be renamed to accurately reflect the fact that the listed compositions did not always provoke a riot, but rather, particularly notable disapproval from its audience. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We shouldn't get too hung up on the word riot as, while it seems to be the most common usage, there are other fighting words used such as scandal, storm, battle, melee, disruption, tumult, upheaval, demonstration, fisticuffs, donnybrook, &c. "Hostile audience response" isn't good enough because a key point about many of these events is that there were two sides acting up - the pro and the contra. For example, "...so determined were both sides to fight each other that the music quickly became lost in the battle...". The accounts remind me of what we see here on Wikipedia - disputes between inclusionists and deletionists, such as this very discussion. :) Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that quote from Cohen, you have (perhaps inadvertently) hit precisely on the reason why "riot" is such a misguided, inaccurate, and unhelpful term in this situation. The fact that these disturbances were often preordained, as either ongoing skirmishes in petty style wars (Nijinsky) or outright publicity stunts (Antheil), is indicative of the fact that nothing resembling a "riot" was in fact taking place. While I grant that "List of Classical Music With Hostile Audience Responses" is not as catchy as the current title, it's far more accurate and welcoming of the type of entries that people seem to want to include.

The fact of the matter is, if you want to create a list of every time a classical piece was met by booing or worse, you'd have something akin to the Yellow Pages on your hands. I have no problem with such a list. I could see real value in an article that marks instances of open hostility to a piece of music. Again, I would beseech you another time to look at the history of this page, the edit history of the article, and its talk page to see that I have no problem with keeping this page, as long as it is accurate.

The problem is that the page clearly defines what a riot is, and then proceeds to name things that do not meet this definition. It's hard to take an editor seriously when he says that we shouldn't get hung up on the operative word in the title of an article. What else is the purpose of an encyclopedia? If words and their meanings are not to be taken seriously, why bother?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article lists a number of well known and often discussed incidents and provides sources. It may be imperfect, but that's no reason to delete it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfection is not why it's being nominated for deletion. It's being nominated because it is an indiscriminate collection of information. The page's definition of a riot is not met by most of the pieces listed on this page. That's why either a different term (and title) should be used, or the page should be deleted.

The fact that these instances are "well known" and "often discussed" is all the more reason to discuss them with accurate language. Take a look at the Talk page, when you have a minute, and click through to the "riot" article that is used to define the term on this page. Clearly, you can see that this page's flaws go beyond imperfection and into a category that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia without a wholesale revision of the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Fine, then lets improve the list to include accurate language, but this is a much-discussed, highly notable topic in classical music. "Classical music riots" re-directs to this page, btw. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 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 Withdrawn by nominator The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Crash of military aircraft with fewer than ten deaths, including some non-notable foreign nationals, fails the standard WP:AIRCRASH criteria for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Accidents of military aircraft are generally not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetstreamer: The aircraft was being used to transport civilians and not in a military capacity. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AIRCRASH: "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable." it doesn't make any difference 331dot, it was a military aircraft flying in a militaristic environment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources confirm that the crash killed two foreign ambassadors to Pakistan. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources", which is the case. Brandmeister^talk 20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Are they covered widely in diverse sources? Will anyone recall this crash in a week's time? Will anything be changed as a result of this crash? This is an encyclopedia, and this article squarely fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  They do: Time, Reuters, CNN, NY Times, Daily Mail, Bangkok Post, RIA Novosti, etc. I also generally frown upon military accidents, but this is an exception in my opinion. Just like 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash, for instance where Ron Brown and the likes died. An average person somewhere in the US or elsewhere may forget this in a week's time, but encyclopedia is not an average person. Brandmeister^talk 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You failed to properly answer the second and third questions. Ron Brown has his own article and is thus notable per Wikipedia guidelines. No-one onboard this minor military crash has an article. WP:AIRCRASH, widely agreed, therefore suggests this shouldn't be a standalone article. Hey, it doesn't mean it can't be included somewhere else, like in a list of military accidents in Pakistan or something.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have articles because non-English-speakers are disproportionately under-represented here, not because they lack notability in the sense of the GNG. It is not self-evident (because it is not true) that anyone who is notable must already have their own article. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per AIRCRASH: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The incident is widely reported and appears significant on the basis of current reporting. We can delete the article later if that proves not to be the case. This nomination appears to be in bad faith - the nominator is !voting against this at ITN/C on the basis that the possibly-notable victims (ambassadors from one non-English speaking country to another) cannot be notable because they do not have articles. This is an absurd position, and calling for further deletions in the same connection will merely entrench our systemic bias. I'd call on any passing admin to consider closing this nomination speedily to minimise the disruption to the ITN process, but I don't insist. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I completely refute the bad faith accusation. It fails to meet the criteria established in WP:AIRCRASH. I am not circumventing anything, I am merely running the process correctly, which means to say that an article shouldn't be given a period of grace, just to get onto the main page, just to be deleted immediately afterwards because it clearly fails to meet long-established norms required for a standalone article. If you don't like it, write the articles about the individuals killed in the crash. Otherwise, change WP:AIRCRASH. In any case, take you accusations of bad faith and keep them in a special place where only you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note your objection. I would have been more convinced if you had not tried to dismiss my disagreement with you earlier as the result of my having a bad day. I still say you're wrong. And I believe you reject the accusation. You aren't doing much of a job of refuting it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about how convinced you are. We use guidelines etc to help. WP:AIRCRASH says "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," is needed to keep an article. If you want to change AIRCRASH, please do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, no prejudice to another nomination after the crash's investigation. It is premature to conclude that this will not result in long-lasting coverage or significant changes in aircraft procedures/processes. The individuals here are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages even before this event, and the aircraft was acting as a civilian transport during this incident, so the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS are met here. I wouldn't go so far as to say this nomination was made in bad faith - there are some legitimate questions here. Although it is disrupting to an otherwise postable event. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're asserting the individuals in question should have their own articles, can you demonstrate why? Can you create these articles? If you do, and they meet WP:N, no problems and this AFD goes away. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of ambassadors was discussed here and summarized into this essay.

In a nutshell, any ambassador or head of mission is considered to satisfy notability guidelines if there is a corresponding relations article between the two countries. That is true for all four ambassadors involved: Norway–Pakistan relations, Pakistan–Philippines relations, Pakistan–Poland relations, and Netherlands–Pakistan relations. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, and per the essay you're quoting: surely you can write an article about at least one of the dead ambassadors? We have a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In another nutshell, the wording of the Wikipedia guideline (AIRCRASH): "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. That an article does not yet exist does not indicate an individual is not notable: that must be determined by the presence of reliable sources. As an aside, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and not a guideline, but I agree that its criteria are reasonable. Mamyles (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A crash involving notable foreign government officials is notable. Many ambassadors have articles which suggests that being an ambassador merits an article, even if the ones in this crash don't yet have them(likely due to systemic bias issues, as AlexT suggests). 331dot (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:AIRCRASH: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," please show me the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I will simply note that AIRCRASH states "This page provides advice on article content. It contains the opinions of one or more WikiProjects regarding the content of articles within their area of interest. This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline". 331dot (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. And all I've asked, many times, is for one you supporters to supply evidence that one of the individuals onboard is actually notable per WP:N. They were flying somewhere to open a ski-lift. We're really pushing the boundaries here if we think a handful of minor-minor foreigners, none of whom have Wikipedia articles per WP:N, in a minor crash in a military aircraft in Pakistan is worth an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Leif Holger Larsen has an article now, which seems to be what TRM has asked for. So does that mean this AFD can "go away" as he has stated in this discussion? Everymorning talk 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly does. I'm grateful to you for doing it, unlike the bad faith commentators above, all of whom could take a leaf out of your book and try to improve the encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but I didn't create the article, I just stumbled upon it when Googling Larsen. Everymorning talk 21:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find 331dot's argument compelling: that being an ambassador merits an article, even if the ones in this crash don't yet have them (emphasis added). This would meet the WP:AIRCRASH criterion - note that the wording "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" does not require that the individual in question actually has their own biography page right now, merely that they should be of sufficient notability to merit one. The determining factor here is whether they are notable enough for a biography, not that a biography should exist. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That is, of course, nonsense. That an ambassador merits an article per se is nonsense. But thankfully it's a moot point as one of the Norwegians is now up in lights so job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn now a "notable" individual killed in the crash has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:AIRCRASH doesn't apply to stand-alone crash articles like this one. As it says:

This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles.

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

"Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.

- Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. No wonder I hate AIRCRASH so much. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 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 Dream Girl (TV series)#Production_and_casting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Dutta[edit]

Nikita Dutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actress who seems to fall under much too soon. Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article was created as a redirect and looks like someone else made it into a article. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dream Girl (TV series)#Production_and_casting. Chander 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as it seems she hasn't had that many roles and News didn't find anything promising but most seem to mention Dream Girl. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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. This is a combination of a snow delete and a spedy deletion under criterion G5. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tharam Marindhi[edit]

Tharam Marindhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film with no notability to be found-as a note was previously deleted as Taram Marindi. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article has been tagged as G5 so it'll probably be deleted soon but I'll comment anyway. Some searches found results here and here but nothing looks exactly promising. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 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 List of minor planets: 6001–7000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6523 Clube[edit]

6523 Clube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to List of minor planets: 6001–7000. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: Insufficient sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 18:37, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetLunchin[edit]

GetLunchin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Website with questionable notability that comes across as a ad also. Wgolf (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing like an advt, just info - don’t delete - The references are all different and they have been mentioned multiple times by very well known and respected publications. I have also seen their Twitter handle, they have a lot of celebrities endorsing them for the quality of their food as well as celebrities such as Manoj Bajpai Kunal Vijaykar Sanjay Gupta (director) Karan Patel following them. BuzzingaWiki talk BuzzingaWiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning more towards delete for now - At first look, the article appears to have several refs but my searches found a lot of these same ones so it seems the website hasn't received that much attention and there's not much information so it may be too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Only finding one source that provides significant coverage. Does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – highly promotional without notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Sources don't establish subject as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:36, 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 speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make-Up (2002 film)[edit]

Make-Up (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another film I remember being deleted before from here, anyway questionable notability and the refs seem to be only "watch this film" Wgolf (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches found nothing (aside from a Wiki mirror) to suggest this film is notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 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.  Sandstein  12:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hakro[edit]

Hakro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I could not establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Google pulled up a lot of other things the term can refer to, but perhaps this is a linguistic issue. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Unreferenced since 2009; nonverifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:41, 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 speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gammathu Goodacharulu[edit]

Gammathu Goodacharulu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film with questionable notability with only refs to IMDB and youtube. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'redirect to film director. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:54, 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 per WP:CSD#G5 as the creator was a block-evading sockpuppet. I have recreated this as a redirect as suggested below. Hut 8.5 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iddharu Iddhare[edit]

Iddharu Iddhare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film with questionable notability with basically no reliable sources Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to film director. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as pointed above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:55, 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 speedily deleted by User:JamesBWatson per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayam[edit]

Vijayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A film with little notability mentioned (as a note this was a page deleted before by a sock puppet.) Wgolf (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it does say it is a Telugu language film, but does not include the Telugu name. I point this out because there could be plenty of sources in Telugu that don't come up when searching for "Vijayam." Perhaps someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force could provide assistance? Elgatodegato (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to film director. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 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 List of media adaptations of Journey to the West. Left history below in the expectation that one its no longer TOOSOON we will be needing it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the West (2016 film)[edit]

Journey to the West (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

delete per WP:NFF, principle photography hasn't begun, the director hasn't even been named. Timmyshin (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to List of media adaptations of Journey to the West. Per WP:NFF it is too early to support its own article now. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep; reasonable expectation of notability. Also WP:GNG (coverage) OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy (changed the vote after reviewing the WP:NFF guideline.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: principal photography hasn't begun, so it fails WP:NFF. Okay with moving to draft/user space. ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy until principle photography begins. MarnetteD|Talk 23:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon Day[edit]

Parthenon Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails GNG. With all those links in the "Reference" section, it looks impressively sourced at first, but when you click on the links to the sources, it soon becomes apparent that only one of them actually mentions this "Parthenon Day", and it's the one that belongs to an organization promoting it. The rest of them are sources about the Parthenon or the larger dispute between the UK and Greece over the Elgin Marbles that don't mention this event. Google searches also confirm, as searches for "Parthenon Day" bring up things like these [23] [24] from regular Google, this [25] from Google News, and these [26] [27] [28] from Google Books. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nn. When deleted the description of the marbles, the article basically becomes empty. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that the "day" is much of a thing, and the information consists of a single web page. I don't doubt that there was activity that day, but it doesn't seem to have gained great attention. The plight of the Elgin Marbles and the request for their return is well known and the article Elgin Marbles covers that sufficiently. A link to this "day" could be added there, but probably is not really needed. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This particular term appears to be the invention of one author and was not widely used. However, it is probably be wise to mention the 1997 official request in the marbles' article, which is not done at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 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 Association of European Operational Research Societies. Davewild (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Operations Research Society[edit]

Austrian Operations Research Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tiny society, no evidence at all that this may even approach notability. No independent sources (only source is homepage). Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we avoid to have this discussion over and over again each time a new national Operations Research Society is added? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian Operational Research Society and in particular the last comment (Keep all). Bfortz (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That AfD was closed "no consensus" with very little participation. This society has (according to their own website) 115 members. There are no sources. Pray tell me why this is notable and why we should have articles on all these tiny societies. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources. Even if it did, the subject is unlikely to meet WP:ORG notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are references. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to parent Association of European Operational Research Societies. The organization does decent job it its area. 115 members is not a drawback. We have punk bands of 3 and less with articles. It is notable because it coordinates research and does other things in a major field of science on a national scale. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can certainly live with a redirect. As for the other comments, I gingerly suggest that being a member of a band is not the same thing as being a member of a society, the difference seems obvious to me. And I don't really know of any scientific society that "coordinates research". All that such societies do is organize meetings where members exchange ideas and report on their work and, sometimes, publish a newsletter of scientific journal. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think meetings and idea exchange are for? If you think they are for idle curiosity, while I think they are for coordinating the research. "Coordinating" does not necessarily mean rigid centralized planning. Also, it seems that you did not read the article you voted for deletion: "working groups have been formed" is definitely coordination in my limited understanding of English language. So is publishing overviews, roadmaps etc. BTW, you surely noticed that I am not voting for a separate page; I am voting against deletion. I do agree that all these activities are routine, and I don't see WP:GNG satisfied. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Society meetings are absolutely not for "coordinating research". You go to a scientific meeting to keep informed about the state of your field and what is currently being done. "Working groups" is just more of the same, but on a more focussed subject. That's not "coordinating", unless you really have a definition of coordinating that is much larger than the rest of humanity has... Believe me, I have participated in many scientific meetings (including of "working groups") and quite a few meetings designed to coordinate research (in the sense of hammering out collaborative projects or deciding which projects should get funded or not) and those are very different kinds of meetings. --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I admit that "research coordination" may have a technical meaning I am not aware of. Still, the AORS does carry out some useful activities. Or not? Ca it be I am conflating the terms 'coordination' and 'collaboration'? "Working groups": is this collaboration ? In general, you start making me wonder whether the scientific societies are of any use at all? Say, what does ACM do that AORS does not (even in smaller scale)? What are the criteria to look for when judging scientific societies besides WP:GNG? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The criteria are WP:ORG and WP:GNG. "Useful" or "worthy" has nothing to do with it. I haven't looked, but I'd be amazed if there are no sources on the Association for Computing Machinery. Yes, in principle the types of activities that the two societies engage in are similar, but as I said, that has nothing to do with notability. And working groups in such societies are not even "collaboration". Collaboration is if you and I decide to jointly carry out a research project, or if you provide help with some aspects of my project or the other way around. Scientific societies (and working groups) really are all about information exchange. Some of the largest societies may also have the means and cloud to lobby government agencies and some even do, but if they do, that would with certainty result in coverage in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Exactly for the reasons given by David Eppstein in the previous debate, EURO and IFORS are umbrella for independent national societies in an important academic field, namely:

"Each of these is recognized by the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (the umbrella international organization for this discipline) as the major national society for their country — see the IFORS list of national societies [29] (and in the case of Italy, see the Wikipedia article for the mismatch between what IFORS calls the society and what we call it — it's the same society under a different name). I don't want to suggest that any academic society that calls itself a national-level society is notable, but I think the ones in major disciplines (e.g. the topic of entire university departments) that are internationally recognized by their peer societies as the main society for their country are notable. As for the invocations of WP:BRANCH above: I think it would be a mistake to merge these into the "parent" organization. They are not branches of IFORS (the way AEORS seems to be). They are independent societies that happen to hold memberships in IFORS, in the same way that people and corporations might happen to hold memberships in these societies. In particular, I think that recognition by IFORS should count towards notability as being independent of the subject, because these societies are separate entities rather than being part of IFORS. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Bfortz (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point, the AEORS article contains a list of its members (kind of going against the spirit -or even the letter- of WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Expanding that list with a one-line description of each society's particulars would augment the AEORS article. Just look at the different articles on the national societies, they are basically identical, repeating the same information, just changing a date here and there and the organization's name. Much better to condense that into a list in the AEORS article. Or, if you invoke BRANCH, move all of it to the IFORS article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Italy has about 60 million inhabitants, and the Italian Operations Research Society has 200 members, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Operations_Research_Society. Austria has about 9 million inhabitants, so 110 members is not a tiny value. Additionally observe that the Italian academics in Operations Research are (Source: Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, http://hubmiur.pubblica.istruzione.it/web/universita/home ): 44 full professors, 43 associate professors and 50 assistant professors (137 in total), which shows the representativeness of the Italian society. (Silvano Martello, full professor of Operations Research, University of Bologna, http://www.or.deis.unibo.it/staff_pages/martello/cvitae.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.82.103 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So do you feel that a society from Liechtenstein only needs two members to be notable? And it would be really weird if a learned society would not have members that are professors and such. Even if each and every one of those professors would be notable, that still would not make the society notable. All you are showing is that the Italian society is as lacking in notability as the Austrian one. (And please note that notability in the WP sense has nothing to do with "worthy", "deserving", or "important"). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to AEOR. I still believe that national-level organizations for major academic disciplines such as this one should be notable, but in this case I can't find any sources giving enough nontrivial detail about the organization and its history to support an article. It doesn't appear to be in the Wiley Encyclopedia (as many of its sister organizations are) and even its own web site doesn't have much. We can source its membership in IFORS to the IFORS web site, but that's only a directory listing and doesn't tell us much about how the society operates. With no sources, what can we use to build a properly-sourced article? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some recognition but it is not notable enough. Support redirect to Association of European Operational Research Societies. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:07, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1774 Kulikov[edit]

1774 Kulikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Mentioned in one paper as a potential flyby target [30] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1334 Lundmarka[edit]

1334 Lundmarka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect. The subject of an old orbital study [31] and part of a newer group lightcurve study [32] but there's still not much of interest to say about this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1938 Lausanna[edit]

1938 Lausanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. One study specifically about this object [33] but I don't think it's quite enough. Google scholar also gave me a hit for a paper with a Swedish title, but it turned out to be a spurious copy of the same study. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1498 Lahti[edit]

1498 Lahti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Part of one group study [34]; it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Larink[edit]

1895 Larink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with above. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1776 Kuiper[edit]

1776 Kuiper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: no suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1697 Koskenniemi[edit]

1697 Koskenniemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources found to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1929 Kollaa[edit]

1929 Kollaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Contains non-trivial info. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google scholar finds many hits discussing the connection between this object and Vesta, including one in Science, and a collection of three related papers specifically about this object (one already cited in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As noted by Staszek and David. -- Kheider (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Multiple sources of scholarly information available. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination, per all above. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nate Kemner Band[edit]

The Nate Kemner Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable band. Prod contested by article creator, who is apparently the band's founder and namesake. Previously speedied as Nate Kemner Band. Creator has created and recreated a long list of articles on bands with which he has been involved--all of them were speedily deleted, a couple (here and here) have been salted, and he himself at one point earned himself a 24-hour block for his efforts. This one probably merits an A7-speedy as well. --Finngall ^talk 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 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 Speedy delete - G3, blatant hoax. GiantSnowman 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nevin (swimmer)[edit]

Paul Nevin (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was created by a newly registered user "Pnevin"; it appears to be a complete fabrication, and was newly created on April 27, 2015. The article asserts that a Canadian swimmer by that name competed in the 1976 Summer Olympics; Sports-Reference.com lists no Olympic athlete by that name in 1976, or any other year. The article also asserts that Nevin won gold medals at the 1978 Commonwealth Games; GBRathletics.com lists no Commonwealth Games medalist by that name in 1978 or any other year. The article includes a category for California Golden Bears men's swimmers, but the most recent media guide for UC Berkeley Cal Bears men's swimming lists no letterman by that or any similar name. This article appears to be an outright fraud or hoax. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British International School Lagos[edit]

British International School Lagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. Online search brings up only self published sources.. I have not been able to get a single reliable source discussing this topic in a significant detail. Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I have NO Idea why a 3 line article which makes NO assertion of notability whatsoever is exempt from WP:A7. The only references are to the organizations site, including it's "contact us" page. I made an good faith early close of this which was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools saying that notability was presumed? I overturned my early close to let it runs its course, but this is ridiculous. Can anybody point me to the actual discussion where schools were exempted from WP:A7? All I can find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been expanded, but still fails to assert notability. "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed." is not encyclopedic content. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep After getting some TLC, the article looks better. I still question the encyclopedic value of it, but it is now more than a 3 line article about a school that could not find a German teacher. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Articles_on_Schools_exempt_from_WP:A7 which is challenging the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Common outcome that presumes notability for all senior high schools/sixth form schools and schools with senior high/sixth form components. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the status quo does not change, Keep due to the common outcome of keeping senior high schools/schools with senior high components. Also keep because even though the content of the book Womanismus als Methode der Interpretation deutscher literarischer Texte (a quotation of an English-language report embedded within a German book, of a person who interviewed the principal of the British School) is referring to the German classes, the fact that the book and the reporter it quotes gave attention to the school adds to its notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an appropriate rationale at WP:AFD, it ensures that the status-quo is kept, regardless of how it was achieved. No where is there a consensus that "notability is presumed", and "we have not deleted them in the past" does not prove this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in theory each article should be judged in its own merits, but precedent is a reality. WP:OTHERSTUFF explicitly says that one can compare this article to other articles in certain cases to say "this article did it, so this should too" - for example, if a similar article survived an AFD. If "commonoutcomes" wasn't an appropriate rationale for AFD there would be no point to its existence. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Secondary school, and that is enough. (The article at present is actually fairly good, as they go.) Though worded merely as coon outcomes, this is actually one of the most stable guidelines we have--there have been no exceptions in at least the last 5 years, except for schools with a dubious physical existence--very few guidelines can claim as much practical consensus. The reason for not deleting articles on secondary schools is that most of them -- and this an example, can be shown to be notable with sufficient work. It's also part of a very important compromise. The other half of the compromise was not normally including articles on primary and intermediate schools. When I joined in 2006, we did not have this compromise, and the result was that dozens of articles on both appeared at AfD every day. The result depended on the relative energy of the two sides to the discussion. was possible to delete any non-famous school by saying the references were trivial; it was possible to keep almost any school by looking hard enough and saying the references were not trivial. As i showed at the time, the overall results was not better than random. This was a ridiculous misuse of the time of many good editors on both sides of the discussion. Since then, they've been out of the list of AfDs, and we are no worse off overall. I point out that a further reason for keeping these is that they are good articles for beginners, and in particular good projects for secondary school classes--we need to attract new people , especially at the age group, for they may stay with us for many years. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - according to WP:NSCHOOL, secondary schools are NOT inherently notability. Notability must be proven according to WP:ORG or WP:GNG and I don't see any such proof.--Rpclod (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Satisfies GNG: sources are cited . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Secondary schools are not automatically notable, but there is a strong working consensus that they are presumed to be notable. As I said in another venue, two hours spent in a library in Lagos would almost certainly lead to the discovery of many new sources for this article. But what we have now is sufficient. As DGG notes, we have here an informal "grand compromise" regarding redirecting most articles about elementary schools (except those of historic or architectural significance) and keeping almost all articles about secondary schools, except cases of fraud and home schools. And it works. Trying to upset the apple cart is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, informal grand compromises that contradict the actual written guidelines? If the apples are rotten, the cart should be upset.--Rpclod (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:N guideline is very careful to say that the GNG is not applicable in all cases. Consensus is what makes a WP guideline, not formal status. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:- per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I found this one, published by the British High Commission Abuja. I also found Encomium Magazine, Information Nigeria, BBC News, The Punch Newspaper, UNICEF, News watch Times, The Nation Newspaper, gistmania, News Punch, Guardian Newspaper, The Octopus News, allAfrica News, to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for that! Even though it seems like some of these articles don't have significant coverage, at least two of them do and I've cited them in the article. BTW the Unicef article is talking about Lekki British International School which is a different school in a different part of Lagos. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "BIS", as it is fondly called is one of the most popular secondary schools in Nigeria. Just wanted to give some primary/raw information on the article since this afd is certainly not short of references and guidelines. Isakaba (talk) 23:44, 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 Speedy Deleted as hoax Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daddii[edit]

Daddii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Suspected hoax. If this band was so notorious, then why doesn't it turn up any hits on GBooks? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:57, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blast from the Past (column)[edit]

Blast from the Past (column) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like just a long list of names which will never be complete. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - none of the "references" actually discuss the column and indicate its notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we'd need secondary sources referring to the topic itself. — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]