< 25 April	27 April >

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

The result was snow close. This is just too soon for an article. When the editor gets a new screen name I'm willing to userfy this, although it will be important that they see assistance from someone at the film WikiProject to help with concerns of WP:COI and general concerns of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted (2015 film)[edit]

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

Too soon, not even close to being filmed and not a major film at all. Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unsourced and somewhat promotional in tone, and a quick search shows no sign that the film has commenced principal photography, which is the minimum requirement of WP:MOVIE. We aren't a crystal ball, we can have an article about this film if it proves to be notable. Novusuna ^talk 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Way way too soon. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being WAY TOO SOON. Even the unsourced article tells us its in pre-production and currently in script-writing phase. The article should be saying "will be" not "is". Once completed and released (if ever) and receiving the requisite coverage, this might merit an article... but not yet. Policy tells us that future events be at somehow sourcable. This is not. Send the author to WP:NF, WP:COI and WP:PRIMER once he has a new username. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Davey and WP:CRYSTAL LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (twice). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenzhong Yang[edit]

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

Keep on putting up a prod but the person keeps on removing it. Not sure if this person needs an article either. Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-it was just removed as a speedy and then the person recreated it. Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Nuccitelli[edit]

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

Not notable blogger, searched for sources but found nothing, sources I found were removed - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO. It works out, strangely, that the nomination is correct even though the person nominating it is the same person who just created it. (Also despite the failure of logic: "I didn't find any sources, and I'm annoyed that the ones I've found are being deleted"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:BIO. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I was trying to help out User:Mosfetfaser with formatting the stub. Nuccitelli is pretty well-known in the climate blogosphere, but I think it would be hard to make a good case for his wiki-notability. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Maybe you could help the contributor for a speedy deletion. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep. (non-admin closure) Too soon for nomination DRV has been opened Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The existence of this article screams of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM and is a POV fork. Yes, its well sourced as most of its content is rehashed from other articles. In fact everything in it is carefully selected content. There have been other (just as horrific) events that have generated public outcry and debate, but we do not have separate articles on their "after effects" with regard to any particular political movement. The articles themselves include the information along with related articles. If this were a List article, I would venture to say that few would think twice about its deletion, and that is essentially what this article is with some Editorial Opinion thrown in. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Last nom was literally closed five hours back; way too soon to put this right back on the block. You have problems with the page, there's a talk page; bring your concerns there. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As Nate said, this is too soon for a renomination, per the deletion policy. Novusuna ^talk 20:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm asserting that it was a bad close. It was done by a basic vote tally, not an application of policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: then take it to WP:DRV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Too soon after the AFD was closed, I did open a DRV however Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_27

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see the value in a redirect, so I'm not going to make that part of the close, but if somebody feels strongly a redirect is warranted, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion Solitaire(film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF & WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge under too soon Wgolf (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now to Lukas Ammann where it is already mentioned. Being the return-to-screen of the oldest actor in the world is a decent and sourcable assertion of notability. Allow undeletion or recreation once this thing get more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MQS. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team OMG[edit]

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

Sources consist of weibo and lol posts. Failed to find reliable sources for verification. Brycehughes (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-seems to be just for some team on an online program, which to my knowledge Wikipedia does not do. Wgolf (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does have articles on gamers and could have articles on teams. However, The lack of any reliable refs makes that argument moot. No refs, no article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources = no notability. Reads more like a fansite posting than a Wikipedia article. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajith (1989 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF Harsh (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable people have acted in the movie. The article needs plot and review section but not deletion.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD

Keep Sify describes the film as a blockbuster. IE: "Raju had directed blockbusters Belli Modagalu, Kadana, Indrajeeth, Bandha Mukta, Belli Kalungoora, Yuddha Kaanda and Huliya." Actor Devaraj describes the film as setting the course for his own career: "luckily for me director K.V. Raju has given a police officer's role in the film 'Indrajith'. Though this was an average hit, it paved away for my later films." These refs were found in just a very few moments. If a 1989 Kannada film made enough of a mark be be spoken of 2 decades later, I can only wonder what gems of coverage are out there to be found. I think allowing this new stub to grow over time and through regular editing benefits Wikipedia (IE: WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP). Deletion does not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria for films. Totally agree with Schmidt.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt – A highly successful Kannada film of the late 1980s. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Family[edit]

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

Initially nominated for speedy deletion, but I do not feel this fits A7. Apparently about a historical family from England, I can find some passing mentions in books (such as this) but nothing that I believe establishes notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unref'd new article with no sources to meet WP:N or WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some individual family members may have notability, but it does not make the family WP:N. (AfD is fine, I did A7:organization from unobserved notability and no references.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harsh (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The South family has many notable members as mentioned here http://www.houseofnames.com/south-family-crest— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callumjsouth (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were a reliable source, I can't see how any of the people mentioned on that page are notable. Simply being provably alive hundreds of years ago does not confer notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. redirect Shii (tock) 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AM Buffalo[edit]

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

Local television program that has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WKBW-TV, where the show is mentioned. I wrote the article years ago and don't particularly find it of that much importance now. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the nominator – in favor of the redirect proposed by the article's creator and only substantial contributor. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Anderson[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced promotional biography. Fails WP:ARTIST. - Mr X 14:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim on notability; no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable artist/designer. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Heng[edit]

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

Been aware of this for a while, occasionally looked for sources as I thought to have a quick check, but after another unsuccessful search, I'm afraid I think it's time to ask whether Heng is notable. I see no in-depth articles on her work, really very little coverage (and generally passing mentions of the "Someone wore Mandy Heng somewhere, someone else wore somebody else..." type.) If there IS coverage worth mentioning, it's really not readily accessible. Sorry Mandy... Mabalu (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable woman. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a bit too soon for this promising young designer. But if substantial coverage in reliable independent sources occurs woul be happy to see recreation an expansion of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Organique[edit]

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

Really not seeing much evidence of notability for this concept. Most of the references are just "here's a book about the name I just dropped" or to other Wikipedia articles. Only saw hits in French language where "art organique" was mentioned in passing on Google Books (21st century filtered) rather than as a proper noun. Much as I like the sound of a movement based on "organic art", I'm afraid this article sounds like fabrication to me. Bringing to discussion just in case Art Organique IS actually a thing. Mabalu (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay. The term is a moderately venerable one, coming up for example in Walter Benjamin [1] and this philosophical essay presents a similar conception to that in the article: "L'art organique, en effet, imite moins la nature que sa loi de formation," but it's not so much a movement as a perennial idea - see for example this conference book for various uses of the concept or approach, and I think myself first not of Henry Moore but of art nouveau. I don't find any evidence of its being applied to any coherent set of artists in either French, German, or English. On the other hand we quite properly have organic architecture; in architecture, as this article states, the concept has been fairly well developed and the term is used of an approach or a shared mindset. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced (where it matters) essay, no evidence that this is a term used by critics for any movement (as opposed to referring to 'organic forms', as eg Henry Moore or Art Nouveau).TheLongTone (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as TheLongTone says, it is effectively unsourced and, in places, makes some farcical claims. Organic architecture is a known phenomenon, but there's certainly no defined movement called Organic Art that I know of. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalOcean[edit]

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

This article was speedy deleted, and the deletion was contested at deletion review. As a result of that review, I'm bringing it to AfD, so a proper consensus can be reached. This is an administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy with the work Niels Olson has done to bring this article up to scratch. It has had mentions in several major publications, including most recently here. James^x12345 14:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable per the sources cited and there are no problems in the article as it stands. This version is not promotional and I declined a G11 nomination for that reason. BethNaught (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure, I started the article, but I just want to note a few things. In terms of notability, the article had been created twice before I created it. Since my article was also speedy-deleted and I recreated it, it has now been created 4 times now. Regarding NPOV, I have no relation to the company, I'm not even a customer, just a potential customer looking for NPOV information. With regards to the original deletion review, let me leave a link to the discussion and note that even my speedy deleter, User:Deb, has revisited the article and edited it. Niels Olson (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I'm concerned, now that the promotional wording has been amended, this is okay. Deb (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is that it meets notability. (and the current contents is not promotiiona) DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mindtree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains strong language and notions for promoting of the company "Mindtree" on wikipedia, after detailed investigation on creator of the page, the contributions made by him on Wikipedia seems to be only on the article Mindtree and its related content, It seems he made account on Wikipedia just to create the article for this company "Mindtree".

The major contributor to the article are non registered users, Doing a reverse-IP search on those IP addresses revels that, all IP addresses are from Bangalore, India, headquarter of the company. Therefore article is unethical and violates Wikipedia policies on promotion & advertising. This article needs to be deleted, to implement Wikipedia's tighter policy norms and let people know that opensource communities are for knowledge and education, not for cheap advertising & self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is not relevant to the article's notability -- what do you think about the Times of India references? Shii (tock) 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ user: shii All the links provided as reference are weak & most of them are from company website itself. The one you talking about looks like paid advertising, with no further reviews or comments on them, Yes they have references on some websites but this does not states that any company can have a same promotional article with their self proclaimed facts and figures on Wikipedia, This community is for sharing knowledge, not for greedy & conspiracy minded people, we should convey this message strongly to the people. Science.Warrior (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned the page up to remove the worst parts of it. You could have done that instead of nominating for deletion; this seems to be a pretty high-profile company.

As for violating WP:SOAPBOX, that's not a reason to delete if there is material to be salvaged. Just delete the rest and warn or report the users involved (but make sure you have strong evidence). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:B2B. I can't find sources that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The tone of the article suggests that redlink would be an easier start for proper article if valid sources are ever found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong quick keep You must be kidding. Did you even search for its notability? It has significant presence in Bombay Stock Exchange, India's main stock market ([2], [3], [4]). Major financial publications are covering this company (and I searched only recent news, you'd get a lot if you go back in time). A company that employs ~ 13,000 people and has major presence in share market is un-notable? Really? If you have problem with tone of the article, please go ahead and change the language. That has nothing to do with its notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i agree with user czarkoff but @Dwaipayan "13,000 employs" where you get that data from? didn't you noticed that "citation needed" tag beside that self proclaimed number? This article has been nominated 2 times before and this is the 3rd time, i can definitely feel some conspiracy going on here. Please have a look at WP:B2B, WP:PROMOTION and finally WP:BEANS. Science.Warrior (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of WP:B2B. Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree with that essay, majority of IT-company related articles are bogus. However, this particular company has notability (and that's what decides the result of AfD). For convenience in Indian source search, you can use this engine. Read, for example, this coverage or this. And you can disregard my comment about number of employees, as I do not have any source. You should delete that info from the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - These sources are not much different from those in article: they look like mildly edited press releases. Could you provide at least two citations with at least this depth of coverage? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not read the article you linked (for the example of depth coverage). Instead, I present these: a case study from Harvard Business School on the company, a report from Society for Human Resource Management, page 52, a case study in Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ user_Dwaipayan "what are you trying to say or prove?". Wikipedia governance is based on its set rules made by community members, which are been clearly stated to you on above comments, with links on them and you come up with some facts and figures of your own, u look desperate. I am surely reporting the matter now to administrators. Science.Warrior (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        LoL. Be my guest. Please go ahead and report my activity in this AfD :) And bye the way, if you are not clear about what I am trying to prove, I am trying to prove the notability of this company, which is the main question of this AfD. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – A prominent software company in India. I'm really wondering why this was brought here. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @user-Vensatry "yes and we were also wondering why u didn't showed up till now"!, we saw your talk page history logs, which reflects immense friendship you and user-"Dwaipayan" have, i think that's where that STRONG KEEP is coming from, lol! the conspiracy theory prediction was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, nice try! your rationale is just a case of "I'm so ashamed this article is on Wikipedia". This list is more than necessary to prove its notability. Btw, please sign your posts with ~~~~. —Vensatry _(ping) 04:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are trying to do here (User:Vensatry), "you scratch mine, i scratch yours", I am so amazed how you guys come up with some random PDF files and claim them to be notable, I am not sure you are a neutral wikipedia editor or a paid employee of this "Mindtree" company? Science.Warrior (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments hardly make any sense. Please read WP:DEL —Vensatry _(ping) 10:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On just the merits of the article, I agree with Dwaipayan that there is coverage out there for this company to meet WP:CORP. The BSE and NSE listings don't give it automatic notability; the coverage in media sources does. On the merits of the nomination, Science.Warrior has not presented a case for the article having such deep flaws in its content that it can't be cleaned up. Editors with conflicts of interest are not prohibited from editing articles; they're discouraged to do so and encouraged to strongly source everything. The article is not hopeless spam, and COI is a situation better dealt with by cleanup than deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dwaipayan. Reasons stated in nomination not cause for deletion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Ground[edit]

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

Non-notable local band. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in WP:RS. As written, this appears to qualify as WP:CSD#A7. Not sure how this has survived for so long... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 09:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything that indicates how this band meets the [[|WP:BAND|guidelines for inclusion]]. I'm pretty impressed that they managed to keep an article here since Dec 2007, though. — sparklism ^hey! 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim resistance to Sikh conquests[edit]

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

After deleting some material that was not about Muslim resistance but about what the Sikhs did, I looked at the lead (should have started there I guess). This seems to be just an anti-Sikh article, not about Muslim resistance. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lead contains unsubstantiated claims and it look like a baised POV work. The section Shaheed Ganj Mosque seems entirely copied from Shaheed Ganj Mosque. The section named Peshawar seems like POV, with the last sentence possibly OR.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like un-notable SYNTH. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Delete This is a reflective essay with two sources for statements which aren't relevant to the article's\essay's central point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99games[edit]

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

Non-notable game development company. Lots of sources, some may even be non-affiliated, but they describe individual games, not the company, so WP:INHERIT applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company itself appears to have little to no coverage in secondary sources that would show notability. The only thing I could find in a news search was a press release from the company itself, which obviously doesn't meet our standards. Unfortunately, this seems to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Novusuna ^talk 23:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable company →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition for Briggs for Cancer Immunotherapy for All[edit]

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

While I support advocacies like this, there is not enough coverage for this in reliable sources. Only source given is Change.org and an endorsment. Having notable signers is not necessarily a claim to notability. PROD was removed by author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as borderline soapboxing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising for a change.org petition which has had no media coverage and is not notable. -- 101.117.3.144 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update Hi. I'm not used to using the talk page. I appreciate the note about supporting advocacies like this. I thought from the instructions that it would be okay to remove the PROD because of the paragraph I added about the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. I've now added a further paragraph about an article amplifying the issues in the petition that was published in the Medical Journal of Australia's MJA InSight newsletter. The petition is linked in the author bio at the end of the article. Thanks for making this article better.TheKwais (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sanderson is notable, and we have an article about him. Cancer immunotherapy is notable, and we have an article about it. This petition is not notable, and Paul Sanderson's newletter article does not contribute to making it so, since that article is not independent/3rd-party. -- 101.117.110.186 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no demonstrated notability . Adding the material on the Society does not help the situation. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer might however be notable, including a redirect from the name of its journal. The society however did not originate the petition, but is merely supporting it, so I am not even sure that a mention of the petition would be appropriate there any more than its other supporters.. The policy is NOT ADVOCACY, ait applies to links as well as articles, and it applies even to the best causes. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris twins[edit]

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

Both Courtney Paris and Ashley Paris have articles of their own, it is not necessary for them to have an article as a unit. The content is wholly redundant. A redirect might be the answer, but then the question is where does this page redirect to? Courtney is probably the more accomplished twin, but still ... Rikster2 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a redirect. Harsh (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above, there is no need for a redirect here. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems pointless redirecting so delete as non notable. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete twice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Ridiculous to have three articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talon (video game)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Very clearly doesn't meet WP:NVG. Slashme (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search for talon video game finds mostly League of Legends-related content. --Slashme (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I've been watching this for a while considering a afd as well-I have yet to find a page anywhere-Gamefaqs does not even have a page. Wgolf (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources to demonstrate notability, which means a WP:GNG failure. Perhaps once (if) the game releases, it will generate some coverage and become notable, but it isn't now. Novusuna ^talk 21:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be no RS coverage of the topic at all. That said, carpet-bombing the article with cleanup templates is kind of a cheap way to give it a black eye... These should be put together under a "Multiple issues" template. -Thibbs (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got a bit lazy because usually Twinkle does that automatically. Fixed! --Slashme (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Engel (mathematician)[edit]

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

No indication of why he's notable, no reliable biographical sources supporting notability. Even the minimal facts in the article aren't given in the sources but inferred: he's listed as the author of a maths book so is a mathematician; his address is listed at a university so he must have taught there. No actual biographical sources; if he were notable then someone should have written about him. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be notable, but more needs to be done when it comes to sources. However, this article was only created 3 days ago, and the Maths Wikiproject were contacted yesterday - I think it's too early for AfD. Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so anxious to write this article if there is such difficulty in finding sources — and why so sure he would be notable? In any case, we need sources not to satisfy some arbitrary rule called notability, but so that we can write a verifiable article. If there are no sources then there is nothing that we can say about him, and there cannot be an article. Deltahedron (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If more work needs to be done it can be userfied. That's what I've done when writing articles, started writing them as userspace drafts and only moved them to mainspace when I think they're finished, which includes fully sourced. It's also worth noting the criteria for biographies of living persons is much stricter; everything needs properly sourcing and unsourced content can be removed and deleted. Then again it's not even clear if this applies, whether he's still alive – with no dates for birth, death, his own (presumed) PhD it's impossible even to guess.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is still alive. He was born in 1928 and his university website lists him as Ehemalig. See also viaf.org/viaf/161228347. Deltahedron (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I see you've added a potted bio to the talk page, thanks. The birth date is most useful, gives a much better idea of when his career probably was, though it if anything muddies the BLP issue: it could easily be either. Probably he's still alive or it would surely be possible to find an obituary. I found the David Hilbert medal when searching for sources, but he didn't win the full medal:

It should be noted that 1991 Awards under the name of David Hilbert were presented on the basis of quite different criteria, that of having written the most interesting articles written in the previous years' volumes of the WFNMC Journal "Mathematics Competitions".

[5]

The Order of Merit seems like quite a common award: the article lists it as being awarded to 200,000 people since 1951.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the back cover of one of his books, [6], it looks like the same one the potted bio was based on. I think the bio includes the main points but the extra detail may be useful for e.g. initiating further searches.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another Engel who was involved in IMO competitions, Wolfgang Engel, also born in Germany in 1928, died 2010. Here he is writing about Arthur Engel: [7].--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching finds no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and (as noted above) the award is given too frequently to confer notability. -- 101.117.3.144 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Probably notable as an author of textbooks, some of which which were translated into several languages (French, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish). Not easy to find anything on him, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Mathematics is in general a low-citation subject but what little I can find looks more pedagogical than research-oriented, so research impact (criterion #1) looks unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the Federal Cross of Merit is awarded in a number of different grades. We need to know what grade he got, as the higher grades (probably Commander and above) will attest to his notability under criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a fair assumption he has one of the lowest/commonest grades. Not only is this statistically most likely but the information's from a promotional blurb, which I think would mention it if he obtained an especially high and prestigious variety of award.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. According to German Wikipedia, he received the Verdienstkreuz am Bande, the second-lowest grade, well below the threshold for notability under WP:ANYBIO. Under the British Honours System, we have always considered a CBE as the lowest grade to meet criterion #1. I would say this one equates approximately to an MBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks acceptable to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a partial bibliography. The subject has done original work on Markov chains, but is primarily notable as a prolific author of textbooks. The number of books with reputable publishers, and the fact they have been translated into various other languages, shows clear notability as an author. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no evidence in the world to support the idea that he is not notable, which is the way I choose to interpret these particular "rules" (and every "rule" there is) in case of doubt. An author being translated to foreign languages is decidedly not not notable because somebody noted him and it was believed economically sound to proceed with a translation. YohanN7 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an expert in mathematical education and the author of widely used textbooks. For an academic, the awards are significant recognition--they never do get the higher ranks of general national awards , which are almost exclusively for industrialists, politicians, and bureaucrats. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g5, banned User:Jude Enemy. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CH AOS discography[edit]

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

Not notable. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 09:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Smith (author/education professional)[edit]

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

This biographical article is about, in my opinion, an unnotable textbook author/academic. It has been nominated for proposed deletion twice, both times being removed by an IP address seemingly associated with the article's subject, Teraknor (talk · contribs), who created the article: most edits are by him, although since I attempted to ((prod)) yesterday, a number of new, single-use accounts (WP:DUCK?) have also edited the article in question.

Most sources are generic; those that are not are fairly minor. In its current state, the article reads like a CV. μc8 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the contributors; having used one of these IP addresses I think, preferring to remain anonymous over time, I prefer a low profile on the web(Mortimer)

Been trying to add stuff over some time, quite inexperienced in this editing lark, so if I have violated rules, sorry, BUT i am very interested in why this page is up for removal as soon as the subject writes an article on WikiAbuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimer.lake (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is mostly just a bibliography - there is little to no discussion of his academic career, which makes it a bit hard to what positions he's held, and consequentially how successful his career has been. But in absence of evidence, the default assumption must be that he has not held senior professorial positions that would see him meet WP:PROF. I can't find anything in what are usually the key sources (Who's Who, Debrett's). Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing quite a large number of articles from them around the world, note you have other authors who do not appear in the same journals you mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.90.58.160 (talk • contribs)

It's generally considered more helpful than not if a comment makes sense. I didn't mention any journals. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an article, but rather a list of accomplishments copied from a CV. As this article stands, it should not be on Wikipedia. To keep, it would need a major re-working, including some narrative. --Kbabej (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Harris (journalist)[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage in independent reliable sources, no real claim of noatbility. One primary source and a blog do not make for a solid BLP. SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NWEB, no independent reliable sources and so is not notable. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 07:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 10:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I don't see any thing about Top Gear either about this guy-if he was indeed anything about it I would say merge. Wgolf (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dumbo (disambiguation). j⚛e decker ^talk 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbo, Angola[edit]

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

This is a dab page, but all the entries are redlinks apart from one that redirects to an article about a person. DexDor (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I'd hold off on deletion. Angolan place names are difficult to decipher, and this is a great resource. Red links: very little work is being done on Angola-related articles, even on basic geographic articles that you see here (villages), hence the red links. Prburley (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The only blue link doesn't mention being known as 'Dumbo'; all others don't meet MOS:DABRL. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect-at first I thought that someone was saying that this place was dumb or something. You automatically think of the elephant of course when you hear the word Dumbo. If this place is anything-a merge? Wgolf (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote now to redirect. Wgolf (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could redirect to Dumbo (disambiguation) - then it would be easily recreated if/when needed. Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Boleyn that a redirect is better, since some of these places are likely to eventually have articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia:Five pillars. By the way, the Dumbo in Bié Province does not refer to the person at the blue link, but to the settlement at 14° 3' S, 17° 26' E, which is known as both Mandume (Approved) at GEOnet Names Server and Dumbo (Variant) at GEOnet Names Server. I'll see if I can fix that. --Bejnar (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dumbo (disambiguation) as a plausible search term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Internet top-level domains. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.sexy[edit]

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

Non-notable domain, with no reliable sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a single actual website under this domain. Some names are reserved and parked, but that's about it. -Sigeng (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is one: http://rms.sexy Shii (tock) 17:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ Delete. As per above. 41.135.172.4 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable domain . -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains as seems a much better solution than deleting. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains or Generic top-level domain. Preferably the former as the latter article is in need of an update. Non-notable domain, but redirects are cheap. Novusuna ^talk 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirecting is also a good option too. Tinton5 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. All TLDs used to be inherently notable, and receive quite a bit of attention. With this many being launched, hardly any are notable. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. Most sensible solution by Lewis Hulbert, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the idea was actually from Novusuna. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. No independent notability in a search engine test (though I did find [8] and [9]). Best kept in list until sources show. Before you nominate to AfD, might be worth discussing merge options on the article talk pages. And group deletion nominations can be bundled, for the future. czar ♔ 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted CSD G3 Blatant hoax --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabicadoo[edit]

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

Apparent hoax musical instrument, up since December 2012. This is one for the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia 'at least one year' section, unless someone can find anything real under all this silly "redneck" humor, apparently created for the guy's girlfriend's kids. We should have caught this one a lot earlier, but fwiw it was an orphan. Pharos (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant hoax. This is the nicest one I've seen in a while; liked the mocked-up photo. He should put it on his blog, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For anyone coming in, basically the article is a joke about "redneck" hunters using bird calls. The mock up photo is of one of the various bird/deer calls out on the market that someone tailored to look like it was something other than a bird call by adding rope. ( They probably used one of these types of calls from Knight & Hale, from what I can tell.) Odds are very, very high that this is a personal joke that the article creator came up with on his own and decided to upload to Wikipedia. That it's been here since 2012 is kind of funny, but this really has no purpose in being here. I'm going to tag it as a speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also alerted Wikimedia Commons that the two photos should probably be deleted, as they were clearly uploaded to perpetuate the hoax and in the case of the second photo, is potentially copyvio from someone else's photo. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and probably alert the guys at Wordvia. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here is that the topic is potentially notable, but insufficient sources were cited to establish that. A new version of the article might be acceptable if better sourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes[edit]

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

Article does not expand nor improve information at Kretek#Legal status in the United States. Additionally, article is about a single legal case (and appeal) between two specific countries, while title suggests global aspect. Delete or rename and redirect to above section. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent notability for this single case, which is already covered in an article which already describes it better, and puts it in context. I can see no merit in a redirect either - who is going to be searching under the uninformative name of a single legal case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor topic that does not deserve a separate article. Shii (tock) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Results in GBooks for the title (Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes) and short title (US—Clove Cigarettes) of this case and for cognate expressions clearly indicate that the case has received significant coverage (such as this detailed discussion of it). This case satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. It would be totally absurd to suggest that this article be deleted for lack of notability. [Alternatively (and this is probably completely academic)] the page name is clearly a plausible redirect because many books cite the case by that name. Practising and academic lawyers, public officials, [students] and other people interested in international law and particularly WTO dispute settlement will search for the case by this name. The case is not just about cigarettes. It is also relevant to certain aspects of international law such as the interpretation of various treaties (e.g. What does likeness mean in article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement?). There is also nothing wrong with the present page name which is the official name of the case (except that it is supposed to begin with the words "United States" followed by a hyphen). The case will have a global aspect if it prohibits other countries from doing what the US did (which is likely to be the case). James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Words in square brackets inserted. James500 (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Practising and academic lawyers, public officials and other people interested in international law and particularly WTO dispute settlement will search for the case by this name". Quite possibly - though one might assume that they would also confine searches to more trustworthy sources than an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is not a legal database, and it seems safe to assume that anyone knowing the name of the case will know where to find it in more conventional places to engage in such research. There is no merit whatsoever in Wikipedia merely duplicating such sources, less reliably. And as for what 'aspects' the case 'will' have, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia. It should be possible for grown up people to use Wikipedia for the purpose of serious study. Wikipedia is a legal encyclopedia (and a science enclopedia, an art encyclopedia, a history enclopedia, and every type of encyclopedia) so there is nothing wrong with having articles on legal topics. People who know the name of the case may not want to look at more conventional sources, which are normally behind paywalls of one form or another, are subject to copyright, and whose coverage is broken up in an inconvienient manner (into lots of different books, articles etc. instead of being in one place). The effect of WP:NOR is that everything on Wikipedia is duplication in the sense that it merely a compilation of information published elsewhere. There is certainly a value in "duplicating" (in that sense which really means "compiling") information that is only obtainable from sources that are neither free (to both read and reproduce) nor convieniently organised. And as for CRYSTALBALL, it is fairly obvious that the book I cited is treating the case as a binding or persuasive precendent because otherwise there would be no reason to mention it. CRYSTALBALL has no application to stare decisis. One does not use precedents to predict the future. One cites them to establish what the law is now. James500 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the precedent has been set, and it is called WP:A10. This topic is more sufficiently and thoroughly discussed at the Kretek section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A10 has no application to this article. [That is why Andy's CSD nomination was rejected by another user.] This case cannot be adequately discussed in the article Kretek because it is not just about cigarettes. It is mainly about the interpretation of the treaties in question. We cannot put a discussion of, in particular, the interpretation of the concept of likeness in article 2.1 of the TBT agreement advanced in this case into our article on Kretek because it is only tangentially relevant. The book that I cited suggested that the reasoning in this case was relevant to, for example, restrictions relating to dolphin friendly tuna. This is not just about clove cigarettes. In any event this case satisfies GNG and that means the article should be kept. We do not merge articles just because they are stubs (WP:IMPERFECT). We expand them. (We do not delete plausible redirects either). I suggest that you stop trying to delete stubs, which is a complete waste of time, and start expanding them. James500 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Words in square brackets inserted as correction of previous text. James500 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article "is not just about clove cigarettes" it clearly needs another title, and a complete rewrite, explaining what it is actually about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page name is the official title of the case. The fact that you consider it misleading is irrelevant. That is like arguing that Flat Earth should be renamed because the Earth isn't flat. Whilst the article certainly needs expansion, it doesn't need a complete rewrite. It doesn't say anything false as far as I can see, it just fails to mention something important. This has reached the point where you are increasingly clutching at straws. There are no policy based or practical reasons whatsoever to delete this article. James500 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James: I suggest you stop listening to yourself talk and improve the article yourself, WP:Put up or shut up, as was suggested in the previous discussions on this article author's other AfDs. I did not CSD this article, nor the previous deleted version before this, so get your facts straight. Constantly badgering and berating other users does not improve the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my mistaken comment about CSD. I have [corrected] the remark.

In all fairness you are the ones badgering my keep !vote. You could have just let it stand instead of trying to get the last word. You'll notice that I haven't replied to anyone else's !vote. It is only my !vote that is attracting this.

I don't need to improve the article because AfD is not cleanup. I do not run an edit on demand service and it is not reasonable to ask me to do so. James500 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of potential sources out there. — Cirt (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. This existing article is currently less complete than the discussion in the general article. I think it does fall under A10, and I would have accepted the speedy. But for a questioned speedy to come here is the right procedure. Of course, if anyone cares to write an article expanding on it, then it would be a valid article, but not until then. Had a better article been written, there would have been no problem in the first place DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan F. Kelly[edit]

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

DA of a large metropolitan county such people might be notable, but not necessarily. It depends on wether they've done anything that;'s more than routine.Usually they have not, but it is possible nonetheless to fill a long article with all the trivia, and have it referenced, for most people in such an office make sure they are mentioned in every news story on every criminal case in the country. This article is an example: not one of the cases mentioned is important, yet all of them have received passing coverage from local news sources.

The net result is a promotional campaign biography for the next election. I assume that peopele in such position will acquire some negative comment also, bt it ; but nothing of the kind is mentioned here. not mentioned here. Would need complete rewriting , and even so, it would still fair notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO & WP:GNG don't fail, and it contains many references, although the sources continues to be dim. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not clearly pass WP:POLITICIAN although as DGG points out, it is possible that such an office holder could be notable. The massive problem here is that the article has a distinctively promotional tone, violates WP:NPOV, and reads like campaign literature masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This article was written by a single purpose account who came here to write this puff piece and then disappeared. If some energetic, neutral editor whacks away at this hagiography with a machete, I will reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hagiography and cherrypicking of the content of refs. Open to rewrite as per User:Cullen328. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional advertisement inappropriate for encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chunk! No, Captain Chunk! (EP)[edit]

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

The EP has no reliable sources to back up its information and the sources provided are themselves unreliable. The EP itself didnt win any awards nor has it charted, for these reasons I believe the EP article should be deleted. SilentDan297 talk 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per the nominators reasons. Completely unnecessary article tells you nothing about the band as the release holds no significance. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not find coverage to show that this EP meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 07:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason I explained before. SilentDan297 talk 19:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANESSH G MENON[edit]

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

Unreliable references Piguy101 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Vieque (talk • ctb) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd Rather Be Baking Cookies: A Collection of Recipes from Lisa MacLeod and Friends[edit]

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

There was a disputed prod on this article, which was deleted in January and then restored last week upon request — however, there's still enough dispute about its actual notability that I thought it best to put it up for wider discussion. Essentially, what we have is a cookbook that was compiled by a politician, given a single small print run and sold locally to raise funds for her reelection campaign — while it did garner a small volume of media coverage in the moment (note for starters that every single one of the few sources cited in the article is dated to a single three-day period), there's little evidence here of any sustained notability that would warrant a standalone article about the book, when one or two sentences in Lisa MacLeod would be every bit as effective at giving this the amount of WP:WEIGHT that it actually warrants. I think it's a delete, personally, but it needs more people weighing in on it than it's had so far. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The politician is notable but the book isn't. A burst of local coverage of a campaign gimmick isn't enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the second time this has been nominated for deletion without me (the creator) being nominated (it was a CSD before Bearcat). I think (it was a while ago) I wrote it shortly after release, which is why the references are all spaced close together. It's received coverage from CTV and the Ottawa Citizen (granted Ottawa is local, it's also a city of about a million people). I will try to get some more sources (I'm on holidays now), but it was considered notable enough to be in the DYK section of the main page. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 10:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While it doesn't address Bearcat's comment regarding the timing of sources, this entry from the Toronto Star does address your comment regarding "local coverage" Cullen328. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I wrote this with K-stick as a personal favor to Lisa MacLeod, given my lifelong dedication to the conservative cause. Plus we got paid, though I have no idea what I can do with those weird-looking dollars. Sourcing is on the thin side, as is the article, but it squeaks by, in my opinion. Also, the prose is tasty like foie gras. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lisa MacLeod. Any attention the book has gained is solely because she produced it. Biography article is easily of a size that can accommodate it.TheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - quite evidently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 1 May 2014 (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.