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

The result was delete. The only voice for keep was 173.63.177.192. Pointing to other articles is not a valid keep rationale per WP:OTHERSTUFF unless those articles have been through an AFD also. Nor is it sufficient to assert that souces showing notability exist. Such sources must be explicitly presented at the debate to have any effect on the outcome. SpinningSpark 17:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations[edit]

List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominating article for deletion due to WP:REDUNDANT & WP:GNG. Per WP:BEFORE looked for reliable sources to see if subject "U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations" have received in-depth and/or significant coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, and there doesn't appear to be sufficient reliable sources to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. Therefore this article should be deleted, or merged and redirected to Indian American#Demographics. This logic follows the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. cities with large Filipino American populations. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, due to the name of the article it appears that the wikilinking isn't working properly. The article in question is List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and add relevant info to Indian American. -- Calidum 04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, really, esp. since the basic terms of the article title and thus its subject are difficult to quantify. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--TMD Talk Page. 03:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion. First, list articles have a reason for being, hey they're lists! Further, this article is NOT redundant. But I've always thought this 3 year old article should be retitled to drop the "South Asian" part and should just be "List of U.S. cities with large Indian American populations", because that's where all the reliable sources are in the Census and it can then be improved. One person has expressed the same complaint above. But to shove it back into the parent article would make that article look bad and is not the answer or good form. It's a shame the fate that occurred to the Filipino list article but every ethnicity is different and there's no reason an "Indian American" list article can't do as well as all the other ethnic list articles on Wikipedia that have done well themselves. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sub-article but an independent list article, therefore it must stand on its own for notability. The Filipino American list article was merged with an appropriate sub-article. The Indian American article does not have such an appropriate article or meets WP:SIZERULE to warrant a sub-article (presently 44.3k of readable prose (including titles and stuff in tables and infoboxes, 93k in size including references).

Furthermore, just because there is data doesn't mean that it has received in-depth/significant coverage. There is data about the tides in Mission Bay and its sunrise and sunsets, but that doesn't make that data notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok some good points you make, but then that means deletion or merge is jumping over the centre step. A better idea would be to move this article to "List of U.S. cities with significant Indian American populations" (which I cannot do as IP) and then give it some time and a chance to develop like that without the extra burden of the South Asian feature continuing to hold the article back from notable improvement. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it does not address the central issue of the subject requiring it meet notability requirements. Even if the South Asian part of the title is jettisoned, it does not make the subject any more notable, and thus warrant/worthy of a stand alone list article. That has not been addressed by the ip editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I cannot do all the work but I will be prepared to provide needed references. Of course it is notable, as a list article, which there are many in Wikipedia. I see nothing which makes all those articles more notable than this one. But it has been less compelling to reference because the title has gotten in the way. Once moved, I at least would be more inclined to get the sources. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying it is notable does not make it so. Please see WP:NN, please find sources that provide WP:INDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV on list of "List of U.S. cities with large South Asian/Indian-American populations". Indian Americans as a subject are notable, a list of cities with populations of those individuals is not automatically notable, see WP:SALAT for relevant guideline (which the subject of this AfD does not met IMHO). As I stated, the parent subject of the article in question does not fit WP:SIZERULE for creation of any new sub-articles. While producing a url from the USCB factfinder is easy enough to do, a table of statistics does not make in-depth or significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standards per WP:NN are extremely subjective. What makes the article List of tallest buildings in Nigeria, or many many others like it in Wikipedia, any more notable? These claim to be nothing more than list articles to begin with and they are not pretending to be anything deeper. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are subjective, but based on the guideline, and what reliable sources can verify. Can the above editor prove that the subject of this AfD meets notability requirements?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you just noted above that reliable sources exist and are easy to get from census factfinder data, and also as other ethnic and non-ethnic list articles are apparently notable to stand on their own. Someone just has to take the time to put the sources into the article, which I will can do, but the article title should be changed. I am wondering though, seems strange and wondering why the rush to want to take the extreme leap of closing out a harmless 3 year old article when it first needs encouraging and the chance to be improved. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one can get a link to a table from factfinder doesn't make it in-depth or significant coverage, otherwise we'd have articles about tides in Mission Bay, as I stated earlier. I have found multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage to the death of PFC Angelo Zawaydeh, but it does not have an article because it didn't meet WP:PERSISTENCE and was argued as WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

Please see WP:NOTSTATSBOOK for a good reason why this article should not be a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is not contradicting this article at all. It is simply advising against excessively long lists of statistics (many pages) and without context. That is not applicable to this article. It also suggests tables for readability. Definitely this article needs adding and work, which has further been hindered by the title. What would otherwise need to happen is changing the whole flavour and paradigm of all list articles, hundreds or thousands, but I don't think that is it. I suspect that the topic of this article is actually more notable than being downplayed. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BURDEN & WP:PROVEIT.

Just because there are statistics, doesn't make a subject notable. Again, my example. I can find dozens of statistics about the tides in Mission Bay, San Diego, that doesn't make the tides at Mission Bay itself notable. Such content, might be included in the article about Mission Bay, San Diego, but an article similar to the one being discussed say "List of high tides on the San Diego County Coast" would not be notable just because each location has statistics on their high and low points.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not posing any contradictions, either. It is already agreed that the article needs to be better referenced. It would also be rather insulting to an entire ethnic group to be equating their demographics with high and low tides. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section in the article Indian American on Demographics of that subject, there is no need, as I have provided (and that has not been challenged) for a sub-article about Demographics of Indian Americans, as I had stated before. If a sub-article is required to be produced, if Indian American article meets WP:SIZERULE, than appropriate sub-article(s) can be produced at that time, but they shouldn't be produced before than. See WP:REDUNDANT.

Because the IP editor is the only one in opposition, I will stop replying per WP:DEADHORSE. Cheers.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never expected all these replies with Wikipedia links one after another from you but they kept coming, trying the same inapplicable strategy in so many different ways! Looking at your history, it is interesting that you had been in a fierce argument to promote the idea that there are more Filipino Americans than Indian Americans. Cheers! 173.63.177.192 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baburajan Kizhakedath[edit]

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

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

A non-notable person. This article was created alongside articles about his wife & business partner(Rajani Baburajan), company (Kizhakedath Media Services) and website (TelecomLead) by an editor with an admitted coi. Originally nominated A7, would have nominated G11 if the coi admission had been there sooner. Bazj (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability, WP:GNG WP:V Igor the bunny (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Beach California Temple[edit]

Newport Beach California Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing here to show notability. An article about the church's opening seems to be all that is on the web as far as news goes. It is a LDS temple, nothing more. I see nothing in policy that makes an LDS Temple inherently notable, and it certainly does not meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the 4 lines about the temple really have no meaning, or provide any foundation to keep this page. talk→ WPPilot  17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All of the LDS temples have articles and because of the LDS's parishoners-only and secrecy policies for temple entrance, we can only do so much for sourcing. Leaving a big redlink for a temple in the second largest US metro area is definitely not the optimum result for an AfD. Nate • (chatter) 08:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source for your statement that all LDS temples have articles? John from Idegon (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    See List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You will see there is a link to an article for each of the individual temples. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment :Articles here require sourcing from reputable sources. If it does not qualify it should go. IMHO it is just another church. The page is a page with photos on it, nothing on the pictures makes it look like anything more then another LDS building. "Leave it as we don't want a red link" does not meet the threshold that is required, WP:Notability It's just another building. One story in the register does not qualify. Every new building built and written about would then have its own Wikipedia page. Every city on earth would have each building memorialized with its own Wikipedia page. It has no reliable sources, and there is nothing special about it. The light goes off at 11? That's hardly notable. The color pink? FYI it is just inside the Newport Border and really more a part of Irvine, in 2002 the site was annexed by the City of Newport Beach, it was the entrance of the old #24 Coyote Canyon dump and landfill. Argument from User_talk:Mrschimpf contributes to this, meeting the "delete" threshold as it would seem the church itself requires "secrecy", let them have it and delete the page! talk→ WPPilot  14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Temples are distinct and notable, unlike most LDS meetinghouses used for Sunday services (see Temple (LDS Church) for more information on the difference.) I have added additional references to establish this notability. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as you have shown, the temples notability is only to people that are members of the faith. That is biased, and does not represent a true consensus. "Temples are distinct and notable" is what your statement says and I would assume that you have something to support that. To a non Mormon, that is just another building. Nothing special about it and nothing about it other then its pink, is any different then other buildings. Sky scrapers are important to the people that work in them, should we have a page on every sky scraper? No. Other churches are important to its members, but does Wikipedia have a page on every one. No. The churches you mention also have historical significance, as well as a artistic flair that makes then, in Boston notable. The LDS Temple, built on what was once the Dump, (http://oclandfills.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=6648) yes I used to dump trash here in the past, it is not notable. It is another building to MOST of the world (non LDS). talk→ WPPilot  18:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link to the PDF has no context; it just shows some kind of red line on a 2008 Google map which doesn't define this landfill the building was placed on, and what does it matter where it was built? The overhead views in Google Earth do not show it was a waste disposal site in the recent past (years ago I can understand, but not recently), and calling it as 'the Dump' has an attack tone. Also, the LDS clearly has made their temples important buildings which each have individual elements about them; likewise we have articles about important churches, mosques, synagogues and cathedrals in other religions, but in the same way your neighborhood parish or gym/movie theater church doesn't have an article about them, we don't write about most individual stakes, only the more important temples. Again, a redlink to an article about a temple in the LA area would be a major loss to Wikipedia and should not be considered. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I grew up in that area, It was where the local "Land Fill" was located. ( the building actually sits on what was the entrance to the "Land Fill" FYI) It is not in any way as the Wiki states "Close to Fashion Island" the total claims that the page has are as follows. 1. It is a building. 2. It is a "temple" to a particular religious faith. 3. It was white but it is now pink. 4. It has a light that, unlike other temples goes off at 11pm. 5. It has the same gold statue on it all the other temples has and it had 3 local papers that published something about it opening in 2005. What is it that makes this a important building, other then the way it is perceived by members of that faith? The "We don't want a red link argument fails to provide the critical requirement that things here be notable", What is Notable about this place, to anyone other then a LDS member? Please do tell! talk→ WPPilot  22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, it is just a couple of minutes down MacArthur to Fashion Island, so it is definitely close. Bahooka (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is about 5 miles away, that is hardly close, in fact it is half way across town. I grew up in Big Canyon so please do not tell me what is close to Fashion Island (&I fly here all the time). is that your only response to the above. Then you have no reply to the real questions is that correct? talk→ WPPilot  23:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors reviewing this article, please take into consideration sourced information that adds to the notability (175,000 visitors during an open house) from KSL-TV, an NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City. The information, removed by an editor, is here. Bahooka (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment- also please note that rather than providing another source or discussing the reliability of KSL,a tv station owned by the LDS at the article talk page as is the prescribed behavior, he comes here and makes the comment above. This is rapidly becoming a cesspool. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)'?[reply]
    • I tried, but it is hard to teach a brick to fly. talk→ WPPilot  01:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, excuse me, this seems like bullying and other abuse. It is proper behavior to add material with sources to an article; it is improper to fight against an article at AFD by deleting material at the article. It is entirely proper to provide sources and to link to deletions of material, at an AFD. It is abusive to refer to an AFD as a "cesspool" and to call a legitimate, polite editor a "brick". --doncram 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The current version of the article is about 400 words and 7 sources (including 3 newspapers), which in my opinion meets the de facto requirements for GNG. Also, I give some weight to the point raised by Nate, that if all other LDS temples have articles and are considered notable, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the presumption of notability for this one as well. BRMo (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (revised), though redirecting to the list-article row about this temple would also be a possibility. I agree with statement above that there is nothing in policy that makes every LDS Temple inherently notable. I also agree that leaving a big redlink for a temple in the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not optimal, especially if the topic is deemed non-notable by an AFD decision to delete. But that is simply remedied by delinking there, and putting a wp:anchor into the table there, and by using a redirect at the current name, redirecting to that anchor in the table. We have lots of big lists having many items that are worth listing, but not each requiring an article. It is fine for items in a list to be a mix of items notable enough for individual articles, and notable for the list item but not for an article. Another argument could be made that LDS temples are like Catholic cathedrals (higher than most Catholic churches, arguably all individually notable). With sources added, and with sources added but deleted by participants in this AFD, I believe the article meets wp:GNG so i think "Keep" is best. (revised). --doncram 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In reply to C.Fred, in my opinion, the only useful thing in the article that would be worthwhile to merge is the newspaper image, and that is a copyvio. Happy to userfy it though, if you think you can do something with it. SpinningSpark 18:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home is Where the Bus Is[edit]

Home is Where the Bus Is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Book fails WP:BKCRIT as it has not been the subject of significant independent coverage. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, no assertion that it is a significant book per the standards cited above. Further, the way the article is written, it could almost be deleted as blatant advertising: is this an encyclopedia article or the back cover of the book? —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NBOOKS. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is really notable. The only mention I've found is in the author's obituary, but it appears to be the type that is written by a family member than by the paper itself, so it wouldn't be usable as a source in any form. If by some chance the author's page survives deletion then it could be redirected there, but I'm not expecting much due to the lack of coverage for the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Vernon O. Johnson, preserving title as a redirect. Consolidate all material about the subject into one article, and then we can worry about what's the best title for that one article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YG Family 2014 World Tour: Power[edit]

YG Family 2014 World Tour: Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Please see WP:NTOUR: tours aren't notable unless they have been discussed in reliable sources as a concert tour. This particular article (which appears to be part of the K-pop fan/PR machine) is nothing but a list of shows, flag porn and all, and nothing in the way of reliable sources--no references but a copy of a PR release on a website. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unnotable Asdklf; (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not show notability, WP:GNG WP:V Igor the bunny (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Frog Prince (2008 play)[edit]

The Frog Prince (2008 play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As noted in the deletion page for Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (another article created by this user, this is an obscure play by an obscure playwright. There is no evidence of notability. BenLinus1214^talk 16:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:A7 Vrac (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Not entirely sure A7 applies here because this isn't one of the categories of things it is applicable to; but, the playwright has no article either, and I cannot seem to find coverage of either the play or its author. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vernon O. Johnson. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Beckwith Johnson[edit]

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

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Although the subject's family received some notoriety for a 1960s, her her role in this single event does not merit a stand alone article. As a writer, subject easily fails WP:AUTHOR. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Any standalone coverage would come from her work as an author, and she easily fails the notability standards for authors. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge selectively to Vernon O. Johnson (based on the outcome of that AfD). Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, but see extended comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon O. Johnson. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not find sources as per WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Changing to Merge as per Carrite (below); plus like the idea of an article entitled Johnson Family Peace Tour as the main article, without separate articles for Vernon and Anne.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vernon O. Johnson; clearly the peace-tour activities of the couple pass the general notability guideline as a collective entity, see THIS banner headline from the San Francisco Chronicle for example. The case could be made that this should be the merge target, since she wrote the book about the enterprise, not he. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A title of Johnson Family Peace Tour with the two names as redirects might be the way to play it. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Vernon O. Johnson, preserving title as a redirect. Consolidate all material about the subject into one article, and then we can worry about what's the best title for that one article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vernon O. Johnson  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola virus and soccer[edit]

Ebola virus and soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. PROD tag and "prod-2" tag were removed without reason. Original reason for PROD was: "The Ebola epidemic and it's affect on association football may not warrant a separate article. Ebola affected many events, not just football. Instead, we can merge what little information we have into their respective articles, Africa Cup of Nations, Club World Cup, Football in Sierra Leone and maybe touch on it a bit in Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa as well." In agreement with the original proposal, I will add that Ebola's effect on football is not particularly special, nor is there any particular correlation between the rapid outbreak of the disease in 2014 and the sport. – PeeJay 16:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 16:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability of this topic. GiantSnowman 14:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think all the keys points are covered in the Africa Cup of Nations article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article contributes nothing unique.--TMD Talk Page. 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Lugnuts, an unnecessary fork, no indication that there has been any significant discussion of ebola in the context of african football as a subject in and of itself. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ji-ae (singer)[edit]

Lee Ji-ae (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Totally non-notable person whose only claim to fame is to have been a member, briefly, of a K-pop group. Unreferenced article, nothing of note outside that group. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: her fame was fleeting and even in her prime she was unnotable Asdklf; (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability outside of her former group, and was unnotable even when a member. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain. I've had a look around, and she has some third party coverage as part of her new band Jevice. While the band is not incredibly notable, there is enough there to justify a page. I've added three references, including coverage of Jevice. Ross-c (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sorry, but the supposed "third party coverage" that Ross-c's added to the article are casual mentions: "Ji-ae's joined this new band, the end." The GNG requires that any source used to back notability up discusses the subject in significant detail. A handful of words explicitly doesn't qualify, according to the guideline. (This leaves aside that the article itself is a scanty, barely literate mess.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford rangers[edit]

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

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

Amateur team fails notability guidelines. Squinge (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One sentence article, no references, just seems to be .... there.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 20:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely non-notable team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - inherently non-notable from the article itself! Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Makhankov[edit]

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

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

Non-notable boxer who has lost the great majority of his fights. The article's only source is a link to his boxing record. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. Jakejr (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX.C.dunkin (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ryan Fernandez G. (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metro (design language). Sam Walton (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern UI[edit]

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

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

This DAB page is absolutely useless, not directing anyone to anything having to do with the topic. The first entry, Nullsoft is an installer and has nothing to do with a UI. The second is a redirect to a proprietary typography-based design language from Microsoft. Neither has anything to do with the name of this DAB page. If you take out those two off-topic links, there is nothing left. The Dissident Aggressor 21:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per The Dissident Aggressor's reasons. Seems rather sloppy... Dinkytown talk 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't have a problem with deleting this page, because I agree with the nominator's rationale. However, I notified the user that created the disambiguation, User:Neo-Jay, and would like to know why (s)he created the page before I'm firmly swayed one way or the other. Tavix |  Talk  02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Modern UI was created on 26 October 2006 by Writtenonsand as a page redirecting Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, a section of which is titled "Modern user interface" (Modern UI). It was apparently at that time a valid redirect page per Wikipedia:Redirect (sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article). I changed it to a disambiguation page at 09:37, 15 August 2012, adding a disambiguation entry Modern UI (design language), which was an alternative name of Microsoft's Metro (design language) (see relative discussion at Talk:Metro (design language)#Metro Is Now Modern UI, Talk:Metro (design language)#Move to Modern UI, Talk:Modern UI#Metro (Design Language), etc.). Actually Modern UI (design language) was moved back to Metro (design language) on 12 August 2012‎ and Modern UI (design language) is still a redirect page now. I cannot see any reason why it cannot be a disambiguation entry for Modern UI. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To have the entire concept of modern user interfaces redirect to a (probably-too-detailed) write-up of an obscure product's user interface was ridiculous. That element needs to be removed from the DAB page. That is unless you want to start adding entries for discussions of the thousands of other software product's user interfaces. The Dissident Aggressor 13:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree "Modern UI" is neither an industry/jargon term nor an explicitly named feature/copyright and seems to just refer to a revamped user interface. Might as well make a disambig page for "Reception" or "Sequel". Delete. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 07:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @DissidentAggressor: Even if Nullsoft Scriptable Install System was removed from the DAB page, Modern UI can still refer to Modern UI (design language). In this case, Modern UI should be changed to a redirect page, not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I think the Nullsoft disambig is too specific and not helping anyone navigate the information on Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In your logic, Modern UI should be changed to a page redirecting Metro (design language), and not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move Metro (design language) to this location. Artw (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There was a request for moving Metro (design language) to Modern UI in August 2012, and it failed. You may initiate another moving request at Talk:Metro (design language). But before that, Modern UI should not be deleted and could only be changed from a disambiguation page to a redirect page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are not using that anymore, or are using it only informally, so I withdraw the suggestion. Artw (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Modern UI is a very commonly used term for Microsoft's new UI. Whether or not the design language article remains named Metro, Modern UI shouldn't be deleted. At least redirect. OTOH the Nullsoft thing was obscure to begin with, and a long time ago. Keeping it around in a prominent place just confuses things, so I would suggest jettisoning that. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Metro (design language) as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I'd agree with a redirect to Metro (design language) if that alternative name were mentioned (and sourced) there, but as it is not, a redirect would be confusing.  Sandstein  10:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I just added it there, sourced to a Microsoft vice president speaking in 2012 at a big marketing and advertising conference, as reported by Microsoft News Center. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:18, 30 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 10:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maad*Moiselle[edit]

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

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:ENT and WP:BAND. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: copy and paste blatant promotional article. Quis separabit? 19:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails MUSICBIO. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. The article's sources are low quality. A search for RS only found a local ruckus about the singer being invited to a school. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 29 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkball[edit]

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

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

No evidence found that this sport has attracted any attention beyond small groups of devotees in a few locations. : Noyster (talk), 17:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: seems like a textbook WP:MADEUP. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onis living[edit]

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

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

not notable--their ad campaign was a passing event; the multiple see alsos indicate some promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Highbeam, Questia and Guardian searches turn up nothing; Google just turns up the usual social media suspects. Nor do the offered references provide anything that demonstrates notability. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 28 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 The consensus is for Keep and that WP:NTEMP applies. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Principle[edit]

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

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

When I created this article I noted that I wasn't entirely confident of its long term notability, but gave it the benefit of the doubt based on the wide coverage of the controversies. As it turns out however, there's been next to no reliable source coverage of the film since then, with the only real sources of substance available being about the controversy. In addition, nearly two months on from the release of the film, it has received no noteworthy reviews (The one review on RT has been discounted as worth including). As such, I am now nominating the article for deletion. Sam Walton (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because I think it is sufficient to have an article on this topic per WP:GNG. I don't believe the coverage has to be film reviews. For what it's worth, it looks like the National Catholic Register reviewed the film here. (Also, it looks like the same reviewer dissected the film further here.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell either way, but do the NCR's blogs have editorial oversight? Sam Walton (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I think it does, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepMickeyDonald (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC) see here: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ Noteworthy movie.[reply]

  MickeyDonald, a film's official website is not indicative of a film's notability. It needs to be based on sources independent of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per GNG. I'd prefer reviews, but there is coverage. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Clearly notable based on the sources in the article alone. The controversy has perhaps outgrown the film at this stage, but the amount of coverage it has gotten, both as a film and on how it became a film, is undeniable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:16, 28 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. In addition to the discussion, this is also borderline for db-advert, and also contains copyright concerns that must be addressed if this is restored. j⚛e decker^talk 05:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada Chocolate Company[edit]

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

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

Pure, unredeemable advert from a spam-only account. Prod removed without comment. Delete with a vengeance. —Swpb^talk 15:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 31 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. SpinningSpark 09:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Influx Swagga[edit]

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

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

A Rapper, but no credible claim of significance for himself or his albums - or at least not by wikipedia standards. Optimistically a case of WP:TOOSOON, pessimistically a G11 promotional csd case. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: I'm administrative listing Ndani Yangu, Wazito, Last episode, Short Message (if it gets created) here as well, as they are all tied to the same article, and therefore to the same determination. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ndani Yangu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Wazito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Last episode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the content on this page was written by User:InfluxSwagga indicating a possible autobiograhy, which shows a conflict of interest. This user has also created a page for his album. A deletion is necessary. --A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 21:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yawn. Another SPA/COI, another NN self-promoting wannabe musician, another complete failure of the GNG. Toss this one onto the scrap heap. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carlson (ice hockey)[edit]

Mark Carlson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NHOCKEY. The current page just redirected to list of draft picks from his draft class. –B2Project^(Talk) 16:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.–B2Project^(Talk) 14:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Firstly, as this is a redirect and was created as such, this belongs at WP:RFD, not here. Secondly, seems to me that this a near ideal example of a good use of a redirect. Redirects are cheap, and this is exactly why. Sometimes there's going to be terms that people might search for but aren't notable enough for a standalone article. So we create a redirect to a suitable target article. Which is what happened here. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While I agree this probably belongs in RfD rather than here, Oknazevad's forgetting one key element: that redirects need to be plausible. This particular player turns out to have been an 11th round draft pick 27 years ago who played a couple undistinguished seasons of college hockey, and the odds that ANYone is going to search for him on Wikipedia are between zero and nil. Without even looking it up, I'd wager that this is another in a many hundreds-long string of implausible redirects created by a now-indeffed editor with a notorious case of edit-countitis. (edit: yep, it's another of Dolovis') Ravenswing 17:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup Ravenswing pretty much perfectly sums it up. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a redirect I see no harm is having this redirect to the Penguins draft pick page. Redirects are cheap, and this does seem like a plausible search term (yes, he was drafted in the 11th round, but there's the point - he was actually drafted by the Penguins, so in my mind, a redirect seems appropriate, since he won't ever have an actual article written about him). Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:37, December 29, 2014 (UTC)

• Except no one is ever going to search with a disambiguator on the name. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible (disambiguated) redirect. (And, yes, this ideally should have been speedy-closed and sent to WP:RfD instead of relisted, Rcsprinter123.) ansh666 02:49, 30 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 Waco Pirates. Kudos for a good resolution. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longview Pirates[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability per the standard required by WP:ORG. I don't believe the online source passes WP:ORGDEPTH and just based on the name the offline source appears to be the same. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the discussion below I'm changing my !vote to Redirect to Waco Pirates. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fully professional baseball team. The Baseball Guide is independent of Baseball-Reference.com. Alex (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Now that the Waco Pirates page has been made, I'll support a redirect to it. Alex (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 14:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 14:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As an affiliate of the Pittsburgh Pirates major league team, this farm team is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to redirect to Waco Pirates per Wizardman. Spanneraol (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This one confuses me. While this one would technically be notable, it served as a midseason replacement for the Waco Pirates who don't have an article. The best course of action would be to create Waco and redirect this here, since they are the same team. Wizardman 03:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just make Waco a redirect and write a bit more about them in the existing article. Spanneraol (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waco was around for nearly a decade, this for .5 years. Why would I redirect the long-standing team? Makes no sense. Wizardman 16:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... I created a stubby page for Waco that this can be redirected to. Spanneraol (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a fully professional team in minor league baseball, I am confident that the team received enough coverage in local press, and possibly coverage in national sports papers such as the Sporting News, to meet WP's notability requirements. BTW, I'm generally not in favor of merging articles on minor league teams that played in different locations, since article readers are usually looking for information on teams that played in a specific city or locale. Since this team spent most of the season in Longview, I'd rather see a short article on the Longview team than a sentence in an article on the Waco team. BRMo (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but in this case its the same team... The Waco team wasnt able to play that season because of the tornado so they temporarily moved to Longview to finish the year and then moved back to Waco the next season. 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but the tornado occurred in May, so the team spent most of the season in Longview and I think it had a separate identity there. (The cities aren't close enough for fans from Waco to easily games in Longview.) I'd still prefer a separate article, though I'm not going to fight against consensus. BRMo (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Well argued on both sides; article appears to fall solidly into the gray area. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Júnior Lacayo[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article met WP:NFOOTBALL since the Honduran top flight was inappropriately listed at WP:FPL at the time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG with the references listed in the article, such as [1]. There's 27 other references in the Spanish version of the article es:Júnior Lacayo; haven't looked at them, but given the headlines, hard to imagine there isn't a second one on either the English of Spanish page that also doesn't meet WP:GNG.

• Weak Keep - He just scrapes past WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. There appears to be some level of coverage, but the simple fact is that this individual has played only a handful of games of football in a league not deemed to be fully professional. It is difficult to see how he could be deemed to be a notable player at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Satisfies the GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (see the Diario Deportivo Mas, El Siglo de Torreon or El Diez references in the article - and there are several others available online). While it's unclear whether the Honduran league is fully-pro, he made a significant contribution to his side's runners-up finish and did well enough in one year to earn a transfer to Santos Laguna. Jogurney (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep marginally passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting the main notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss South Dakota[edit]

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

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

non-notable local pageant, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 14:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep State wide beauty pageants are notable....William 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Major state wide beauty pageant, winner goes on to compete for the title of Miss America, the oldest and most prestigious beauty pageant in the United States. Easily passes WP:GNG. This nomination is flat-out goofy, and a total waste of everyone's time. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should look at the sources given in the article (zero, to be exact) and the lack of independent sources on Google. The Banner talk 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists a significant number of articles relating to the topic. Admittedly, most of them are from South Dakota itself. This page shows at least a few giving the topic some significant coverage, or, at least, giving some winners and candidates significant coverage. I tend to think that they are probably enough for a keep, although I suppose it would also be possible to merge maybe this particular state pageant, and potentially at least a few other similar state pageants, to one of the more central articles on the Miss America pageant. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a significant number of articles? 576? I think we disagree about the definition of "significant number". The Banner talk 20:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, two articles dealing with a subject as a primary topic is sufficient to establish general notability. As I said, most of those listed are from the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader and the Rapid City Journal, but those are the two leading newspapers in the state and could reasonably be counted, I suppose, as the best sources for information in that state. I acknowledge however that there are no particular books that I saw dealing with tht topic, but the same could probably be said about most state level beauty pageants, and even most national level beauty pageants. If the local sources are insufficient for this particular pageant, then they probably are for most of the other local/national pageants as well, and it might make sense to consolidate all of those marginally notable pageants. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Combining the South Dakota list-article and some other state's list-articles for state-level Miss America beauty pageants into a longer list-article of some or all of them would not reduce the amount of coverage or the usage of space in Wikipedia. Of course there is state-level newspaper coverage of each one, and state-level television and other coverage, and there is reliable source coverage in every state. It's an editing decision to combine or split the state list articles, and keeping them split is fine and is better in my view (it works better for putting them into state categories, for linking from other state articles, and all are probably long enough to be separate on a basic editing level, etc.). Editor John Carter has a valid point that some of the less-documented Miss America state pageant articles could possibly be covered as sections in a List of Miss America state pageants (currently a red-link) or some similar central article. But the Miss America article is already too long and could not contain such a list. The separate state pageant list-articles are already indexed in a navigation template (((Miss America state))) but not otherwise indexed, as far as I can tell. Simply keeping this and other state ones separate is best, in my opinion. Nothing to be gained by any change proposed in this AFD, IMO. --doncram 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable - can't any reasonable person see that?! Bearian (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the unreasonable out there, please read WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. The Banner talk 08:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Angola[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local pageant. Sources are related, unreadable or useless/dead. According to Google there are several versions of the pageants, including a Miss Angola USA and Miss Angola UK. So, who is the real one? The Banner talk 11:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Miss Angola is the national beauty pageant of an entire country, akin to Miss USA which also send its winner to Miss Universe. This nomination is a good example of Wikipedia's systemic bias.--TM 16:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you say that you are the original author? And what do you mean with "a good example of Wikipedia's systemic bias"? I just came across due to a sockpuppet active on this article and found it substandard. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter who the "author" is, because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort: see WP:OWN. Having a sockpuppet active on the article is not a reason for deletion. Neither is being "substandard" (WP:UGLY). As long as an article is notable, as I've demonstrated, it should not be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  16:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, being the top beauty pageant is certainly noteworthy. Miss Angola won the Miss Universe pageant in 2011. If you want sources, here you go: [2] [3] [4]. Tavix |  Talk  06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see three sources about contestants but none about the pageant itself. The Banner talk 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a national beauty pageant. As for the lack of sources, the reason should be obvious. Here is a list[5] of online newspapers serving Angola. Two of which are based outside Angola, another link is busted. The rest are in Portuguese. Internet sources for English Wikipedia is going to be very hard. Lack of sourcing doesn't make it not notable....William 01:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per {[tl|MissUniverseCountries)), if it is a qualifier for the worldwide pageants, and all other nations are (or will soon have) similar articles, then even if a stub, it's relevant and adequately notable. If there are others, then perhaps merges are in order, but this one appears to be the "main" event. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we remained[edit]

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

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

It simply fails WP:BKCRIT. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is incoherent and there are no sources, probably because the book in question hasn't been published yet.Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book has been published on the Amazon Kindle platform since June 2014. There are a few reviews, however, they're all published on blogs. Maybe once the book has been around for a while longer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwheatley (talk • contribs) 13:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't see it satisfying either WP:BKCRIT or WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed with the editor above me. No references and it kinda just tells a long synopsis of the story in the article without really giving background to anything. Very unsatisfactory (I also added bullets and made our votes look cleaner).--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 21:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Ducas (investor)[edit]

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Checkuser note: Please see the results of the sockpuppetry investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Floridainvestor87. Some of the accounts identified in the SPI have not commented here; however, the result may be helpful for the administrator closing this discussion. Risker (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No significance or real notability. Business Insider's Most Powerful 20 under 20 in Finance is not creditworthy as shown here. ^[1] A teen who only made simulated trades, and no real trades was also listed on the list. Furthermore there are several other businessowners and investors in the world, what makes this person notable? Aussie78 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, Mo Islam was a phony. ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid at AfD.) John Ducas has been in the public eye for years, and nobody has claimed he is a phony. In fact, Yahoo Finance interviewed Ducas about the Mo Islam scam.[6]. But OK, so let's say Business Insider can be fooled; so discount the Business Insider coverage. That still leaves significant coverage from several other respected references cited at the Ducas article: Forbes (twice) and CNBC, in addition to Yahoo Finance. That should be enough to pass GNG in anybody's book. To answer your question about "what makes a person notable?", the answer is WP:GNG - significant coverage by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Per MelanieN. There are a number of independent and well respected sources within the finance field that have either interviewed or featured the individual in question. Passes WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY as well, given that he has enough credibility to be interviewed on the sham teenage trader by Yahoo! Finance. I eat BC Fish (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Changing my vote. Did some more digging and the number of sources mentioning him does seem weak. Additionally, he's quoted as having 120 clients, but there seems to be no third party evidence corroborating it. I eat BC Fish (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The reason I have this article on my watchlist is that it has come under repeated attack from IPs and Special Purpose Accounts. The IPs vandalize the article; the SPAs try to get it deleted. I'm not talking about you, Aussie78; you are not an SPA and you started this AfD in good faith. However, the two SPA comments above are strikingly similar to the comments by an earlier SPA who tried to speedy-delete and/or gut the article. I am pointing out this history to assist in interpreting these and any future SPA comments. --çç (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have filed a sockpuppet investigation to help clarify the situation. --MelanieN (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you MelanieN. It looks as though FraudBustersTeam, Throwaway1998 and TheDiscrediter only have edits concerned with John Ducas. Aussie78 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete" John Ducas has not been in the public eye for years. He has achieved these interviews through personal finances and pestering reporters for interviews as I and many other witnesses will be glad to confirm. The articles he has been mentioned in furthermore give no credibility to any of his claims, no financial statements, no primary or reliable sources for that matter. A wikipedia page cannot be based on the input of one person especially if it is himself as there is no limit to how much John Ducas is willing to make up to get what he wants. As the PDF has shown, there are a wide range of irregularities and false statements in this article, there is no legitimacy to any of the claims that he is making. His company Ducas Capital Management claims to have over 150 paying clients yet he provides no financial information of his revenues. His Youtube account The Young Informer claims to have 27,000 LEGITIMATE subscribers and over 100,000 channel views, yet these subscribers have been paid for and numerous are cloned accounts. His free online course "Beginner Guide to the Stock Market" with 8252 students enrolled and 26 reviews, of which the vast majority of the reviews are 5 star, now it is very unlikely that a course with such a high enrollment has less then 0.5% of its students leave a review, even more unlikely that those leave very positive reviews. John Ducas is not an investor, nor is he an ethical individual worthy of having a wikipedia article about himself especially since it was most likely written by him. As wikipedia is an institution with a mission to provide the latest and reliable information to the globe, I highly advise that this wikipedia page be taken down. --TheDiscrediter (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — TheDiscrediter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Note:Comment moved from middle of the discussion to appropriate chronological location. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep - [7], [8], and [9] - all in-depth coverage that is already located in the article. Even if the main 20 investors under 20 source from Business Insider is dodgy for whatever reason, [10] is still giving him coverage as well. Even if he is a hoaxer, that does not immediately make him non-notable; in fact, if reliable sources expose the hoax, that makes him more notable. The two hundred and fifty-five million socks in here voting to delete also reinforces the notability. This AfD was created in good faith, but I cannot see how it was ever viable when looking at the article as it stood prior to the nomination; Ducas clearly met GNG just from what was in the article. The article should be semi-protected for a fair while due to the multitude of socks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Lukeno94: received coverage even though being discovered as a hoaxer. --PanchoS (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm dubious that they actually have been found to be a hoaxer; at least, they haven't by anyone credible. The only thing that says he is is the website that is behind this sock-and-meat-farm; no reliable source appears to have picked it up, or even any other unreliable source. As such, those socks are technically violating BLP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly! No reliable source has questioned his credentials or called him a hoaxer. Those claims are coming from an anonymous attack website and from people's personal opinions about the his credibility. I too have worried about the BLP aspects of this discussion, and I have wondered if some of the comments, particularly the links to the attack website, should be revdel'ed - maybe after this discussion is closed. Note that FraudBustersTeam linked to it twice, in two separate comments. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The comments I was concerned about, including the links to the attack site, have been deleted by FraudBustersTeam (after a change of username to Treestop999). --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. WP:BLP needs to protect the article's subject against questionable libels. For the outcome of this discussion this should be irrelevant. If he has been covered by relevant and reliable sources, then he is notable. Everything else is WP:OR. --PanchoS (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD was not created because I believed he was a hoax. I questioned his notability - may have been wrong. Ducas seems to be apart of a group of 30 or so teens doing the same thing i.e. trading the markets. [11] A number of the members of the club seem to have a lot of media coverage as well. Does that make them notable? (Genuine question - not a rhetorical one) Aussie78 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't questioning why you'd created the AfD; the hoax-related parts of my comment were aimed at the sock-and-meat farm here. If the other members of his team have a decent amount of coverage in reliable sources, then yes, they are indeed notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The flaw in your argument is that just because the sources are from respectable news sites, this makes the information provided reliable and thus irrefutable. However all the information provided by the wiki has been proven wrong point by point and if you go back to those news articles it is all hearsay, information provided by John Ducas and nothing to back it up. Now Wikipedia is based on providing the latest and reliable information, and to allow a wiki page based entirely on false information, would affect Wikipedia's reliability of information. Of course, if there is any information to prove this John Ducas is a legitimate investor with over a hundred clients and a successful business, then I and a lot of other people would be interested in hearing about it.TheDiscrediter (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no flaw in my argument whatsoever. Your organization has absolutely no credit as a reliable source for anything, and thus cannot remotely be considered as a reliable source. Go and read Wikipedia policies before spouting any more rubbish, please. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is dragging on for too long. [[User:2What| 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termination2What (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Chilli Restaurant[edit]

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

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

Sadly, no evidence of notability. This promotional article lack the in-depth coverages in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The article serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable restaurant Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:01, 28 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 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:IMPACT. The restaurant is notable in Lagos, Nigeria and has significant coverage in the media especially through a number of verifiable third party sources. There's no rationale behind your nomination for deletion Eruditescholar (talk)

Please start to assume good faith. The rationale was clearly stated above. However, as the creator of the article, I don't expect anything from an editor like you than to come here to say "Strong keep". Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep now that I've removed the promotional wording and added a reference from The Tatler suggesting that it's well-known among the Lagos smart set. Deb (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 14:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 14:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep:I saw a link to Bella Naija in the references section that is focused solely on the subject, I also saw several other references that have ample mentions of the subject, while the rest are travel guides kinda sites. This is a restaurant, it may not be well covered in News sites, but maybe well covered in journals or magazines, I don't know.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:15, 29 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Comer[edit]

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

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

a location scout is not notable nothing in the article show any form of notability Redsky89 (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:- Why can't a location scout be notable, like any other profession?-Kiwipat (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep worked on all of the LotR and Hobbit films, noted as "the man who helped redefine New Zealand as Middle-earth". Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 10:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 14:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 14:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, I've added a paragraph to the article on his work in advertising, showing that he originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique" in the field, satisfying WP:CREATIVE-Kiwipat (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. Apart from the earlier arguments, he also has a work displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art, not the least important one. Crispulop (talk) 10:28, 30 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) 08:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Woodland[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to have played for Bolton Wanderers 1st team (and according to Wanderers' website [12] not a member of their first team squad either. A case of WP:TOOSOON that can be recreated if and when he plays at a sufficiently high level.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. C679 10:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi language video games[edit]

List of multi language video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just a list that selected random video games that has multiple languages in them. Overall Trivial. GamerPro64 05:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial list that, if filled to completion, would be far too big for inclusion on Wikipedia. Most AAA games are in multiple languages, and many smaller games are as well. It's also not a notable topic either, given that it is such a common thing that no-one ever discusses it. Might as well have an article on "List of games with FOV sliders" - although that gets rather more discussion! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Luke and GamerPro. Unhelpful in current state, would be ridiculously large once filled out. ansh666 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete numerous games have multiple languages and the list would grow even longer when European releases are taken into account.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Mako[edit]

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

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

I'm not convinced that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, but it is obviously difficult when sources are mainly in Japanese. The previous AfD was mainly closed as 'keep' because it was nominated within two minutes of the article's creation and people felt it was WP:bitey. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm afraid. Even using "まどか まこ" in my search I fail to find enough coverage in reliable sources. Just a question though: does anyone know how her real name (Misuzu) is written in Japanese? Perhaps there could be more hits under that search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there seems to be at least some mentions in Google Books. Translation may be helpful. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance the results appear to either be her works, or books that include her works. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I didn't find anything either. Do we even know if the only source used is considered reliable? Thats quite important being a Bio article. I thought it was rather telling she has no ja.wiki but thats not conclusive. At least one of her books is listed on Amazon japan, but that doesn't prove notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source given in the article appears to either be affiliated or promotional in tone. Either way, not enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N seeing that the entire article is only supported by one source it could be seen as promotional as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Gateshead[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG. A small parish church founded in 2008; the article went up in 2008, 30 days after it opened. No references. DocumentError (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- I do not like having to delete articles on local churches, but we have nothing on its predecessors or any other substnative content. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd try to rescue a church article if I thought it was Wikipedia-notable, but can't find evidence here. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article passes the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROM Bat Cave[edit]

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

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

Not notable Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 14:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Keep because this topic easily passes WP:GNG with in-depth secondary coverage.[13] [14] [15] [16] Speedy because the nom has given absolutely zero rationale as to how this topic is "Not notable" and the first two of the sources were already in the article at time of AfD.[17] Too much topic-specific content to be merged into the ROM article. --Oakshade (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, the cave it is based on (St. Clair Cave) does not have its own article, even though that cave is one of Jamaica's most famous caves. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes absolutely no case for deleting this article and has nothing to do with the coverage this topic has received and thus passing our notability standards. That's just pointing out the suggestion to create yet a different one.--Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per exactly the reasons Oakshade noted. Also sounds like a reason to create an article for St. Clair. StarM 04:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Jamaican Caves Organisation, Saint Catherine Parish and Jamaican greater funnel-eared bat for information about the original cave. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vanke[edit]

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

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

Unelected political candidate who has not received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (politicians) Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability thresholds. Manzzoku (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for politicians since running for office doesn't show notability and lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on the notabilty of this article. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRIME (PRobe Incorporation Mediated by Enzymes)[edit]

PRIME (PRobe Incorporation Mediated by Enzymes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not yet notable. The key paper has been cited only 13 times, which in a very highly cited field like this is trivial. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this one is actually notable. PRIME seems to have been originally developed back in 2010, as presented in this paper and it's been noted and presented in several textbooks since, see here, here, and here for examples. It also seems to have an extended acronym of ID-PRIME that Ting's team uses for interaction-dependent experiments. There's an American Chemical Society news article on it here. And another journal news article on it here. And a Laboratory News article on it here. Seems like more than enough to keep. Silverseren^C 08:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This may be obscure in Wikipedia terms, but it is a technique that is well-known in the field, has plenty of citations and mentions outside of the early article, and maybe it is known somewhat for its promise, and somewhat for its developer, Alice Y. Ting. But to say it should be deleted based on low citations for a single primary source article and ignore everything else about it seems contradictory to how notability is established on Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be a case of too soon as well as original research. It may hold promise, but who knows? Bearian (talk) 14:41, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here whether this is just a dictionary entry or a valid notable encyclopedic entry. Davewild (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shukko[edit]

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

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

This is a description of a particular Japanese word relating to job conditions. WP is not a dictionary, and any worthy material should be incorporated into an article with an English title, such as "Job conditions in Japan". Imaginatorium (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rambling essay filled with original research. --DAJF (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but major revision, or delete per WP:TNT. The concept is notable and spawns a not-bad number of sources discussing it specifically, including general discussions and specific case studies alike as from this search I tried. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so... neutral? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a notable topic in Japanese business culture and this is not just a dictionary entry. As shown above, a search for sources finds sufficient coverage of this topic in academic journals. Those journal articles also use the Japanese term rather than some English translation. --Cckerberos (talk) 17:44, 28 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 USS Weeden (DE-797). postdlf (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl A. Weeden[edit]

Carl A. Weeden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm puzzled why a destroyer escort was named for him - he doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER - but a redirect to USS Weeden (DE-797) wouldn't be out of order. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems notable enough to have an entire ship in the U.S. Navy named after him.--TMD Talk Page. 15:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to USS Weeden (DE-797). Not independently notable. Why was a ship named for him? People were emotional about the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the USS Arizona, besides, a relative of Weeden's sponsored the ship. --Bejnar (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: G'day, I think a redirect to USS Weeden (DE-797) is probably the best course of action here as it doesn't seem like there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Android cipher[edit]

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

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

I don't see any reliable independent sources that significantly discuss this subject (WP:42). Vanjagenije (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only saw very few sources, so it fails WP:NOTABLE. A single Android feature doesn't always have to have its own article. Snowager (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:09, 28 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.