< 26 April	28 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 speedy keep - nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion; also WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

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

Because the match is not that importantPeacefulJarl379 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This match is in fact one of the most famous football matches to be ever played, due to both the rivalry and the historical circumstances surrounding the relations between the two countries and the on-field play. This match had two of the most famous goals ever scored in football matches.

Keep and close. "Because the match is not that important" - so what policy does this not meet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - No valid reason given for deletion. Appears to be a POV (WP:NPOV) nomination. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very high profile game due to the controversy surrounding it. No proper rationale for deletion. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as clearly notable per WP:GNG. Could perhaps do with a rename, but that is a matter for the article talk page. Giant Snowman 11:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not follow the sport, and even I am well aware of the Hand of God goal. An immensely famous World Cup match. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the most famous matches, featuring one of the best goals in the history of the game (not to mention one of the worst too).--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - literally one of the most famous football matches of all time, nom is clearly nonsense. Is it snowing yet........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife Sessions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent sources are available. Judging by the fact that there have only been three episodes, it's too soon for this to have an article. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC) --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation of a previously deleted article about a web series hosted on Youtube and Vimeo. No additional sources showing notability have come to light. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage at all in reliable sources, which is fairly damning for web-only content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo

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

Article that has been in existence for a month heavily reliant on a source that scantly provides any other information outside of his occupation. Has no detail on birth, career, etc. Fails general notability. Rusted AutoParts 22:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this placed in the "places and transportation" category? --Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I just changed it to biographical. Novusuna ^talk 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub. Anglican bishops are considered notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RFD I don't see any special exceptions for Anglican bishops or other religious leaders. --OKNoah (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CLERGY states that Anglican bishops are generally found to be notable, for what that's worth. Novusuna ^talk 01:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent, though? We don't have a birthdate, or alot of information that's needed for an article. One source is binding this article together. Rusted AutoParts 02:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability. --OKNoah (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search turned up many RS sources about his death and a homosexual issue in the church a number of years back. Also per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. Obviously needs expanded beyond a stub. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a few refs, although the repetition of agency copy means not all google hits are independent. But taking into account references, WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, systemic bias, his long career before web news was common, the difficulty for most Wikipedians of searching offline sources in Tanzania, and the likelihood of additional sources in Swahili, keep seems a sensible option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of the English sources in the article actually do indicate passing WP:GNG. It is certainly likely many more exist in other languages, perhaps non-internet as well as all Anglican Bishops are cultural leaders in their region. --Oakshade (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations are usually held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese food therapy[edit]

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

A one-sentence article which fails to establish its significance or indeed show that it is considered to be a distinct entity apart from TCM or Chinese diet more generally. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough content to prove notability Shii (tock) 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some stuff out there that specifically focuses on the dietary angle, but I agree that I'm somewhat wondering if it should be included in the overall TCM article since that seems to be the major focus of the stuff I'm finding. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – I see why an article created in 2002 that is still two-lines long in 2014 would be submitted for AfD, but there are plenty of reliable sources out there to prove notability. (And I'm putting aside the five sources that are already cited in the article.) Ute Engelhardt's "Dietetics in Tang China and the first extant works of materia dietetica" (in Innovation in Chinese Medicine, Cambridge University Press, 2001) shows that the shiliao tradition goes back a long way. See also Vivienne Lo, "Pleasure, Prohibition, and Pain: Food and Medicine in China", in Of Tripod and Palate: Food, Politics, and Religion in Traditional China (Palgrave MacMillan, 2005). There are two interesting vignettes on food therapy in TJ Hinrichs and Linda Barnes (editors), Chinese Medicine and Healing: An Illustrated History (Harvard UP, 2013; see "Folk Nutritional Therapy" on pp. 259-260, and "Food Therapy" on pp. 339-341). For modern China, see Nancy Chen's Food, Medicine, and the Quest for Good Health: Nutrition, Medicine, and Culture (Columbia UP, 2013). Abundant "Oprah" kind of literature is also listed in Talk:Chinese food therapy#Recomended References (sic). I think this is more than enough to prove notability. The address the nominator's and Tokyogirl79's other concern, this topic is related to but distinct from Traditional Chinese Medicine, as "food therapy" is about dietetics and preventive hygiene rather than actual medical therapies. "Food therapy" also overlaps with Chinese cuisine, but the latter is much broader and not typically informed by therapeutic or preventive considerations. In light of all this, I think this page more than deserves to be kept! Madalibi (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see Traditional Chinese medicine#Chinese food therapy. There is not a single word or decent paragraph in the main article. There is no reason to have a separate article to promote fringe nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: I agree that this article should not promote anything. But so what? Chinese "food therapy" may not be scientific, but neither are twerking and circumcision. They're just cultural practices that have reliable sources about them and as such deserve to be documented on Wikipedia. Madalibi (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a basic "Origins" section to the article to show how this topic could be treated. Madalibi (talk)

Strong keep- Food Therapy is a distinct module/modality within Traditional Chinese Medicine. Furthermore, Madalibi should be commended for single-handedly rebuilding the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr Fink! Madalibi (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's significant coverage in major historical documents. Although some of these works have been lost over time, it appears to have been mentioned in the Dunhuang manuscripts. As stated in the lede, it's also the subject of several contemporary publications. -A1candidate (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Madalibi. This has been fixed up for rescue. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - after Madalibi's complete rewrite of the article, I don't think there's any doubt that the topic is notable. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 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 Redirect to Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle (band)[edit]

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

I think either a redirect or merge might be the best for this article-as there is very little in this article. (I think merge is the best option Wgolf (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Or a userfy-but right now it looks like a deletion or merge. Wgolf (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein which already has more information than is in this article. Sources seem to differ about whether it's a solo project of his (in which case definitely it makes sense to redirect/merge), or a group (in which case we go by notability). But there's not a lot of coverage of Doyle or the album in the bigger music publications, it's mainly small magazines/websites and the occasional interview. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah I'm leaning towards redirect actually. Wgolf (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chambers (Footballer Born 1994)[edit]

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

PROD removed by 89.168.141.34 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played a match in a fully professional league and there is no indication the article passes WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. If it should be kept, the erroneous capitalisation in the title will need fixing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to also fail WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Lowe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just employee-of-the-month-type tinfiol citations from her porn industry employers. No independent reliable sourcing beyond reported castlists. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without significant awards. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Most of the citations in the article are from unreliable sources. The reliable source citations are about a film she stars in. Of those, two are merely cast listings and the rest don't mention her at all. No non-trivial RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article is fairly new as stated on article history logs, article needs more time to be judged for deletion. Quality of the article seems good with neutral tone of language with no WP:PROMOTION material, as far the references are concerned the article follows the Wikipedia policy wp:soapbox which clearly states "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 11:38, 29 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The subject's notability, not the article's neutrality, is in question here. Giving the article more time to establish notability will not help as significant coverage by reliable sources does not appear to exist. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep What needs to be kept in mind here is that Lowe is a UK performer, she is notable in her field within the UK and should therefore not be expected to conform to the same requirements expected of U.S performers. The awards she is nominated for this year are notable UK awards and not "employee of the month tinfoil" type awards. She is also the leading star of one of the most notable and publicised porn films from the UK to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonBoyd79 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO applies to all porn performers. British or American its all the same. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines for porn bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Science.Warrior and BrandonBoyd79. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 20:46, 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy(DOS Virus)[edit]

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

Article about a computer virus. I am unable to find any sources that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Looks like a test page, I can't find this anywhere on the internet. Staglit (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the subject of this article is real as I googled it and found many relevant results, but the question is, is it notable? I doubt it. For reference, the top google result for this is this external wiki article which contains references for it at the bottom of the page. Elassint ^Hi 18:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 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. by now the consensus is clearly to keep DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter diplomacy[edit]

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

Poorly disguised ad for the company behind Twiplomacy.com. Maybe a notable topic, but then WP:TNT applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Qwertyus.

I created the page. I'm a master's student in Russia, and I chose this topic to satisfy a requirement for one of my courses. It's not an ad; I have no affiliation with Twiplomacy nor with anyone listed in the article.

The article uses Twiplomacy's numbers only to highlight the main point of the article, which is that diplomats and foreign publics are getting closer thanks to Twitter. Why did you not highlight this article as an ad for Twitter?

The page is much more robust than those for digital diplomacy and Facebook diplomacy, two pages that barely qualify as articles. If the references to Twiplomacy are so contentious, some of them can be removed. I'm not sure why deletion of the entire page or "blowing it up and starting over" is your proposed solution.

Thanks. Dave

Hi, Qwertyus.

I also re-added a quote that you deleted. Sorry I missed the citation, but you just could have pointed that out to me. I hope it addresses your concern. Feel free to point out any other concerns.

Thanks, Dave

Weak keep and improve urgently. There are plenty of mainstream, independent news sources available about the subject, the problem is the article does not refer to (or use) any of them. Though I've sympathies with the BLOWITUP/USERIFY option the author should at least be given a chance to improve the article. I've added clean-up templates and, while they exist, the author clearly has not fulfilled their college brief to write a decent Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyus, Sionk, thanks again for the input and I'll start working on changes to the sources. Sionk, I will also re-examine my tone as well; I believe that is what you were pointing me to with the clean-up template. You all are far more helpful when you make tangible suggestions; for example. 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improvement definitely needed. Might even be best to trim out much of the existing article, as the tone is too focused on establishing, proving the existence of this phenomenon. The article shouldn't have to prove it -- it should describe and reference it. That said, this is real, and the term has had meaningful validation already, including, substantively, in the NYT piece from Feb 4 that I just added. I actually ran into the page because I saw a link in Michael McFaul's twitter post, where he also calls his own substantial usage of twitter by the same term. Avram (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, TNT doesn't apply. This isn't completely useless. We could stubify, but that's still a KEEP recommendation. Avram (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Last comment for now-- key bit of NYT piece is: "The next iteration of Twitter diplomacy has arrived — one that involves augmenting, sometimes even replacing, the carefully scripted and vetted language of official State Department and White House statements with the choppy patois of Twitter." Avram (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to all and to Avram for the latest edit. I've run through the article again and attempted to address everyone's concerns about (1) my perceived endorsement of Twiplomacy.com, (2) my lack of source use, and (3) the non-encyclopedic tone. What else do you notice? And who decides when can we remove the banners at the top of the page? Thanks, Dave. D.a.kelm (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, you can add (two more substantial uses of Twitter diplomacy and one "hashtag diplomacy": http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/02/21/147207004/twitter-diplomacy-state-department-2-0, http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2013/12/16/twitter-diplomacy-fule-vs-eu-ministers-on-ukraine/, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/26/obama-hashtag-diplomacy-with-russia-sparks-new-criticism-about-weak-foreign/ . The basic process here is that editors will debate the merits of the article and eventually a moderator will decide one way or the other. In cases where there quickly arises a clear consensus that the article should stay, non-moderators will sometimes close AfD discussions, but that's the less common case. Avram (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Avram, for the advice and for the insight into the AfD process. I added two of those articles and a reference to 'hashtag diplomacy.' D.a.kelm (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has improved dramatically since it was nominated and appears to cover a notable topic. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pburka and to all who continue to make edits. I'll continue to improve the content and address your other recommendations. I really don't see myself solving the issue of original sourcing, as this is quite a contemporary topic that has few references other than media articles and the two studies I found. Happy to take suggestions. Has the non-encyclopedic tone improved? Again, happy to take suggestions. If someone feels that the tone's no longer an issue, can I invite you to remove that banner? Thanks, D.a.kelm (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and encyclopedic and educational. Arguably part of the phenomenon of Web 2.0. — Cirt (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt. I've added 'Web 2.0' to the page's categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.a.kelm (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that categorization must be supported by the article's text, and, by extension, reliable sources. Sadly, User:Cirt is not a reliable source. Pburka (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pburka. Was thinking of the very first source ('State Department 2.0') and not Cirt, but feel free to delete it. I think it's fine.[[User:d.a.kelm|d.a.kelm (talk) 20:29, 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. Cindamuse was a kind and respected Wikipedian and we were all saddened at her passing, but there is clear consensus that she did not meet our inclusion guidelines as the subject of a biography in mainspace §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, coupled, with her failing WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe redirect? to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2014#Cynthia Ashley-Nelson (Cindamuse) or something? mainly similar content there, idk if that violates a policy though ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check this other article Adrianne Wadewitz, its similar, nobody deleted it. Cynthia Ashley-Nelson is not a memorial article is a normal article. --Leglish (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first, no article here sets a precedent for any other. In order to have an article here Ms Ashley-Nelson must be inherently notable. It's actually quite distressing that we are discussing a recently deceased Wikipedian, but, unless she has inherent notability an article should not have been constructed in the first place. Now we are stuck with a deletion discussion (and yes, I know I initiated it). Fiddle Faddle 16:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate to redirect main-space-page to Wikipedia-space-memorial-page. I did extensive searching and found zero (0) secondary source discussion of this person. Zero secondary sources in searches of Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Zero secondary sources in search of NewsBank. Zero secondary sources in search of InfoTrac Newsstand. Fails WP:GNG. — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson was one of the most active female wikipedists and also was vice-chair of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee. --Leglish (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been mentioned in any secondary sources? — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this article can be kept, as the sourcing for GNG is not there. So it should be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am tempted to do so boldly and out of process, but I've asked Leglish on their userpage if they object to me userfying this page. There is little chance that this AfD would close as anything other than delete, and I would prefer to avoid an AfD about a sensitive issue where the outcome is inevitable. I was friends with Cindy, miss her, and value the work that she did, but at this point in time, the outcome of this discussion is a given, and it would be easier to handle this with immediate userification than a seven day discussion. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perfectly understood. A bold deletion out of process is wholly in order here. The article ought never to have been created, and the creation and only the creation caused the discussion. Such a discussion, while necessary, diminishes the lady's memory. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Leglish: - I'd really prefer to take such an action with your agreement since you created the article, so please chime in when you can. Please keep in mind that I comodded gendergap with Cindy, collaborated with her in numerous other ways, and deeply miss her - but this AfD is going to be an unnecessary week of frank discussion about a sensitive topic, and it's pretty much guaranteed to end with deletion if carried through. I'd like something like this to be preserved in your userspace and to avoid the next week of discussion about this, and I sincerely think that userfying the page is in the best interests of all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would prefer a Merge to Catalyst Resource Network, but seeing as the organization isn't WP:NOTABLE, I really doubt that she's notable. I almost feel like this was created just because of the timing of her death right on the heels of Adrianne Wadewitz, and Cynthia here doesn't have near the reliable coverage to establish notability. I did some cleanup to the article, but holy crap, there's not a lot past what she did on-wiki, most of which isn't really important. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. There seems to be a real problem generally with Wikipedians over-estimating the importance of members of the project.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:25, 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Ascent[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever. ♦ 15:27, 27 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) 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article already had plenty of significant coverage in reliable third party sources before it was nominated. I would almost suggest speedily closing because the nomination doesn't even advance a meaningful justification for deletion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Torchiest. -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Torchiest. -- Rescendent (talk) 17:50, 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. While it appears the airline was at least planned to exist, and the photograph doesn't appear to be a photoshop, there seems to be consensus that we cannot verify that it ever operated. If sources turn up that it operated on a scheduled route (and thus is notable), ping me and I can undelete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Airways[edit]

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

Reason Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I have listed various reasons on this article's talk page. I think it's a fake airline and none of the links listed work. This seems very similar to another fake Congolese airline I found last week called Skyfly airlines.[reply]

Delete: Not sure if it was a hoax from the start but it fails notability. Article created by a retired user after a name change. No working references and a Google search returns nothing of note. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:22, 27 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 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some checking and there is nothing reliable out there. Even the company web site url http://stellarairways.com on the FlightGlobal blog post has nothing of relevance on it. The Aviation Safety network went as far as to ban it from EU airspace in 2011: http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=9211 so maybe it technically existed back then, who knows. Probably another scam, certainly non-notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly existed as images of CS-TQS exist in Stellar scheme if you search, it was flown to Congo to start a wet-lease on 30 October 2011 but appears to have returned to Lisbon on 12 November. No evidence that any services were actually flown so not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Based on what I found in the wayback machine, they did have a timetable and their website was still up in April 2012 (check date of "weekly timetable") May 2012 (check date of "Contact Us" link) - Are there cases of airlines not flying still maintaining websites? Maybe some French-speaking editors can help us here... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did a search on flightglobal.com and this says it "began operations" with a leased A320:
Gubisch, Michael. "Congolese start-up Stellar leases A320 from White Airways." Flight Global. 9 November 2011. - I'll see what I can find
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also able to get archives of the official website from the Wayback Machine so combined with the post here I think the airline is real. Also I found a YouTube clip of a French-language (I guess Congolese) news broadcast about the airline: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLooHBOBfg - Hopefully some French language newspapers will talk about it WhisperToMe (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The TV broadcast line stated "Digital Congo Le Journal" so I'll check archives of the website to see if they have any articles. I will certainly vote keep if/when I find one more article (other than the one by Michael Gubisch) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did a site search for http://www.digitalcongo.net (which has Congolese news articles) but I haven't found anything... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With images like this It's obvious the airline does exist ....Just isn't notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may help to state why it's not notable. Flight Global did write an article on the airline starting operations, but I do want to see if Congolese newspapers say anything about the airline. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think what we've found is that the airline, if it ever DID exist, only existed for a very short while (days).WhisperToMe, thank you again for your help on this and there is one new thing that I think is also noteworthy: The French Wikipedia page, which WhisperToMe, you created, probably back when you were editing the English version of the page is almost non-existant which is strange considering Congo is a French speaking country. I would suggest also nominating that page for deletion as well and I'm not sure if it's possible to do the same for the one created in Bahasa Indonesian because it was created by a user who is now banned (Pengguna:Aldo samulo).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be good to wait for the decision on EN. Anyway, the thing about the DRC is that it is officially a Francophone country but it is very poor and has low internet access. I don't know what % of DRC citizens actually speak French or how many have internet access. On the French Wikipedia the vast majority of editors are from France. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems the company and management were an offshoot of Stellar Aviation Solutions Pvt Ltd, out of New Delhi, which was still around in 2013. The president is the same for both. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can get sources about the parent company, should they count towards this article? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, if they refer to the DRC company, but they might also support an extended article, moved to address the parent. It depends on what the sources say.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any mentions to "Stellar Airways" on the "stellar Aviation Consultancy" webpage (http://www.stellar-aviation.com/services.html). As far as I can tell this is just a consultancy group based in India run by two former airline employees, not a parent company of any airlines. This seems pretty clear, the airline almost certainly never operated flights, never actually possessed an airplane and certainly didn't operate most or any of the routes they claim to on the Wikipedia pages here. I stick to the theory that this is a fake airline just like the Congolese SkyFly Airlines whose Wikipedia presence was simply designed to fool naive investors into lending them money which they used to get a leasing company to paint a plane they never delivered and put a few photos on the internet to make it seem real. It's possibly this was an Indian scam but I think it's clear it was a scam.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment:: Often when there is a fake airline there are sources giving accusations of it. For instance Metis Transpacific Airlines pretty much was a scam airline and there are sources covering the scam itself (including one from a local news station in the US). Should I ask a French speaking editor to watch the Congolese news broadcast? Maybe that can clarify some things and give clues on whether there would be more sources or where we could find them: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#French_help:_What_does_this_news_broadcast_say_about_.22Stellar_Airways.22_.28Congolese_airline.29 and fr:Wikipédia:Bistro_des_non-francophones#Help_requested_to_find_French_language_sources_about_Stellar_Airways - Whenever there is a deletion query that is likely to concern another language it's good to reach out to speakers of that language to get more information WhisperToMe (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re-post from the French Wikipedia fr:Wikipédia:Bistro_des_non-francophones#Help_requested_to_find_French_language_sources_about_Stellar_Airways:

"The video says : « A new airline companie just been launches in RDC, 'Stellar Airways', whose first aircraft arrived in Congo not long ago [...]. The official lauch ceremony took place in the town of La Gombe. [...] It will fly 5 city : Kisangani, Mbujimayi, Goma, Lubumbashi and Kinshasa »

After that it's just communication message from the company.

So they just received their first aircraft, and probably haven't made the first commercial fligth when this was broadcasted. I don't know the date tough.

It seams to be Digital Congo TV ; their website is in French and English.

As most French people I have very little knowledge of Congo soI have no idea if you can rely on that chanel.

Zebulon84 (discuter) 30 avril 2014 à 18:25 (CEST)

So I'll search for archives of that website to see if it reports anything. In the case of Metis it was discovered to be fraud, but here... there may just be so much of a lack of published info that it can't make Wikipedia:V

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#French_help:_What_does_this_news_broadcast_say_about_.22Stellar_Airways.22_.28Congolese_airline.29

"I watched the video; it's too long to transcribe now but the gist is about the launch of Stellar Airways in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The airline started with one A320 aircraft, and planned seven routes serving Goma, Kinshasa, Kisangani, and two or three cities whose names I cannot make out. The broadcast seems to be from Digital Congo, which doesn't have an English Wikipedia article but which can be found on French Wikipedia - Eron^Talk 21:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"To begin, the airline planned to serve five cities. The two other cities are Lubumbashi and Mbuji-Mayi. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I find it very strange that there was a TV broadcast from Digital Congo, and yet I can't find any written articles about Stellar Airways on its official website: http://www.digitalcongo.net/ - there are still articles from around 2011 that are there. I'll see if I can e-mail the people at Digital Congo. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:59, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal Database[edit]

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

This academic journal does not seem to have a credible claim of notability. Since the speedy tag was removed, an AfD seems like the right course of action. Benboy00 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a shred of evidence that this is a notable (or even just useful) database. --Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infeeds[edit]

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

Non-notable website/company that fails to demonstrate notability. Lacks non-notable support. reddogsix (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article about a new web service, contributed by a WP:SPA account. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could probably be speedied under WP:G11 -- but regardless it does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find all the SPA's protesting on the talk page amazing! Should an SPI be opened? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. The Louis Gray ref is the only independent ref; it is a blog, and too brief to be considered significant coverage. A search turned up no RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 03:41, 5 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. I should note that sources being "partisan" is not a reason to delete an article, but that's irrelevant here as GNG is not met. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Diaz[edit]

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

Non-notble boxing promoter. A conviction for fraud does not make one notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One line article with no claims of notability. Also lacks significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NBOX (non-notable boxer).204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are partisan. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:12, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dallas[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No supported claims of notability and no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biased and promotional. Puffery involved. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:14, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Informer[edit]

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

Non-notable web content. Was speedy'd twice before when created by Shifat2sadi -- this time, it got re-posted by another user and Shifat2sadi removed the CSD tag, so by the rules we need to go through AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of attained notability for this new website. AllyD (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more time: The article needs more time. So it can be contributed by others. (talk) 7:49, 27 April 2014 (GMT+6)
Delete - This WP:PROMO stuff fails WP:GNG. It should be speedy deleted instead, as per CSD#G11 combined with CSD#A7. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:48, 1 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arahmaiani[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Fails notability for creative individuals the panda ₯’ 09:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An artist who has exhibited at the Venice Biennele and been reviewed in the New York Times. I have added various references to the article; one describes the subject as "one of Indonesia’s most radical artists", another as "Indonesia's most outstanding contemporary artist". This is sufficient for WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty obviously meets WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST with the New York Times review as well as inclusion in the Venice Biennial and the Global Feminisms exhibition. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 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) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Nurähmädov[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD challenged on the basis that the Azerbaijan League is fully pro, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is, and regardless, GNG is not met. C 679 05:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 05:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 13:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. Azerbaijan has been removed from the list recently as the sources provided for its FPL status did not explicitly sate it. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 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. (Delete all) j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Martinelli[edit]

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

Concern was the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:NCOLLATH. PROD contested by the author the following reason: Article meets WP:NCOLLATH because he has won a notable college soccer award. Just because it's a college soccer award and not a college basketball/football award does not make it non-notable. The fact that it's a college soccer award has nothing to do with this. The reason is because it fails WP:NCOLLATH is because those awards are not national awards, those are awards within their respective conference. – Michael (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: – Michael (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – none of them, all of whom purportedly won local awards, meet COLLATH, which requires national awards. GNG is not met. C 679 05:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as per above, fails, WP:NCOLLATH. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 07:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Sorry to ruin your deletion spree, but these articles meet WP:NCOLLATH Quidster4040 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. WP:NCOLLATH is met if they won a national award. Which none of these guys have. So they all fail. – Michael (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so anal about it Quidster4040 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none of them have played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning all these articles fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Additionally, none of them meet WP:COLLATH either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. Awards received not national so fails WP:NCOLLATH. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They're all college soccer players who fail to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Conference honors are not the same as national awards.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:03, 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) 08:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Travers[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. C 679 04:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 04:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ww2censor (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Service 75[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route. reddogsix (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 07:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: run of the mill bus route. Wondering if it's eligible for a speedy under WP:A1 no context, since it doesn't actually explain where in the world we are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No context, no source .... No nothing really. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Singaporean, I note that even among the bus routes in Singapore, this is nothing special. --Hildanknight (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bus routes, with very few exceptions, are almost always not notable. Unfortunately, this is not one of those exceptions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any article by the lines of "List of bus routes in Singapore"? Because I'm open for a redirect to such an article, although if this were to be redirected, the redirect should probably be something like "Service 75 (Singapore)". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:35, 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 Speedy delete, redirect, and fully protect. The present form of the article actually has less content than the version discussed at the last AfD, and the reasons given there for deletion apply every bit as much to this version as to the old one. CSD G4 exists to prevent us from having to waste time going through the same arguments again, when a page has already been discussed and consensus reached. It is difficult to imagine a case where such a reason for summary deletion to avoid time-wasting discussion would apply more so than in this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LarryBoy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete and redirect to List of VeggieTales characters#Larry the Cucumber per the 2008 AfD and for the reasons expressed in that AfD. Additionally, permanent full protection to prevent recreation. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew C. Kramer[edit]

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

Being a successful specialist "with over 30 publications and 10 book chapters" doesn't make this doctor notable. The article reads like self-promotion. Slashme (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, doesn't really say anything that distinguishes him from similar doctors. Seems like an employee page, doesn't really fit on wikipedia. Esox id^{talk•contribs} 01:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthy physician but doesn't make WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
This is a hard one, but I'll lean delete. I don't see what he's done is anything special any doctor would do to lend a helping hand to his patients. If kept, it would have to be re-written completely. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McIntosh (professor)[edit]

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

This article is basically a WP:COATRACK off the back of WP:BLP1E. The subject is a creationist, admittedly a rare breed in the United Kingdom. The sole claim to actual notability is nothing to do with the majority of the article, but is a minor award given to the group he leads. The cited source discussing this, namechecks him in the final sentence. His principal claim to fame is being a director of "Truth" in Science, a fringe and very very minor creationist group which his institution firmly repudiates, and he is the only one of the people listed in the article on that group for whom we have an article. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He certainly isn't famous for WP:PROF standards that I can see. The argument that he is notable for his peculiar religious claims may be stronger, but I don't think such an argument is particularly compelling per WP:BLPFRINGE. jps (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I am more hesitant than usual to !vote this way, as he appears to have gained some attention from the news media. However, I don't think this coverage passes the WP:PROF criteria, and is not extensive enough to get him past WP:GNG. If McIntosh receives further news coverage in future years, I can see him passing the notability threshold, but not now. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think, under WP:PROF Criterion 5 - a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable. Also, creationists in this sort of position in the UK are so rare that that on its own is probably good enough. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:PROF criterion 5 as his professorship is not significant or notable. It is certainly not true that any UK professor is notable. Religious minorities are not per se notable. The one important thing, the award his team received, is not specific to him and not a scholarly prize, but from Times Higher Education. Thus he fails WP:BLP1E as well. BethNaught (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to get plenty of coverage for his views from the British Centre for Science Education, Dawkins, the BBC, &c. Andrew (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fact that he is English, and there are not many English creationists, is hardly a claim to fame. I find that argument absurd. On a global scale, he is a fourth or fifth tier creationist, very far from a leading figure in the movement, except perhaps on a limited local scale, which would be all the more insignificant as creationism is a tiny movement in England. Not enough in the way of substantial feature coverage for his activities as a creationist in reliable independent secondary sources. As far as his career as a professor goes, it looks solid, but rather run of the mill. Rather unspectacular, in fact, with minimal coverage in news sources, largely limited to a single rather unspectacular award from a non-scientific body, of which he was not the sole recipient. Therefore fails both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. I find the argument that "a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable" absurd as well. That is not in accordance with WP:PROF or any other guidelines. Nothing worth saving here or merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 with an h-index of at least 20 (searching for "AC McIntosh" and manually removing the papers that are not his). The article should probably be reworded to focus more on his mainstream engineering work. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those editors saying "a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable" are appealing to WP:PROF#C5. In the UK, an ordinary "professor" is called a "lecturer" or "senior lecturer," and the "Professor" title is reserved for what in the US would be called "Distinguished Professor" or "Head of Department." Therefore, they are suggesting, WP:PROF#C5 apples. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a top-tier leader of the creationist movement, as you can see from Answers in Genesis. He has six mentions in the Highbeam news archive and 19 on GBooks. He is "the leading scientific proponent of IDT in the UK," according to Science vs. Religion by Steven Fuller. Guelf (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A web of science h-index of at least 17 just gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in the relatively low cited field of combustion science. His religious activities pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe et al. St Anselm (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Sufficiently notable to just pass WP:PROF without the creationism. It's debatable whether a genuine orthodox scientist in his own field being a creationist makes them more notable, but it might. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 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.