< 18 December	20 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 20:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartas sin destino[edit]

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

Unremarkable telenovela. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save: The telenovela if any, see: [1], [2].--McVeigh / talk 14:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable stars, producer, network involved. No doubt sufficient (pre-internet) press covered it, but cannot be found - a counter to recentism, where every new tv show and even those which haven't aired get articles because sources are easily found on the internet. A google book search turns up numerous books covering this telenovela, no doubt other media exist in hard copy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: To List of telenovelas of Televisa#1970s. Vrac (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlossuearez46, 'recentism' probably a big factor here. Vrac (talk) 14:20, 20 December 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Los que ayudan a Dios[edit]

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

Unremarkable telenovela. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save: The telenovela if any, see: [3], [4].--McVeigh / talk 14:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable stars and network involved. No doubt sufficient (pre-internet) press covered it, but cannot be found - a counter to recentism, where every new tv show and even those which haven't aired get articles because sources are easily found on the internet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: To List of telenovelas of Televisa#1970s. Vrac (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlossuearez46, 'recentism' probably a big factor here. Vrac (talk) 14:20, 20 December 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amaras a tu prójimo[edit]

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

Unremarkable telenovla. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable stars, producer, network involved. No doubt sufficient (pre-internet) press covered it, but cannot be found - a counter to recentism, where every new tv show and even those which haven't aired get articles because sources are easily found on the internet. A google book search turns up: [5], no doubt other media exist in hard copy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: To List of telenovelas of Televisa#1970s. Vrac (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlossuearez46, 'recentism' probably a big factor here. Vrac (talk) 14:20, 20 December 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 20:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La maestra Méndez[edit]

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

Unremarkable telenovla. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: To List of telenovelas of Televisa#1970s. Vrac (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlossuearez46, 'recentism' probably a big factor here. Vrac (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable stars, producer, network involved. No doubt sufficient (pre-internet) press covered it, but cannot be found - a counter to recentism, where every new tv show and even those which haven't aired get articles because sources are easily found on the internet. A google book search turns [6] covering this telenovela, no doubt other media exist in hard copy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 20:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mi rival[edit]

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

Unremarkable telenovela. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable stars, producer, network involved. No doubt sufficient (pre-internet) press covered it, but cannot be found - a counter to recentism, where every new tv show and even those which haven't aired get articles because sources are easily found on the internet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: To List of telenovelas of Televisa#1970s. Vrac (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Carlossuearez46, 'recentism' probably a big factor here. Vrac (talk) 14:20, 20 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English cricket team in Scotland in 2012[edit]

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

Pretty clearly non-notable: no game was played, and it was cancelled a long way in advance. I appreciate a vague sense of "well there was meant to be a game, we should record that", but I don't think there is really much sense in that. Pretty sure it should be deleted. Harrias ^talk 21:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The event was scheduled, yes. It wasn't just mooted, it was scheduled. The match even had a date set. In that respect, it's similar to the 2001 FIFA Club World Championship, which still has an article despite being cancelled. – Pee Jay 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference in the amount of coverage the two got though. It's a shame there isn't a 2012 English cricket season style article it would be suitable to upmerge into. I agree there should be some record, I just don't think a standalone article is required. Harrias ^talk 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scheduled to take place, but never did. I wouldn't have a problem if it was called off on the day, or even the day before, but this was called off nearly a month before it was due to take place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never happened, should be mentioned here. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote Delete even if a game had taken place. Individual games (even in sports considerably more popular and culturally significant than cricket) in and of themselves do not merit articles.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International cricket tours that only consist of one match are notable in their own right. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see the Wiki rule in support of that. It's like claiming that every MLB game involving a US team visiting Canada to play the Toronto Blue Jays merits an article. (And Scotland-from-England represents an even more tenuous assertion of "international tour" than US-to-Canada.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point. I can't see anything at the Cricket Project to support what I said. However, I suspect if an article of a tour with just one match (that actually took place) was taken to AfD, it would be kept under WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International cricket in 2012. Probably worth a brief mention there, but not enough meat to justify a full blown article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:39, 27 December 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. Rough consensus indicates that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 05:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist insurgency in Nigeria[edit]

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

This article seems to exist solely to propagate a POV that all sectarian conflicts involving Muslims (which this article calls "Islamist") in Nigeria, along with Boko Haram, are closely related somehow. However, reliable sources do not make this claim, or support it in any way. The information in this article is duplicated in Boko Haram and the other articles linked to from this article. (See also Talk:Islamist_insurgency_in_Nigeria#Delete_this_article). Essentially, this article frames the Boko Haram Islamist movement as part of a wider "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" - a purely WP:OR claim that no WP:RS makes. zzz (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. zzz (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's separate a few claims. 1. Is the phrase "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" ever used by reliable sources? Yes:

Note that this nomination does not claim that the phrase is not used. zzz (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Finn, The Washington Post (21 March 2013): "U.S. concern about terrorist groups in Africa has surged in recent months in the wake of an attack on Westerners working at a natural-gas facility in Algeria, the rise of Islamist extremists in Mali and North Africa, and an ongoing Islamist insurgency in Nigeria."
Peter Griffiths, Irish Examiner (25 May 2013): "Sources have said no sign has emerged of direct links between the attack (i.e. the murder of Lee Rigby) and an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria."
Jibrin Ibrahim, Premium Times (28 October 2013): "An Islamist insurgency in Nigeria’s North East is spreading to other parts of the country."
Agence France Presse (27 February 2014): "But given the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria's northeast and France's recent military interventions against militants in Mali and the Central African Republic, security has been pushed up the agenda."
Deutsche Welle (14 March 2014), "The clashes are thought to be unrelated to an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria's northeast, in which thousands of civilians have been killed."

I can go on, but I suppose this will suffice. Next claim: 2. is Boko Haram related to "all sectarian conflicts involving Muslims in Nigeria"? No, but the article doesn't claim that. The intro, the infobox and the main text starting from 'History' clearly state Boko Haram didn't get involved in the conflict until 2009.

Next claim: 3. Is the Boko Haram Islamist movement part of a wider "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria"? Well, it's not the only Islamist group in Nigeria, there is also Ansaru and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, so yes.

Thus I conclude your motivations for nominating this article for deletion are unfounded, since RS back up the claims that are therefore not OR. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this article details a major armed conflict with thousands of deaths annually it is notable and will continue to be so. It seems to me what you are really arguing for is a rename.XavierGreen (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw 1:"Let's separate a few claims" - You will see, from my statement above, that I did not claim that the phrase "Islamist insurgency" is never used. As you have demonstrated, it sometimes (infrequently) is used. The problem is, it is only used to describe Boko Haram.

2:You state that "Boko Haram didn't get involved in the conflict until 2009" - So, what is the "conflict" which they "joined" in 2009? You have not provided any WP:RS stating that they "joined" a "conflict" in 2009. That is purely an invention of the article.

3: As I explained to you on the talk page, Ansaru was a short-lived off-shoot of Boko Haram which is thought to have conducted some kidnappings on behalf of them in neighbouring Cameroon around 2013. As I explained to you, they are already covered in the Boko Haram article, and in their own article.

Finally, AQIM has never operated in Nigeria. I am frankly amazed that you think otherwise - no WP:RS has ever said anything of the sort. (Boko Haram are thought to have obtained training and funding from them at some point - in other African countries - as stated in the sources you quoted.)

Unfortunately, you have not addressed any of the problems I raised.

@XavierGreen Boko Haram are indeed notable - and there is a Wikipedia article about them. As I said, the phrase "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" is only ever used to refer to them - at least, that is, outside of the Wikipedia article Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. zzz (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other smaller islamist groups fighting the government as well, most notably ANSARU. The page in question here needs to be expanded to cover the full history of the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Ansaru was a short-lived off-shoot of Boko Haram which is thought to have conducted some kidnappings on behalf of them in neighbouring Cameroon around 2013. They are already covered in the Boko Haram article, and in their own article.

"There are other smaller islamist groups fighting the government as well". No - there are not. WP:RS, please. zzz (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay zzz, I will attempt to answer your new/remaining questions. 1. You ignore the Mirror article I cited that clearly uses 'Islamist insurgency' referring only to Ansaru, not to Boko Haram, and ignore the two other articles that mention both Boko Haram and Ansaru as groups that are behind the Islamist insurgency, therefore you simply cannot maintain "it is only used to describe Boko Haram".

2. They joined what was until then known as the "Sharia Conflict in Nigeria". It is clear that Boko Haram has aggrevated the already highly contentious introduction of Sharia law in the northern states by starting to fight for introduction of Sharia law all over Nigeria. I can give many examples of newspapers explicitly linking the rise of Boko Haram to the conflict that already existed since 2000, like Ibrahim Mshelliza, Reuters (27 July 2009): "Gun battles between police and members of a local Islamic group, which wants a wider adoption of Islamic law across Nigeria, were reported in Yobe, Kano and Borno states. The attacks came a day after more than 50 people were killed in neighbouring Bauchi state. (...) The four northern states are among the 12 of Nigeria's 36 states that started a stricter enforcement of sharia in 2000 - a decision that has alienated sizeable Christian minorities and sparked bouts of sectarian violence that killed thousands.(...) A senior member of the rebel group Boko Haram, which opposes Western education and demands the adoption of sharia law in all of Nigeria, threatened further attacks."

3. It "was"? What makes you think the organisation has been dissolved or otherwise ceased all its activities? About three weeks ago, Ansaru issued a statement of condolence for the victims of the 28 November attack of the Central Mosque in Kano. That activity is quite recent.

AQIM has definitely operated in Nigeria:

1: The Mirror article which you claim I "ignored" is about the 2013 kidnapping of Brendan Vaughan. The Telegraph: "Brendan Vaughan was killed with six colleagues, from Italy, Greece and Lebanon, who were all taken hostage last month by gunmen from Ansaru, an offshoot of Nigeria’s al-Qaeda-allied militants, Boko Haram."

2: The source you quote here is about the July 2009 uprising of Boko Haram; the source states "Boko Haram, which means 'education illegal,' began its string of attacks in the northeastern city of Bauchi on Sunday after the arrest of some of its members." No source has ever claimed or implied that the uprising was a continuation of the "Sharia conflict", which was a series of sectarian riots. (And, of course, Boko Haram have never been involved in any sectarian riots, which are a completely separate phenomenon - see for example [7]).

3: The (highly dubious) Nigerian article you quote says that Ansaru "apparently (?) issued a statement of condolence for the victims, in effect condemning the attack." The writer of the article offers no evidence whatsoever that they are active, and even helpfully offers the opinion that, based on their "apparent" statement, they are not.

And no, AQIM have never operated in Nigeria: no RS has ever said otherwise. Your Aljazeera quote merely speculates idly that some guy called Tulha "even went to Nigeria" in 2006. zzz (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR

I hope that, at some point, someone will address the reason for deleting this confused, WP:POVFORK of Boko Haram:
Essentially, this article frames the Boko Haram Islamist movement as part of a wider "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" - a purely WP:OR claim that no WP:RS makes.
And, please note that the sectarian riots which constituted the "Sharia conflict" have never been described as an "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" - except in this Wikipedia article. This article is a complete embarrassment and a liability. zzz (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. I don't doubt that Ansaru is an offshoot of Boko Haram, but that actually proves the point that there are several independent Islamist groups involved in this Islamist insurgency.

2. "No source has ever claimed or implied that the uprising was a continuation of the "Sharia conflict"". You ignore the Reuters article I provided that links the post-1999 religious riots during the introduction of Sharia law in the northern states to Boko Haram's violent efforts to introduce Sharia law to all other Nigerian states as well. Reuters had no reason to bring up the riots unless to trace Boko Haram's attack to the same source of conflict. Here, have some more:

Sudarsan Raghavan, The Washington Post (30 December 2012) "[This sprawling northeastern town is the birthplace and stronghold of the Boko Haram. From here, what began as a nonviolent Islamist uprising fueled by poverty, inequality and government corruption in 2002 has grown into a shadowy insurgency that U.S. and Western officials say has increasing connections to al-Qaeda affiliates. The militia has also sought to exploit long-standing tensions between Muslims and Christians in the northern part of this oil-rich nation of 160 million]."
Boko Haram: Islamism, politics, security and the state in Nigeria ("The almajirai have been rightly or wrongly associated with Islamic radicalisation, militancy, and the periodic religious riots that have blighted many northern Nigerian cities. The current menace of Boko Haram violence in northern Nigeria has accentuated the concern. (page 163)"

3. It serves to prove that Ansaru is not 'short-lived' because it still exists; in fact, the UN designated Ansaru as a terrorist organisation on 26 June 2014, so they still regard it as relevant. Again you ignore the Abendblatt article that tells how AQIM killed a German man in Kano. If you don't know German, get a machine translation or ask someone to translate it instead of ignoring it. And it's not just 'some guy', this is Abderrahmane alias "Abu Talha Al Mauritani", the amir (chief) of the Al Fourqan brigade of AQIM. What he said in that interview is that he has gone to Nigeria to recruit members for AQIM there. That is AQIM operating in Nigeria, no matter how much you try to ignore, deny or downplay it. Boko Haram, Ansaru and AQIM are three of the Islamist groups we know by name to participate in the 'wider' Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, that should be obvious by now and enough to answer your question.

I agree the term "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" has never been used to describe the religious riots that constituted the "Sharia conflict". Nor should it: those riots were always short-lived outbursts of religious hatred, and although there is evidence of coordination behind some of them, like the Miss World riots, we don't see an organised rebellion against the Nigerian government until 2009 (interrupted on 29 July, resumed in December 2010). If that is a problem for you, that just means we need to correct the intro and the infobox to saying the conflict began in 2009, even though clarifying the root conflict about introduction and actual implementation of Sharia in some or all of Nigeria's states lie much deeper than the July 2009 Boko Haram uprising. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per above, voluminous notable sources use the exact phrase to describe the ongoing situation. To even continue entertaining the possibility of an oblique chance this article would be deleted is a disservice to a Wikipedia, and emboldens further zealotry-motivated AfDs.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Zealotry-motivated": the above vote should be ignored as a blatant personal attack.

<sarc> I think votes should be worth double if they're opposed by people cruising for a block.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No militant Islamist groups other than Boko Haram and Ansaru have ever been identified by any WP:RS as being involved in any "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria". Therefore, this article can only ever be a WP:POVFORK of Boko Haram - Ansaru is an off-shoot of Boko haram, and as such is covered in the Boko Haram article.
It currently also contains material about the Sharia conflict, which has never been described as as an "Islamist insurgency": this will therefore have to be removed, leaving only material about Boko Haram and Ansaru. The result being 2 Boko Haram articles. zzz (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: A. The article was clearly not set up as a POV fork of Boko Haram. The oldest version (27 June 2010) by Sarcelles was called Nigerian sectarian violence and did not even mention Boko Haram, and does not remotely resemble the contemporaneous version of Boko Haram.

B. I'll repeat my proposal on the talk page to split the article in two (or three: one for the Maitatsine insurgency, too) to make a clearer distinction between the occasional communal violence from 1999 onwards and the start of Boko Haram's sustained rebellion since 2009/2010.

C. I don't doubt your qualities as a writer on the subject, I've seen you've greatly improved the article on Boko Haram. But I don't see why you so vehemently oppose this article. Do you only want people to read what you wrote or something, and you regard this article as your competitor? There really is no need to worry. The two articles are closely related, but not the same; they support each other, they don't vie for the readers' attention. :(After edit conflict) You don't think Aljazeera and Hamburger Abendblatt are RS? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "there are several independent Islamist groups involved in this Islamist insurgency." No: there is Boko Haram, and there is ansaru, an offshoot of Boko Haram. Agreed? zzz (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I am right, then this article can only be a POVFORK. If I am wrong and there are several, please name them, with sources. zzz (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong and I have already explained why and named them with sources. That you ignore the sources doesn't mean they don't exist. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have named AQIM, for which you have only found one source (in German). The Aljazeera source does not state that AQIM have been active in Nigeria, only that a member "visited" (supposedly) in 2006. Why are there no (or, arguably, only one) English language sources to support this extraordinary claim? And how can any useful content be added from one or possibly two sources anyway? zzz (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is only ever used to refer to Boko Haram and its offshoot Ansaru, so the name has to be changed, but other possible names are taken, eg Religious violence in Nigeria, Sharia in Nigeria etc. I can't see any use for the article. At the moment, it is a synonym for Boko Haram, as used by WP:RS, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. zzz (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want more sources on AQIM? via Agence France Presse via Deutsche Presse-Agentur also via AFP Stratfor Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all about the same German captive. The first source says "AQIM has not been known to operate directly in Nigeria". It would appear that Boko Haram did at one point hand this one captive to AQIM. And, as of June 2014, Boko Haram is not believed by the US government to be affiliated to al Qaeda [8]. zzz (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It would appear that Boko Haram did at one point hand this one captive to AQIM". WP:RS, please. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? The 5 sources you just provided "about AQIM" (as you said) are all about this one German engineer (whose existence I was unaware of). The only relevance to this thread is that "AQIM has not been known to operate directly in Nigeria", as the first one (AFP) says, but you were disputing at great length, above. zzz (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Plenty of great sources. I see no point for this nomination to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, There are indeed plenty of sources using the phrase, and they all refer to Boko Haram. So I see no point in this article. zzz (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ill explain one more time, since the voter above admitted to not seeing the point in this nomination.

What should Islamist insurgency in Nigeria be about?
Boko Haram? No, there is already an article about them - including their offshoot Ansaru, and including their past links to Al Qaeda and AQIM. Boko_Haram#Background already covers the background of Boko Haram, and could be expanded.
No one and nothing else in Nigeria has ever been described, by any sources anywhere, at any time, as an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. Sectarian riots, which are not connected to Boko Haram, have occurred quite frequently, but no one has ever described these as "Islamist" or as an "insurgency".
So change the name? No, because there is already an article called Religious violence in Nigeria, Sharia in Nigeria etc etc. No plausible name change has been suggested by anyone.
Therefore it should be deleted - or alternatively, a redirect to Boko Haram. zzz (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that oppose voters please specify which part of the above they disagree with, and why. Thanks. zzz (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as amply demonstrated, this clearly meets WP:GNG as being well-sourced. On one hand, it plainly needs quite a bit of editing; it is tagged to death and one source in the external links needs to be cited in the lead. On the other hand, it is not so clearly a content fork nor such as disaster as to require all objective readers to delete this. So it's up to a subjective view of a fellow sysop here: it's your call, closing admin. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire lead section is a close paraphrase of that one external links source. No other source contains this POV, that "Northern Nigeria has been in a state of conflict since 2001, culminating with the formation of the Boko Haram. Over the past five years, starting in 2009, the conflict has clearly been at its most violent phase." This single statement is factually wrong on several counts (Boko Haram was formed in 2002, and not involved in any violence at all until 2009, facts she was clearly unaware of). It is unnacceptable to have a POVFORK based entirely around one article. Who is "KIRTHI JAYAKUMAR" anyway? She doesn't qualify for her own Wikipedia article, so why should one article she wrote result in an entire POVFORK about Boko Haram? If her theory of the history of Boko Haram is notable, it should be added to the Boko Haram article, clearly - not used as the basis for a POVFORK. zzz (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources using the phrase "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" are all using it to refer to Boko Haram. Of course it is well-sourced - there is an "Islamist insurgency" going on - but it is clearly a WP:FORK, surely? How is it not a FORK? Should we have both ISIS and Islamist insurgency in Syria? What for? I have had a couple of articles concerning Boko Haram deleted (after having brought the Boko Haram article to a reasonable standard), because they were non-notable and created by a banned user (and there are a few more) - but I am completely wasting my time trying to sort this topic out if this article is allowed to remain. If it remains, what is to be done with it, bearing in mind that its title is precisely equivalent to "Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria" (according to all of the sources that use the phrase)? zzz (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Islamist insurgency" is "sourced". But every source is referring to Boko Haram. It is a WP:FORK. zzz (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: I strongly believe that no one called it (ie, Boko Haram's activities) an "insurgency" til 2011 (at least - probably much later, in fact), when they (Boko Haram) started attacking police stations. (See Talk:Boko_Haram#Terror_campaign_.2F_Insurgency where I discussed this exact point some time ago with a user who actually cared about accuracy). But this article just casually calls everything that happened in Nigeria from 1999 (at least) an "insurgency" (and, "Islamist") with no sources whatsoever. It is a blatant WP:POVFORK. And the enormous length of this discussion is a sad indictment, frankly. I'm actually right here (by which I mean, all the sources back me up), and yet only one voter has admitted (possibly, I think?) that that might be the case - but still voted "Keep". It is depressing. This article just re-writes history. zzz (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This article will define all violence in Nigeria involving Muslims as an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. According to an article written by Kirthi Jayakumar, the "Boko Haram conflict" began in 2001, a year before the group had formed, and two years after Sharia in Nigeria was first introduced, and the "most violent phase" began in 2009. Other Islamist insurgencies had occurred before, also, throughout the recorded history of the country since the 11th century CE, but this article will arbitrarily ignore most of them."

That is literally the best I can do for the opening paragraph of this article, if it is kept, in its current form. Note that there is already an article called Religious violence in Nigeria, necessitating the random specificity of this article. I recommend deleting it. zzz (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is clearly notable. Title does not sound NPOV, work on that — "Islamist" is pejorative. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's doing anyone any favours having a dubious POV FORK - but that's just my opinion. zzz (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The label "Islamist" isn't intrinsically any more POV or pejorative than "communist" or "socialist", etc.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Раціональне анархіст. Would you like to clarify your previous comment in this thread, that I am a zealot (or, "zealotry-driven")? zzz (talk) 12:39, 26 December 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 BNS Bangabandhu. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 00:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Khalid Bin Walid[edit]

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

There ship was commissioned as BNS Khalid Bin Walid in 2007 but in 2009, it was renamed as BNS Bangabandhu. Wikipedia has a well-described page named BNS Bangabandhu. At present there is no ship with this name and it may misguide people.Sf-000 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the nominator's info, I'd say it is not an AfD but the article should be redirected to BNS Bangabandhu. – nafSadh did say 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This article started out as a redirect to BNS Bangabandhu from a page move. A separate article was recreated. Redirecting from a former name seems to be the logical approach. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per Gene's comment, a redirect makes the most sense I believe. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Gene93k, seems a sensible approach to me. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 21 December 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 wrong venue. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Ali Haider (F17)[edit]

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

This page bear nothing but a redirect link and wiki has a full page for this ship. Sf-000 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirects are discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion, not AfD. This redirect appears to be a later name for the same topic, a normal function for redirects. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And your problem is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 22 December 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 wrong venue. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Abu Bakar (F15)[edit]

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

This page bear nothing but a redirect link and wiki has a full page for this ship. Sf-000 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirects are discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion, not AfD. This redirect appears to be a later name for the same topic, a normal function for redirects. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And your problem is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 22 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)[edit]

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

This group is not recognized as an official state and the group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. so how can it have an official province. Seems like another propaganda for ISIS like Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL). This article does not meet the general notability guide line and should be deleted. Mhhossein (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason:

Delete both The administrative zones of terrorist organizations are not automatically assumed to be notable. There are almost no reliable sources, so both of these articles should be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i see no solid reason to delete, especially considering the notability of Wilayat al-Sina (province of Sinai) and Wilayat Barqah - both forming significant terrorist groups operating in Sinai and Derna respectively. Their ground control is limited, but there are solid evidences for attempting to administrate those regions; the organizations claiming to be Wilayats are notable by themselves even without the ground.GreyShark (dibra) 13:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: Yeah, the organizations are notable but this fact has really nothing to do with the notability of these titles. These titles can be notable only when the cities are officially know to be that of ISIS, which is not a truth by now and it won't be in future. As you know, no country has accepted it as an official state, so how can it have it's own notable province? Mhhossein (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of ISIL and provinces is a different issue than ISIL's existence. I would be careful to say "which is not a truth by now and it won't be in future" - this is not an encyclopedic claim, but WP:CRYSTALBALL.GreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Recognition of ISIL and provinces is a different issue than ISIL's existence" exactly that's why I assert that these titles lack notability! Just answer the question: who Recognizes these provinces that of ISIL? They themselves or any other countries? Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask you who recognized the Islamic Caliphate during the 7th century conquests? Which nation (except Nazi Germany and its later defeated allies) recognized German occupation of Belgium so it has its own article?GreyShark (dibra) 19:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you exactly compared the Islamic Caliphate during the 7th century and Germany with an organization recognized as terrorist? Btw, please check the titles of the two articles you linked. Mhhossein (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a terrorist group. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrorist group. so what? Mhhossein (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable so called entity, and the article is an unnecessary spinoff of 2014_ISIL_takeover_of_Derna. The so called admin divisions of ISIL in Iraq are even less notable and less deserving of articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article on Ansar Bait al-Maqdis already exists and is enough. EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Ansar al-Sharia in Sinai underwent a split couple of months ago, now the major branch of Ansar pledged to ISIL and names itself "Wilayat al-Sina". Similar case in Libya with "Wilayat Barqah" (former local Jihadist group, pledging to ISIL).GreyShark (dibra) 08:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Libya article is pretty much a clone of 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna but without the depth or quality, and I've merged over the one or two details that were not already duplicated to the Derna article already. An article with an English name is needed for ISIL in Sinai (suggested name). Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion of both - These articles are rather important, given their significance in their participation in multiple insurgencies across the Middle East, and a little more work could make them much better organized. They also describe ISIL branches that are operating outside of Iraq and Syria, which we have little coverage on at the moment. It is much more effective to expand and reorganize those article rather than to delete them outright just because of a few issues. Instead of nominating some articles for deletion, why don't we actually try to improve these articles? Then we will have far more coverage and less work/effort wasted. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no province named as "Wilayat al-Sinai" so that we can improve the articles! Btw, we are not talking about a group and we are discussing the state (a geographical field)!Mhhossein (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorist ISIL groups in Libya and Sinai need articles because they exist in different circumstances from Iraq/Syria ISIL. The fake geographic entities/fake governments do not merit articles and creating them is promoting terrorist propaganda = WP:NOTHERE.Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And we are not talking about a state, we are talking about terrorist groups that have pledged their allegiance to ISIL. I agree that it wasn't the best name (Wilayat Sinai was), but until we can fix that redirect problem, we have to stick with the current article title. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the title but also the parts of article talking about it's geographic entities should be edited. Mhhossein (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that we must delete the articles outright. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This means that the article would better be deleted, because we really need a very different article for the group! An article which deserves to stand alone. Surely not this one. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These were better sourced than the so-called Wilayats in Syria. However, the sources for both articles essentially state that ISIS affiliated groups are active in Egypt and Libya, and have claimed territory in Libya. In other words, they are a terrorist organization that controls territory, not a state. Their territories should not be assumed to be notable. After doing some more searches, I was unable to find any sources analyzing either Wilayat as a legitimate autonomous zone. Rather, all coverage of the supposed Wilayats consisted of largely trivial mentions in articles otherwise about the terrorist group. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because Daesh is a group of bad people or because quasi-states shouldn't be documented here regardless of their ideology. However, the sourcing to prove this is an actual entity that exists on the ground is pretty thin. I don't think there's enough out there to write a neutral article on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:50, 27 December 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. This closure should not be interpreted as precluding a later merge if a consensus can be reached. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

400kV Forth Crossing[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:N. Article makes no attempt to establish any notability, searching for "Forth Crossing" brings up bridge-related things almost solely, and putting any of the numbers before the crossing name, which is currently disputed (132kV, 380kV, 400kV) gives me no reliable sources; just a bunch of Wiki-style things and unreliable stuff. The claim in the article that this is the "tallest electricity tower in Scotland" does not appear to be verifiable, and even if it is verifiable - is that really a notable thing, unless it has actually received substantial coverage in that regard? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Is there any serious question that this major crossing in the National Grid exists? If we recognise that much, it's a bit of a failure by WP to start claiming that it's not notable. The Emporis source confirms that it's there, also that it's 400kV. That's just by looking at the obvious place where I'd expect it to be listed, not by even trying to search for sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are those things generally notable by Wikipedia standards though? I'm not seeing a whole lot of articles in Category:Electric power infrastructure in Scotland, and none of these appear to be electricity towers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's a big difference between a run of the mill powerline and a major cross-water interconnect. Links like the Thames or Severn Crossings, or the Fawley Tunnel are all there. Note that these major links are all 400kV (or DC), as I'd expect for any link major enough to be listed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Powerline river crossings in the United Kingdom. I couldn't see the Emporis cites, so I added them. But I'm really wondering if this is notable enough for an article. Compared to say locomotives, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest around the Internet in pylons. This article and Fawley Tunnel are both pretty stubbish and don't look like they are going anywhere. The 400kV Thames Crossing and Aust Severn Powerline Crossing articles have more content, but I think all four could fit comfortably into Powerline river crossings in the United Kingdom, which itself is pretty stubbish. So, merge and redirect? – Margin1522 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'd still need redirects and they would need to be categorised for geography. I just don't see any saving to this. Also some interconnects have a substantial history and ongoing local politics - Aust especially. The fact that WP hasn't managed to cover this is no reason to pretend that it shouldn't. It's a strange setup where school articles don't need to be sourced because "All schools are notable", but a major piece of national infrastructure can be vetoed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – OK, I will grant that the Thames and Severn articles are more substantial. Sources exist. I just added one to the Thames article – a 1938 magazine article on the old Thames crossing. But after looking I can't find any more on this one. In addition to WP:ITEXISTS, we need enough material to write a substantial article. I think copying over everything in this article (text, images, cites) would improve the crossings article, and if we leave this as a redirect with the history intact then it can be revived in the case that someone does find more material. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should add, the geography is a point. We would lose the coordinates. This isn't a strong recommendation. I'm willing to go along if other people want to keep it. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andy Dingley. If the notability guidelines suggest deleting this, as some seem to think, then WP:IAR this one and fix them urgently. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, tending to keep but merge does no long-term damage, see Andy Dingley and my comments above. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 26 December 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 WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie's Theorem[edit]

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

Prod removed, still no reliable sources for this. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. We are told, "this theorem was first developed and proven by a young physicist named Melanie (last known unknown) at Phillips Exeter Academy, New Hampshire. She is expected to win Nobel Prizes in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics due to her tremendous contribution to the global physics community." There are no sources and none can be found. This fits WP:MADEUP; it may even qualify for speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11 as "obviously invented".--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy or snow delete. Obviously made up as a joke; see also the creator's additions to Chain rule.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy crap what is this. No sources, etc, as per the others. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 December 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 and redirect to We Got Married. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khuntoria[edit]

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

Another trivial article on a reality show couple. Redirect to We Got Married, maybe--this is nothing but fan talk, and probably a bunch of PR from the production company thrown in for good measure. Look through the history to see the trivia I've already clipped. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article is not necessary, as each season of the show already has one. You might want to look at Taeun as well. --Random86 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. — Revi 15:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already covered. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:51, 20 December 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. Michig (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YongSeo[edit]

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

This is a couple from a reality TV show. They loved sweet potatoes. There are references, sure, because the show was popular, and the tabloids love such popularity. But this is not an encyclopedic topic--the content deserves perhaps a paragraph in We Got Married, and the article a redirect at best. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Including List of We Got Married (YongSeo) episodes which a episode summary can be found on We Got Married (Season 4). ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 17:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There is no reason for this to have its own article. --Random86 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nothing to add, per nom. — Revi 15:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already covered. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge to We Got Married (Season 2)- YongSeo has a Wiki Article? "Couple Names" don't belong there. If Wikipedia allowed that, then EunHae would have been titled as the couple name too (instead of the official subgroup name, Donghae & Eunhyuk). Tibbydibby (talk) 00:48, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of We Got Married (Khuntoria) background musics[edit]

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

I think by now we are well into trivia territory. The "references" are fan sites at best, and the thing as a whole is unverified. Mind you, we're talking about background music for a TV show: we're not a directory, we're not a fan site. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creator should have read WP:NOT, delete. — Revi 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, unencyclopedic, etc. delete. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessive detail and probably original research. Note that we are not talking about some official soundtrack of this show, it is listing everything (including "The Sims 2 University – Neighborhood", really dude?). Citing a Tumblr blog and Baidu Tieba forum fails WP:RS. The "Preview" column makes me suspect some degree of direct copyvio. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 04:27, 21 December 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. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny English (civil servant)[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets WP:ANYBIO. His coworkers apparently spoke well of him, but I've only been able to find "trivial coverage", such as news reports which quote him as a Teamsters spokesman. I haven't found a single source that's actually about him. "johnny english" teamsters -wikipedia doesn't yield too many results, and many are still irrelevant, either as Wikipedia mirrors or about the Rowan Atkinson films. BDD (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a reasonably influential and respected figure in the Teamsters. He died in 1969 and it's hard to find online newspaper sources about him, but I did turn up 2 versions of his AP obituary [9][10] and a substantial number of mentions in books. He was noted in the Teamsters for being personally honest, and for having been a fierce opponent of Dave Beck [11], and yet he defended Jimmy Hoffa and the union in the face of corruption accusations. This is discussed in Robert F. Kennedy's The Enemy Within, his 1960 book about union corruption, and numerous secondary sources. I added some of these to the article. I think he's notable enough as a historic figure in the union movement. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good find. I had tried to find an obituary and failed before making this nomination, but this gives me something to go by. I'll also rename to John F. English, in line with his VIAF name. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I also favor renaming this page to John F. English or John English (Teamsters officer); I don't think "civil servant" is quite the right descriptor for an American union official. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:54, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of antibacterial soups[edit]

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

Unreferenced article meets Wikipedia:No original research criteria for deletion Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete content merge into antibacterial soaps. There is no article effectiveness of antibiotics or effectiveness of vitamin pills, the content is just inherently part of the subject itself.- Augustabreeze (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Augustabreeze (talk · contribs), but I think content could only be merged after finding reliable sources.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR or WP:RS are enough to kill it, but I don't think it fits into any speedy deletion criterion.Tigraan (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was intrigued initially but the title is a misprint - it should be soap not soup! Andrew D. (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen much better written articles that make the same mistake. As Augustabreeze said: The main aspect of antibacterial soaps is their effectiveness. There is really no difference between the articles "anti-bacterial soap" and "the effectiveness of anti-bacterial soaps." The same as "light bulb" and "the light provided by light bulbs." Borock (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Under A10 (already covered by existing topic and does not expound upon it), and G12 (Copyright) as pretty much every sentence I search on is copied from another source. Some WP, some Facebook, WHO, etc. Crow^Caw 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and no redirect, unless people will be searching for soup instead of soap. Crow^Caw 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crow My wife makes a great antibacterial SOUP. It's so bad, not even bacteria would touch it. Bgwhite (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sting.ogg Crow^Caw 16:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as OR. PianoDan (talk) 15:37, 23 December 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. Michig (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bible translations into Oriya[edit]

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

Should we need articles like these??? No references. Doesn't serve a clear picture. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering - be interesting to see if this gathers any 'support' !votes. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Oriya_language#Literature or Oriya literature. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuts the existence of these stubs is the result of demerge discussion about 3 years to chop up the ghastly [Bible translations into second-tier languages] article, that discussion had bundles of things like tribal China languages and American Indian languages, but major state languages like Oriya just need adding sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IIO. Didn'y know that, and I know see it's part of a bigger series. So Keep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously important topics, sufficiently so that there is no need to merge. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it did already have a reference when nominated, has a further source now, is notable, and forms part of a series of articles. – Fayenatic London 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This refers to a major Indian language. The alternative might be to merge and redirect to an article on Bibnle translation into Indian languages, but that is likely to be less satisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 23 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Rajan & Company[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable Lakun.patra (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No Google books results except books that copy from Wikipedia, and no Google results except false positives, appears to be a hoax or, at least, unverifiable. Everymorning talk 16:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. --Michig (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NCORP..and yes, many claims made in the article are questionable and may be outright hoax. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:30, 26 December 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 nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beda people[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. May also be mentioned in Jammu and Kashmir if necessary. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had forgotten about this article, sorry. It is easily expanded and I am in the process of doing that now. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nomination Great Job @Sitush. Please improve the article as it seems you have some knowledge about this article.Lakun.patra (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lakun.patra why did you nominate this and what has changed in relation to the topic to affect notability of this topic? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Agile Programming[edit]

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

I hesitated on tagging this for a speedy G11 because it's not very obviously promotional, and I wasn't sure about A10. User:Trivialist redirected it to Extreme programming (along with Extreme Agile Programming), which I supported, but was reverted by the article creator, and I refuse to edit war.

Google reveals a WP article with Agile software development. It seems like a lot of the sources about extreme agile programming are actually about agile or extreme, not both, and searching for the entire phrase in quotes revealed three results, therefore failing WP:GNG. It just... doesn't explain why it's notable.

Delete, merge, or redirect? — kikichugirl ^inquire 05:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Delete not really a thing. Artw (talk) 17:07, 12 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Agile programming" is a recognised idea and you can go and get formal qualifications and instruction that make you a certified "Agile programmer". The "extreme" version would seem to be the same ideas and concepts, applied more enthusiastically and without some of the separation (which isn't a core methodology of "regular" Agile programming anyway). Agile programming with more meetings? Who knows. Looks like a thing someone invented one day (recently), not a recognised thing that has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Delete (hee hee) - No evidence of secondary sources or notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:59, 24 December 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 Merge to Saint John Harbour. Michig (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John, New Brunswick harbour cleanup[edit]

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

I've found some CBC articles referencing this project, but that's it for third-party references (and that would only count as one source). Everything else seems to be from government or interest groups. As such, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The weird thing about this is the idea that we need a separate article about the cleanup project, when even the parent article Saint John Harbour is barely more than a stub and could easily accomodate information about the cleanup project without requiring a spinoff (especially when that spinoff is also as stubbish as this one is.) Merge into Saint John Harbour. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 12 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems far more sensible than two stand-alone articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge done into Saint John Harbour. This article can be safely deleted anytime. Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 24 December 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 Grandaddy discography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Windfall Varietal[edit]

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

have not been able to establish this subject's notability Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 12 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy discography. not notable enough for a separate article. --Michig (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grandaddy discography. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 December 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 Grandaddy discography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Party Come Along Theories[edit]

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

does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy per dearth of reliable source coverage, although there is a little [12] there is not enough to support an independent article per WP:NALBUMS. Everymorning talk 01:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grandaddy per above. --Michig (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grandaddy. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 27 December 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. Michig (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrigram[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I've done some searches, and it appears there is nothing significantly showing notability here. The article's main purpose appears to, once again, be advertising. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or resolve its problems. It has virtually no source other than company's website, let alone evidence of notability which must be in the form of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But in the past, some of my colleagues on Wikipedia have proven to be far better than me in finding evidences of notability for online source. If this came to pass, I have no prejudice against this alternative. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:RS and not even a claim of WP:Notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how are articles like Quadrigram are tolerated. Every statement is arbitrarily made, No notability claims, No refs, Not even primary refs! Although I have personally improved the article's content and it would be a shame to have it deleted, rules are rules. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addie L. Greene Public Park[edit]

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

Delete - This park is just another run-of-the-mill city park managed by Palm Beach County parks and recreation and there are hundreds of other little parks which local public figures helped to fund that do not, and for good reason, will never have Wikipedia articles. Sadly, Addie L. Greene is a public figure who is notorious for her race based comments and public encouragement to defy law enforcement. Furthermore, the article, prior to my edits, contained colossal errors which were never fixed until I stumbled upon this page while doing research on Addie L. Greenes' notoriety. Finally, I also noticed the article, prior to my edits, contained local business names; thus, providing further evidence the page was created only for advertising herself and those who she was close to. Allowing this page to stand I would say I could create about 200+ pages of even the tiniest park, say 47th street park, for which I am positive I can find someone who scrounged up a few thousand dollars to help "refurbish"; however, I am positive it wouldn't stand and therefore do not expect this to stand. Please also note, the creators of the page are no longer around and unable to be contacted, abandoning the page completely.Rmparten (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mangonia Park, Florida. SpinningSpark 08:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are currently no parks listed in the Town of Mangonia Park and that would be incorrect as this park is managed by Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation after the local police had to be dismantled and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office took over control. Merging this entire article isn't appropriate as there is absolutely no historical or geographical significance to the site that is worth mentioning in any type of encyclopedic material and should be removed. If Addie L. Greene wants to have a Wikipedia page she is more than welcome to create one, or someone else can, considering her tenure as a political figure meets more criteria for a Wikipedia page...thus, Delete is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmparten (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a geographical feature in Mangonia Park and thus appropriate for that article. It is not really relevant who runs it. Merge does not necessarily mean copying the article in its entirety. SpinningSpark 07:49, 9 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, so is the Mobile Gas Station, Winn-Dixie, and the Tri-Rail station; thus, using the same logic, I could create their pages and present your argument which, in my opinion, isn't valid to warrant keeping the page. The person for whom this page represents doesn't even have her own Wikipedia page and it is entirely possible for her to have one considering some of the "accomplishments" which are clearly documented as real history, this park is not even one of them so I have to differ on your reasoning to merge and stand by deletion of the page.Rmparten (talk) 04:12, 13 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable; adopting @Rmparten's arguments and rationale. Quis separabit? 19:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Claiming that Addie L. Greene was controversial doesn't help the case against this article. If anything it makes her notable. That said, I don't think it's enough to overcome the fact that this is just a local park named after a local politician. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 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 Denny Somach. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Somach[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only supporting source given here is a story about a man of this name surviving a car crash in 2012; the source gives no further information about him, and certainly doesn't discuss his business practices and childhood. The only other source given was a DEA page used to support "rumors" of Somach being linked to a particular investigation, but since the page does not appear to mention him by name I've cut the section as a BLP violation. McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is currently blanked by the author. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article's content, to enable users to read it, thus facilitating discussion herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 12 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denny Somach - After doing some digging, I found that Theodore is Denny's son. Both of them created a record label together. I think the article fails WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, I'm not 100% sure if he is the same Theodore Somach in the accident. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above rationale. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 19:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Myusername12345 claims that this article is about him and inaccurate. He has also section blanked the article multiple times. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 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. Michig (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public Financial Management[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable consulting firm. Only refs provided are external links to the company's own website; Google didn't come up with much better. Speedy declined 7 years ago. Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a large company but I don't see much coverage. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: amateurish attempt at promotion. Quis separabit? 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references under the name PFM Group. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=%22PFM+Group%22&oq=%22PFM+Group%22 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted per potential source availability, per Eastmain's !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Scads of stuff under PFM Group, largest U.S. municipal bond adviser by volume http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/bonow-appointed-ceo-of-pfm-group-as-white-named-chairman.html. Vrac (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the generic name was throwing us. It would be nice to find more in depth coverage, but companies that don't particularly seek attention and don't do much controversial don't ever seem to get it. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 15 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 19 December 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. This has had three weeks and while the arguments for keeping are not strong, there have been no opinions expressed in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Michig (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game Market[edit]

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

Nothing much to indicate notability, prod declined for the possibility of future notability Jac16888 ^Talk 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously the English is pretty poor, which doesn't help. But the Japanese version of the page has a lot more sources. I can't judge the quality of those sources, but noting their existence and hoping they are useful. Looking at [13] (which isn't a reliable source), this is large enough I'd expect reasonable sources. Similar things in the US that hit 1000 people generally will have the needed coverage to meet the GNG. At 5000 this probably does. We need someone who is good at finding Japanese sources. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep Seconding Hobit - the condition for wp:N isn't that Wikipedia has the sources, it's that they must exist. Something with 5000 guests and that's been running for a dozen years is almost certainly notable - it's just that all the sources are in Japanese. Therefore I can't find them or read them. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:55, 8 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 12 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have reworked the lead of the article, and will continue fixing the rest. The Japanese page is light on reliable sources, but there I found some by doing a quick search (and used one of them in the lead). I am confident there is enough to establish notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adequately wet[edit]

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

Delete now and leave it to a dictionary to define. Resurrect it later if this needs more details. But this article does not quite belong here. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't really even make for an appropriate DICDEF. It's just a glossary term (one of many such technical terms) from an official report. Just two words someone has put together to describe something that might otherwise take the paragraph that current forms the article. What next? Sufficiently dry or Appropriately moist? St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that it fails notability. PianoDan (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the ground that other articles can easily incorporate the content of this article. Not independently notable. Andrew³²⁷ 07:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an encyclopedic title (though asbestos, handling of etc etc obviously is); this is just an adjectival phrase, not even deserving of a dictionary entry. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:21, 25 December 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 all. Michig (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Çinemre[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 03:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are young professional football players. Now, they do not play enough in their teams but in 2-3 years they will be very famous football players as long as they play. - Statli12(talk) 11:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles can be recreated, if and when they do play. Speculation as to potential future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Afd was the correct way. He may pass WP:NFOOTBALL in some years. Noteswork (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he's gonna be famous in two to three years, you can come back and create the article after two or three years. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Parkway Theater (Baltimore, MD)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye, how were independent sources referenced in the article at time of AfD "No independent sources"? And why did you put this into AfD in less than two hours of article creation [14] instead of either improving the article or placing an improvement tag on it? --Oakshade (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two independent sources in the article now. Here is a third source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This theater appears to be a contributing property to the North Central Historic District (Baltimore, Maryland). I'm not yet sure whether or not it should have a stand-alone article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Cullen328's source - for which thanks - I found and added more local coverage, including about the local guy who's tried to get it restored. It's been a continuing story, meets GNG. The pictures on the archived version of his website suggest there may be coverage in books on American picture palaces. Apparently the name on the building is Parkway Theatre; if kept, the article should be moved, possibly to Parkway Theatre (Baltimore). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It took less than 3 seconds to find independent in-depth sources.[15][16][17]. It is obvious WP:BEFORE was not followed and this is not the first time this nom has started AfDs on new articles with zero research. Might a RfC be in order? --Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl Independent sources were found. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:17, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scattered Thoughts from my Broken Brain[edit]

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

Was quite rightly proposed for deletion but that tag was removed by a well meaning editor citing the claim that the author had won multiple awards. Googling these awards reveals only links to promotional and retail material for self-published e-books; there is no independent evidence that this book is notable. The title does not get a single hit on Google News or Google Books, and the first page of a general Google search is all different versions of Amazon (.com, .co.uk, .in, etc.) and the self-publishing author's own social media -- Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Self-published via Amazon in electronic format only. Zero holdings in WorldCat. The book just came out a little over a month ago, so I'm not surprised as to the absence of any critical notice. Redirect to Julian King would be a reasonable second choice, but given the obscurity I think deletion is more appropriate. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google seems to have never heard of this. I'm open to other possibilities, but redirecting to the author's page doesn't seem very useful, as that's currently laboring under a BLPPROD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd suggest that this be redirected to the author's page, but I've just deleted the entry as an unsourced BLP since it'd been through the full 7 days without any links to a RS and a search didn't show where he or the awards are particularly noteworthy. This seems to be the same case here, as I can't find anything that suggests that this book is ultimately notable enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:11, 20 December 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 Silverstein (band). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 15:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Told[edit]

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

I placed several maintenance tags on this article earlier this year with the hopes that someone might come along and fix the article. My primary concern was that the article failed WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG criteria. After some time now, no one has taken it upon himself to attempt to prove the subject does in fact meet these guidelines, only multiple IPs removing the templates without explanation. I am still not convinced that the subject is notable, so I am opening up an AFD. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Maybe you should have fixed it yourself instead of just putting up tags you utter nonce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.219.79 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read Wikipedia's policy on civility. Second, "fix" in this sense means to demonstrate that the subject meets the given guidelines through reliable, reputable, authoritative, published sources. I placed the tags on the page because this was not demonstrated on the article in its given state, and so interested parties could help demonstrate this to prevent deletion. I am not an interested party – I have no vested interest in the existence of an article about Shane Told. After more than half a year went by, and no one showed any interest in demonstrating notability, I took it upon myself to research the subject. What I found wasn't very convincing. A Google turned up some reputable sources, however, the focus of the content of these sources was about Silverstein, Told's band, and not Told himself. There didn't seem to be anything that would demonstrate Wikipedia's definition of notability, and simply being a member of a notable band isn't enough. So, I decided that notability could not be demonstrated and took the article here, to AFD, as is recommended by Wikipedia:Notability § Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@62.30.219.79:, Fezmar9 responded. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody on Wikipedia is required to "fix" an article they don't have enough personal familiarity with the topic to know how to fix. If you want the article to exist, 62, then you are the one who has the responsibility to fix it. And incidentally, you'll be saying hello to the business end of a 24-hour editblock if you call anybody else in this discussion a name ("nonce" or otherwise) again. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC does not confer an automatic notability freebie on a musician who is notable only as a member of a band, and is covered only within the context of that band. This article, as written, relies almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources — the only valid source being cited here is Alternative Press (citations 9, 10 and 11), and Told himself is not the subject of those citations, but is merely mentioned in passing within articles whose principal subject is the band. If that's the type of sourcing you're able to provide about a musician, then our inclusion rule is that until such time as somebody can write a proper article relying on proper sources, they get a redirect to the band and not a standalone article. Redirect to Silverstein (band). Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:50, 13 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silverstein (band). No individual notability, can be covered adequately in the article on the band. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silverstein (band), primarily notable for his band. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 27 December 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 close. This article was also nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Bispham tram stop (Blackpool) which has now been closed. SpinningSpark 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starr Gate tram stop (Blackpool Tram)[edit]

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

I dont think any given tramway station is notable. This one has nothing special. "Starr Gate tram stop" already redirects to "Blackpool tramway". Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory of tram stops. I nominated the rest of the stops from this line at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Bispham_tram_stop_(Blackpool). I would have bundled them all here but I didn't realize this one had been nominated until I had already nominated them. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a List of Blackpool tramway tram stops per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Bispham_tram_stop_(Blackpool). Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article is rather bare at the moment, it needs some expanding and references etc, but if this gets deleted then logically we would need to delete the articles on tram stops from Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink etc. G-13114 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:G-13114, please, read this carefully: WP:ALLORNOTHING. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the Metrolink station articles are also about the railway stations that formerly existed, notability of Croydon articles such as Fieldway tram stop is unclear, and apart from three interchanges that are also bus or railway stations the Sheffield Supertram network only has a section in the main article with a list of stops for each line (the diagram in the Blackpool tramway article provides a similar level of information). Peter James (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because no-one has ever took the time to create them. If railway stations are notable enough to have their own articles, even very minor ones like Danzey railway station. Then why shouldn't tram/metro stops? G-13114 (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to find published information about railway stations - why it was built, why that location was chosen, when it opened, what facilities there were (and how they have changed), how frequent the trains were at various periods. Apart from the opening date, these often differ from station to station along a line; by comparison, the stops along a tram line often have characteristics that are the same as (if not identical to) those of the ones to either side. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs have produced inconsistent results:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School tram stop (Nottingham, 5 November 2005, no consensus, article now redirected)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (Midland Metro, 8 September 2006, no consensus)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinson Street tram stop (Nottingham, 15 January 2007, delete)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (2nd nomination) (17 January 2007, keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (3rd nomination) (4 April 2007, keep)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop (Sheffield, 14 April 2007, delete)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City West tram stop, Adelaide (5 August 2008, delete)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEF tram stop (20 August 2013, no consensus, now deleted as created by sockpuppet of blocked user)

The structures of Midland Metro stops (File:St_Pauls_Midland_Metro_stop.JPG) look slightly more substantial than Sheffield's, which resemble bus stops (File:Donetsk_Way_Tram_Stop._-_geograph.org.uk_-_305291.jpg), but still appear to be identical to others on the network, so it isn't clear what the criteria for articles should be unless it's the general notability guideline. For now the Starr Gate article is barely more than a list entry, and no sources are cited - the information duplicates what is in (or should be in) the Blackpool tramway article. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 13 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No denying it Blackpool is a popular area for tourists & whatnot but at the end of the day we're not a directory of bus/tram stops, My best suggestion would be to add them perhaps on Wikivoyage ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are not the same thing as Metrolink stops, or tube/railway stations. There's no WP:GNG for individual stops on this route. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)[edit]

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

non-notable, self-proclaimed admin division ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ISIL controls the region several months and has set up administration, with the name utilized by the Islamic State of Iraq since at least 2012 [18]. A notable article!GreyShark (dibra) 21:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case there should be some better sources than a blog post of dubious reliability and a single book. ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete a blog post as an effectively self published book. fails WP:GNG no significant third party coverage in reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a province of isis, so it is notable--Arbutus the tree (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hardly, since no one recognizes ISIS as a legit government. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legit or not legit, it's there, and acting as a government. Their divisions may correspond to previously accepted divisions, but not necessarily. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment - I've undone an out-of-process redirection and speedy nomination by User:Legacypac, please comment at this ongoing discussion instead of acting directly. ansh666 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The undoing of my clean up is not appreciated. ISIL "governments" are actually varying degrees of military controls. s/b Redirect or Delete This is but one of about 16 inappropriate one line "articles" that should have been deleted. I generously redirected this to ISIL territorial claims. If someone wants to flesh out some actual content on this topic there go ahead, but one or two unsupported lines that tell the reader nothing useful about a fictional government division with no context are pretty useless. At least a little context can be found at ISIL territorial claims but in the current state this page is just ISIL propaganda that legitimizes their claims. There are precious few references if you search [[19]] and some are just circular references quoting Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 16 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ISIS is not a state, it is a terrorist organization that controls territory. No actual state on the planet has recognized ISIS as a state. However many states, as well as the United Nations, have declared ISIS to be a terrorist organization. ISIS's "administrative zones" need to actually pass notability requirements to get an article. There are almost no reliable sources for this article, so it should be deleted or redirected. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't we deleted this yet? The sourcing is pathetic.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: So you believe that it should be deleted. Why not mentioning the "Delete" word at the beginning? This word is used by the tools and also helps the other editors to know your opinion faster, although this is not voting. Mhhossein (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't do words in bold. If you'd like to know what I think, I'm afraid you'll just have to read what I say.—S Marshall T/C

Delete This group is not recognized as an official state and the group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. so how can it have an official province. This article does not meet the general notability guide line. Mhhossein (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete and the text of the article does not even use the name spelling of the name as the title. Not notable and poorly sourced. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Warriors Hockey[edit]

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

This organization does not seem to meet our guidelines for notability in general or for sports-releated subjects. In my efforts to take WP:BEFORE into consideration, there were no matches found when searching for non-passing coverage from reliable third party sources. The links currently provided within the article are primary sources or are otherwise irrelevant. Suggesting page removal until the burden for notability (and WP:V) are met. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A D level rec league team? Fails notability criteria easily, but more pertinent, fails as Wikipedia is not a free web host Reso lute 01:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I think you're being too generous taking this to AfD. It's a clear candidate for speedy deletion in my view. It falls under WP:A7, "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I don't see any claim of notability here whatsoever. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: On the contrary, there are a number of assertions of notability. It still doesn't mean that the article is anything but a steaming heap of non-notability. Ravenswing 04:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)[edit]

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

non-notable, self-proclaimed admin division ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete only a blog -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - trust me I looked at the speedy deletion criteria for ages trying to find one that fits. If you can think of one, then go for it with my support.--ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukexpat: A-10 its a duplicate of Baghdad - this is just another name for the same place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or even Speedy Delete). This atricle doesn't seem to have anything significant or notable in it. I note the author appears to have create a number of similar article which seem to have been dogged with issues Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs better sourcing and it is self-proclaimed therefore it exercises no authority over baghdad city. However, it is somewhat notable
Weak Keep - there certainly is an administrative division (wilayah) of ISIL in the Baghdad region, and there are some sources pointing out that administration since the times of the Islamic State of Iraq (2006-2013), but there might be a problem in definition and separation with the Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL) (is there such a separation indeed?).GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ISIL territorial claims - or Delete - ISIL does not even hold this area (changed my mind) Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 15 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ISIS is not a state, it is a terrorist organization that controls territory. No actual state on the planet has recognized ISIS as a state. However many states, as well as the United Nations, have declared ISIS to be a terrorist organization. ISIS's "administrative zones" need to actually pass notability requirements to get an article. There are almost no reliable sources for this article, so it should be deleted or redirected. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This group is not recognized as an official state and the group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. so how can it have an official province. Seems like another propaganda for ISIS like Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL). This article does not meet the general notability guide line and should be deleted. Mhhossein (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why was this relisted? The article itself admits the subject does not exist. If I claim an administrative division over Baghdad but don't control it, do I get my own article too? Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 22 December 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. Certainly no consensus to delete, but the arguments for keeping, while forming a majority, are rather weak. Michig (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Music[edit]

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time and qualifies deletion for not meeting the standard of inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know more details on this article Aditya Music included in Articles for deletion. Currently it is linked in multiple Wiki pages. And I have recently added few more references recently. Girishgullapudi (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (tentative) - major producer of soundtrack releases. Presumably most coverage not in English. I will look for sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:05, 8 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aditya Music about a regional music label for South Indian Feature Films and is owner of rights for majority of Telugu cinema. Additional references were added to improve the notability of the article after the deletion template was placed. It is linked in multiple Wiki pages and will be linked in new wiki pages of Telugu Movies as and when they get created. Girishgullapudi (talk) 11:18, 16 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be sufficient references. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film & Television Association[edit]

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

Obscure Net-based group that appears to have little, if any, relevance in the entertainment media. It appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't say that they're super obscure since they do have an occasional mention in places like Film School Rejects, but I can't really see anything out there about the organization itself. It exists and seems to be moderately well thought of, but I don't see where it's received enough coverage to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 December 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find much of anything under any variation of the title. Yes, there's an occasional trivial mention that appears at the bottom of a list of awards, but there's no actual coverage. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen International, and other industry magazines seem to be silent on the topic. If someone can actually dig up reliable sources, the article can be recreated. I generally prefer to keep these sorts of articles so that readers understand who is giving out the linked awards, but I can't find anything to indicate that this is a notable organization. From their web site, it says membership is open to anyone in the U.S., Canada, or abroad who has access to American films. This is not really very discriminate. I would join, but I agree with Groucho Marx on that subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 20 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stanley[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Does not inherit notability from vague collaboration ("played with") with notable people, shooting is just news. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 December 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 December 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42 - currently, there are zero reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The MTV listing reads like a press release. The other links are self-created or otherwise not reliable, such as church news and the 700 Club. While it might all be true, for those reasons he fails WP:GNG. Since there's no evidence of major touring or a contract, he also fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 17 December 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the shooting received coverage from several sources, I didn't find enough to indicate notability as a musician, which I feel would be needed to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:01, 26 December 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. Redirect is not possible anymoire, since the article on Pelissier was in the meanwhile redirected as the AfD outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revenir[edit]

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

Non-notable band, started by a lesser member of the band My Chemical Romance. The band has no major label contract, no hits, no in-depth coverage in third-party sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, WP:NBAND, WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 15 December 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – notability has not been established. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and wp:band. Harsh (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Pelissier where it is already covered. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 20 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Ghadge[edit]

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources does not meet the Wikipedia's inclusion standard and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Pleaseadd new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not notable. Harsh (talk) 06:06, 19 December 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 keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islam College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:N Mr. Guye (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to exist and as a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that secondary schools and universities of confirmed existence are notable on a per se basis. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 17 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl because apparently schools are inherently notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:19, 19 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gilberti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE GauchoDude (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find announcements of performances, but no substantial sources about him. LaMona (talk) 23:35, 16 December 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Subject's work has only won the Corwin Competition, which doesn't seem to be notable either, with coverage at all being only in [this]. Therefore I have proved that the subject as well as the Corwin Competition are non-notable. For these reasons, I urge a Deletion consensus. ---Mr. Guye (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is winning the "Corwin Competition". A Google search shows that this competition is utterly non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 19 December 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.