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

The result was Speedy keep. Talk pages don't go through AfD. Stickee (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cultural Marxism[edit]

Talk:Cultural Marxism (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Cultural Marxism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

I nominate this entire page for deletion. This controversy has gotten completely out of hand and I move that we delete it and act as if it never happened. Enough of this. Sparki^*SmokeWeed!* 04:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.instrumentalcasting.com/viewmusiciang.php?serial=750". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Kang (cellist)[edit]

Judy Kang (cellist) (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: "Can't find references attesting notability." Eeekster (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - looks like this article was previously deleted under G12 and has been so marked again. Eeekster (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kolby Granville[edit]

Kolby Granville (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. Consern was: "non-notable local government official; based on the username, this was created as advertising." Eeekster (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PROD user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• City councillors are only deemed to pass WP:NPOL in global cities with populations in the millions, not in cities with populations of 160K — and the volume of sourcing here isn't nearly enough to claim a WP:GNG pass instead. Also WP:COI issues, given the creator's username. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This is pretty clearly COI and covered by the rule for city council members. Which of course the subject was unaware of when he created the page. However, I'm not convinced by the rationale for the rule on the Talk page, and think he has a point about the number of constituents represented. This could be discussed somewhere. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:26, 11 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. SpinningSpark 13:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Singapore[edit]

List of bus routes in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Charles (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - We ain't a directory of bus routes. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The page is remarkably well-sourced and so obviously isn't OR. It doesn't have enough historical perspective and so might be merged with bus transport in Singapore, pending a better treatment. I can't see any reason to delete this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are dozens of lists of bus routes for major metro transit systems around, so that pretty much spikes WP:NOT, which doesn't really apply. I've NO idea how anyone could think an article with 143 sources is OR, none. I agree there ought to be a lot more meat on the bones here, but that's a content problem, not a notability problem. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, there's an essay by that name, and even if it was enforceable policy--- which it ain't--- the concept's BS. Precedent rules Wikipedia. High schools aren't notable because they come with reliable sources, they're notable because a hundred AfDs on high schools closed with Keeps. Geographical locations are kept not because they meet SIGCOV, but because a whole bunch of AfDs just stipulated that they had to exist. Actually I was wrong: there aren't dozens of lists of bus routes for metro areas. There are hundreds. [1] Want to file AfDs on them because bus route lists aren't notable, knock yourself out. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is original research because it is compiled from primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source which is supposed to be written mainly from secondary sources. It specifically fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Only people with an obsession with transport minutiae would think this is encyclopedic material.Charles (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's easy to find substantial secondary sources such as the TransitLInk Guide or Singapore Bus Guide. As for obsessive transport minutiae, how about this long disused transport route? The nominator seems quite content to document the detailed twists and turns of that numbered route and so, per WP:SAUCE, should not be attacking the similar work of others. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most people would consider Roman roads of encyclopedic interest. They don't make them anymore.Charles (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The first belongs to a statutory board of the government; the second seems to be a publisher of maps - if sources such as that are evidence of notability, would lists of streets in each UK county also be acceptable? Peter James (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're still misreading WP:OR, Charles. It explicitly states that primary sources are okay to be used for straightforward declarations of fact, and that they're only disallowed if you try to draw an analysis from them. Using a primary source to state that the 22 Bus services X route is exactly the sort of straightforward, non-controversial fact that OR permits. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Primary sources may be used to cite specific facts in otherwise secondary sourced articles but compiling whole articles from primary sources is original research. Per Wikipedia:No original research "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."Charles (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's in there too; I'm glad you've now read the guideline. How about reading the list of sources in the article now, where you'd see that they're not all from SBS Transit? There are several news articles in there. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing I can see to indicate significant independent coverage outside the local area as required by WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's another widely believed fallacy. GNG doesn't say anything of the sort. You might be confusing it with WP:GEOSCOPE, which refers to events. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per reasons given by Nha Trang DCB1927 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply stating "Keep" without providing a legitimate reason won't help your case with keeping it, Editors are expected to put a better reason forward than simply putting "Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davey2010: - saying "Keep per Nha trang" is no different than you saying "Delete per nom". You're endorsing another editors view. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dusti: - The user originally put Keep with no reason, I made the above comment and so he expanded on his reason after (I wished he actually put the reason underneath as opposed to above but I didn't see much point causing a fuss... )–Davey2010 • (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actioned DCB1927 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: reasons been given below Gemsdare (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply stating "Keep" without providing a legitimate reason won't help your case with keeping it, Editors are expected to put a better reason forward than simply putting "Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't a need to delete this page as same goes to other page that related to this page also. Gemsdare (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Both users directly above had wrote "Keep" without providing any reason [2] [3], After I made them aware of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Arguments without arguments they both then amended there comment (As said above I wish they added there reason below my reply as opposed to simply changing there comment but didn't wanna cause a fuss - They provided a reason after me nagging so left it at that.) .... I hope that's cleared the confusion :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This appears to be a variant on the theme I'm seeing with UK bus company articles with Charles and Davey. Their collective belief of what is and isn't notable in the field of bus transport seems to be extremely ill-informed, and their views seem to be more based on an inherent dislike of the idea that Wikipedia should contain any bus related information at all. Purely because of my job I'm more familiar with UK buses (or "bus fan" as they prefer to insultingly refer to it as) than Singapore, but I do know that, because of the history and size of the place, much like Hong Kong, it gets much more attention than you would expect of just a similarly sized piece of a larger country. Indeed, like Hong Kong, it gets a lot of coverage in UK publications because a lot of the output of the UK bus manufacturers has historically, and indeed still does through Alexander Dennis, end up there. And from what I understand, their bus route network is every bit as centrally planned and crucial to the smooth functioning of the city as London's is, meaning it gets a lot of coverage about that aspect alone, just like London does. Their issue seems to be that they simply don't realise that, for buses at least, most of the quality coverage is not on the internet, it's in the print media. As much as they might personally dislike it, frankly, if it's popular enough that people can get paid to write books and magazine articles about this sort of stuff, then it's not unimportant trivia or uninteresting to an encyclopedia. Statement like "We ain't a directory of bus routes" (when as seen, the site has countless lists of bus routes) and "Only people with an obsession with transport minutiae would think this is encyclopedic material" are frankly astounding in their ignorance of the real world coverage that exists of the various different aspects of bus transport, from vehicles to operators to yes, even routes in some cases. I have absolutely no doubt, not one shred, that neither Charles or Davey have ever once stepped foot in the transport section of a library or looked at a single magazine focussed on buses or bus transport. Their objection to this sort of material seems wholly irrational or dogmatic, rather than being based at all on the facts on the ground. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One slight admission here and Charles knows this too - ... I am a bus enthusiast and I do know rather alot about buses ... Just because I like buses tho doesn't mean I want to keep every bus-related article on here - there are ALOT and I do mean ALOT of bus enthusiasts on this site who always nominate & delete articles, Again pack it in with the commenting on myself & others.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have more than good reason to disbelieve these claims - see the NIBS deletion page for full details. And I'm sorry if you're taking it personally, but there's not really any impersonal way that anyone can say 'ignore person X because they don't know Z'. Due to the way you present your case, I really have no choice but to frame my objections based on your lack of knowledge of the subject or the sort of interest it gets in the printed media, which are of course inherently personal traits. If you don't like this, then rephrase your objections to these articles into one that is based on indisputable facts, the interpretation of which doesn't require consideration of your personal knowledge/experience/past actions. In other words, stop expecting other people to believe you just because you say they should, and start backing it up with some indisputable facts and logic (an example of an illogical thing to say is Wikipedia "ain't a directory of bus routes" when, as has been pointed out, Wikipedia has plenty of such lists). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:Other stuff exists.Charles (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, just yelling NOTDIR! NOTDIR! over and over isn't advancing an argument. Not that this list applies--- and you did notice that NOTGUIDE and NOTTRAVEL redirect to the same block, right? But as I said above, it's demonstrated a hundred times over that Wikipedia consensus finds lists of bus routes in major metropolitan areas to be notable. Like List of bus routes in Bangkok. And List of Société de transport de Montréal bus routes. And List of Metropolitan bus routes in Bangalore. And List of bus routes in Hong Kong. And List of bus routes in Wellington. And List of bus routes in Lahore. And List of bus routes in Manhattan. And List of bus routes in London. And List of bus routes in Brooklyn. And List of Cleveland RTA bus routes. And List of bus routes in Suffolk County, New York. And List of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes. And List of C-TRAN (Washington) bus routes. And List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes. And so on and so on.

Heck, you've edited bus route articles yourself. What makes a list of buses of a national capital not notable, but London Buses route 82 is okay? West Midlands bus route 50? London Buses route 8? (Heck, you've edited on a couple dozen London bus route articles yourself. How do you figure they pass NOTTRAVEL?) Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG; also per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Greater Manchester and others (I disagree about NOTTRAVEL - that seems to have been intended for itineraries, recommendations, reviews, and general travel advice and information, rather than excluding lists just because they are related to transport, which can be used for travel, rather than other subjects such as politics or music - also as it would be absurd to exclude information because "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" and simultaneously declare it unsuitable for a travel guide). If there were several examples of coverage in reliable sources (beyond official records/announcements or the operators' own sites) or numerous notable routes it would be a more suitable list, but currently there's nothing to distinguish it from the deleted lists - "national capital", "major metropolitan areas" are not reasons to keep, only evidence of bias. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I was going to close this but I don't want my weekend marred by the inevitable DRV. Closing rationale: "Strongest policy and guideline-based arguments given for deletion: indiscriminate directory-style entries (NOT#DIR), lack of notability (GNG). Strongest policy and guideline-based arguments given for retention: verifiable (WP:V) and reliably sourced." --slakr^\ talk / 09:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons explained above by other editors Transasia07 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources is not overwhelming, but consensus is that the article squeaks by.Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Camp Music Festival[edit]

Summer Camp Music Festival (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)

Advertising. Articles based on links to nowhere or dead links from the festival organisation itself. No independent sources conform WP:RS. No indications of audience size, so doubtful notability. I have been cleaning up the article, but what is left is a single line up list with a lot of links going to the wrong targets. The Banner talk 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After a quick Google search I have found several articles from independent sources that show this events notability. This event has 20,000 to 25,000 attendants and has been going on for over ten years. Also, I would like to know what part of the article the nominator considers advertising, it is largely just a list of the artists attending with no obvious promotional language. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is only after a massive clean up. But with no independent sources plus an obvious COI, I consider it advertising. The Banner talk 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused, do you not consider the sources I gave to be independent? Also what is this "obvious" conflict of interest you refer to? I see no evidence that any of the editors that have edited the article being personally involved with the event. Sure the article in its current state is still rather poor, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has no independent sources. About the COI: worked the show and saw Backyard Tire Fire perform the noon set on the main stage on Saturday., edits by Jgee design and several others. The Banner talk 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I see that there may be a possible COI going on with some of the editors here, but what exactly is your reason for deletion if you accept my sources as valid? It passes WP:GNG as content does not determine notablity and it is currently written in a fairly neutral manner, not at all like an advertisement. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For starters because none of your three links is working. The Banner talk 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, fixed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I dunno. The Journal-Star link's a good one. The Washington Times-Reporter link is obviously a press release, and itself is a small town weekly with a miniscule circulation--- wouldn't count that as a reliable source. What the heck is "centralillinoisproud.com" Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like series of notable events, and it is covered by outside sources. The problem with the article is that it does not utilize those outside sources WP:SOFIXIT--TMD Talk Page. 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search for sources throws up a lot of hits. Most of them are passing mentions of notable bands playing there, but there are so many of them, that I think if you put them altogether, you've got enough content to pass WP:GNG. I have added a few news reports from the Peoria Journal-Star and a brief appraisal in Rolling Stone to help the article on its way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 10 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 07:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Mendiola[edit]

Mojo Mendiola (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)

notability? appears self-published, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find any sources that aren't art(ist) directory-type sites. No references, some or the "external links" don't have coverage on him, http://www.detroitmona.com just has a blank page for him. German wiki article has no references either. Vrac (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Please, keep in mind, that directory-type sites are not necessarily freely accessible to anyone, in many cases approval is needed before registration goes into effect.

Please, take into consideration that most artist pages in MONA website are blank yet, due to a shortcoming of the MONA website management. Please, see newly added links to The International Society of Assemblage and Collage Artists, where Mendiola is a registered full member, and to ars mundi, a renowned German mail order art business, which recently has added Mendiola to their catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budybla23 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Oh yes, I'm sorry about forgetting the signatureBudybla23 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear as notable via art sources. The latest book is held at all of 3 libraries (2 in the US) in WorldCat; although I also found a copy in a German library catalog. No listings in NYTimes or New Yorker, in spite of NY exhibits. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment: Especially in NYC I bet more exhibitions (especially first exhibitions in the city) go unmentioned in the NYT and the 'New Yorker' than get mentioned. And after all: If one person comes up with a press clip from a NY paper or magazine, another person could say: 'Delete, because no US press coverage outside NYC', and so on. This is a good method to campaign but doesn't reveal much about the person in question, whoever this may be.Budybla23 (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote multiple times. Vrac (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet GNG, just being a competent professional is not sufficient to meet GNG. When this article was created 10 years ago, notability standards were still in flux.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 18 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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Royale Academy[edit]

Oxford Royale Academy (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 does not appear to meet WP:NORG and the username of the creator suggests that this was written by someone representing the subject. The only thing that might be notable is its claim to have won a Queen's Award for Enterprise. But it's not actually listed among the winners. I can't find third-party verification for the claim. Even if that is true, it's not clear to me that it would automatically confer notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a COI is not sufficient reason for deletion. (Also the page was created 3 years ago and edited by many people since). The source backing the award in the article is behind a paywall, but its easy enough to verify: [4]. Secondary education institutes (which arguably is what this is) are almost always notable. A quick news search shows plenty of coverage for the institute to pass the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There are plenty of source, even small international one such as this. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Per Thad's well-explained rationale. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing !vote, per well-raised issues below. Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Per ThaddeusB above, this institution passes notability. That the original author years ago may have had a WP:COI is irrelevant. The article is not spam.--Jersey92 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per our generally accepted consensus that educational entities of confirmed existence at the secondary school level or higher are inherently notable. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looking into this after reneging on my close. The only coverage for this topic in LexisNexis are repackaged press releases about students chosen to attend, naming the program in passing mention. LexisNexis classifies the top hits as straight-up "press releases". I see very little about the actual program, I don't believe enough to constitute sigcov, even for ORG. One Daily Times piece was titled "Millennials win placements at top summer schools", so it could have the "top" going for it, but even still, where is the in-depth sigcov about the program if it's so great? Nothing in Google Books, not even for "oxford royale" or "oxford summer school". And looking at the Google News linked above, the only hits are press releases and the rest are mentions... I see no case of passing the general notability guideline or any benefit from redirecting this to the larger Oxford. Perhaps most importantly, this is not a degree-awarding secondary ed institution—it's a summer program. Am I missing something? czar ⨹ 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All right, looks like this is happening. Courtesy pings: @ThaddeusB, I am One of Many, Epeefleche, and Carrite czar ⨹ 04:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isn't is a program run at Oxford (even if this program does not grant degrees)? --Jersey92 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This program is not affiliated with Oxford University. It's merely located in the city of Oxford. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment

Oxford Royale Academy's legal status is that of a private limited company, number 6045196 in the UK. Amongst other educational activities, during summer it hires the facilities of Oxford University and contracts with many of their lecturers and world famous speakers. The organisation recently acquired a substantial 17th Century educational campus of 30 Acres a few miles outside Oxford, from where it will be running A-Level (full-time/year-round) educational (secondary level) from January 2015 (see website at www.oxford-royale.co.uk/international-study-centre). It first started teaching year-round [secondary] courses leading to an A-Level qualification on a small scale in October 2010. Approximately 10,000 international students have taken an Oxford Royale Academy residential course since it was first founded in 2004. 900+ schools around the world send students to attend Oxford Royale Academy summer programmes. 50+ classroom subjects are taught by over 100 faculty (Summer) 30+ interactive online courses, professionally recorded by eminent lecturers, have recently been made available to students preparing for undergraduate study [www.oraprep.com] The company was awarded the Queen's Award for Enterprise in 2012, and the founders invited to attend The Queen's Award ceremony at Buckingham Palace, at which their contribution to UK export/international trade was acknowledged personally by Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Edward and various other members of the royal family, as a part of the annual ceremony. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] In August 2012 the Vice Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire, John Harwood, visited Oxford Royale to present the Queen's Award to meet the staff. [10] Students from over 90 nations around the world attend Oxford Royale Academy courses, making it one of the most culturally diverse summer programs in the world. The organisation is fully accredited by the British Council, and British Accreditation Council. The organisation is a member of English UK, Study UK, and the Council of British International Schools 47,000 people 'like' Oxford Royale Academy on Facebook. Scholarships are awarded to the brightest applicants from around the world.

Although perhaps not relevant, it may also be of interest that the educational articles posted on the Oxford Royale Academy website are cited numerous times on other wikipedia pages, for example: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

• Delete Like Czar, my initial reaction was to close this as a Keep but then I took a closer look. The problem is the lack of independent sources as much of the material seems to be based on press releases or other promotional material. Even the meanest primary school in the UK has quite lengthy and detailed independent inspection reports by Ofsted. The equivalent for this place is the British Accreditation Council but they don't seem to have a report on this summer school (the reference in the article is a deadlink so I checked the BAC site afresh). There are lots of places like this in London, Oxford and Cambridge, trading on the reputation of the universities and using their facilities in the summer. See Oxford Summer Courses for another one which is also at AFD right now. When we're routinely shutting out well-documented primary schools from Wikipedia, we shouldn't be letting in more overtly commercial establishments just because they sound grand. As a compromise, one might include them in a list like list of summer schools of linguistics but such a list would be a directory if the entries didn't have their own pages. Andrew D. (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Together you convinced me. The subject's name, location, etc. seem to have misled some of us. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional and non-notable. The presumption that secondary and higher educational organizations are notable applies to degree-granting institutions, not to providers of short summer courses. I don't see any indication that this is particularly notable among such organizations. The "awards" are trivial & amount to PR -- cf. the number of awards annually for the Queen's Awards for Enterprise-- that PR is supported by governments does not make the PR a high distinction. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I’ve added some info about past guest speakers - seems like this company’s lecture series has attracted some attention from the skeptic community recently. Lots of blogs discussing Susan Blackmore’s speech and the subsequent walkout as well - does this count as “Factors that have attracted widespread attention”?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.205.109 (talk)
• Delete I found a reliable source FAT CATS PROFIT FROM INTERVIEW TRAINING CAMP that pretty much establishes the Academy's non-notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In another article, the same newspaper makes mention of the organisation here [25] in relation to a donation by Oxford Royale Academy allowing for the reconstruction of an observatory at St Catherine's College, Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.72.214 (talk) 23:04, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Party[edit]

Britannica Party (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 few passing mentions in the press, but not enough to satisfy WP:CORP. (Article deleted at first AfD was referenced only with party's website, and this version does include independent references.) Shirt58 (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with this deletion request. The party have not proven any importance or notability, do not have many third party sources suggesting importance, and there are not enough election results of any great worth/success to suggest they have much of a reason to be included in Wikipedia as a notable part of Scottish politics, let alone British politics. doktorb _words^deeds 16:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This minor party does not come close to satisfying notability standards for political parties. Safiel (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep This does not have to satisfy WP:CORP which has nothing to say about political parties either explicily or implicitly. More significant is Wikipedia:Notability which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Contrary to User:Doktorbuk's suggestion, the party does not have to prove any importance or notability; it is not its function. Wikipedia does that. And while there are not many third party sources that is hardly surprising given the dearth of coverage of minor political groupings in the media and elsewher. However, we do have The Guardian, Searchlight and the Electoral Commission which are entirely reliable. Emeraude (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All seem to have been registered political parties. This one may or may not have less references immediately available than some others. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. This one did field candidates in elections, and there is coverage. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this campaign, like those others, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --doncram 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free England Party
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Party
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (2nd nomination)

• For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Democratic Alliance
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --doncram 19:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 18:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 7 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 12:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donagh O'Leary[edit]

Donagh O'Leary (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)

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG. Looking at the page the subject appears to meet MUSICBIO but looking closer his role in the bands is very minor or the bands have very questionable notability. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Various notable bands are mentioned but he wasn't a core member of any of them - basically a hired hand it seems. The only band he seems to have had a central role in is Jesse James, whose main claim to notability appears to be that 'the "Shoes EP" was a hit in the UK'; It wasn't - the band had no hits in the UK. I could live with a redirect to Jesse James (band) for now, but I don't see that article having a rosy future. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the one reference is not a reliable secondary source. I don't see much else out there. Vrac (talk) 22:44, 7 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 05:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Eastern University[edit]

Ohio Eastern University (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)

Online "university". Prior searches for credentials show that it is not accredited by a major association for post-secondary schools; it is affiliated with a provider of online classes. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. In short, no more worthy of an article than any other group of people deciding to offer classes online. —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that there shouldn't be an article on this university, however, they appear to try to profit using confusion with Ohio University Eastern Campus, a respected institution. So, best instead to redirect to Ohio University Eastern Campus and semiprotect the redirect if the editor keeps trying to re-create. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the history of this unrelated school be kept, though? It's probably prudent to create a redirect from this title to the Ohio University Eastern Campus article—after deleting the online school's article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying if you don't have to delete, you shouldn't delete, and in this case, a redirect is more appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that leaving the history could cause confusion (this OEU is not the same as OUEC), so the history should be deleted. WP:R#DELETE goes along those lines. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That thing about confusion means confusions for readers, not editors. And it won't cause confusions, since there will be a blurb on the talk page pointing here, where we're explaining it to everyone. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I believe redirection would be inappropriate in this case. Deb (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Deb no redirect needed, and school does not meet notability. Currently as written the "University" seems to be trying to use Wikipedia to establish credibility. VViking_TalkEdits 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments...I have been looking for RS for this article. The only webpages I can find are either the school's social media sites, or the school's official webpage; which my anti-virus program is blocking me from opening. VViking_TalkEdits 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no indication of notability, but severe issues of ownership and spamming. We're not free ad space. Huon (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel College of the Bible[edit]

Israel College of the Bible (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 institution, fails WP:GNG. The article largely relies on the college's own website and trivial mentions in other sources. Israel Today is a free throwaway. Only Arutz Sheva and Maariv are acceptable independent sources, though they only describe the opposition to the school. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christainity-related deletion discussions. 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was responsible for accepting this article via AfC. I would have thought that any degree-giving college with several hundred students would be intrinsically notable. I have added three book sources to improve the quality of the referencing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But those two newspapers did describe the school. The fact that these publications mentioned the school is an indicator of notability.--TMD Talk Page. 21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reliable sources writing about the college because of community angst about it is at least as good of an indication of notability as said sources writing about something because they like it. (I.E. it shows a clear impact on the community if opposition to it rises to a sufficient level to warrant coverage, whereas writing positive stories does not necessarily show community impact.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this subject seems to have the basic refs that it belongs in Category:Messianic Jewish organizations and connected with Christian Zionism. While the nominator's points are well taken, however it would appear that the tone and intent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT are not good enough to request deletion at this time. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK, I don't understand why you are accusing me of nominating something per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have worked very hard to save other articles from deletion even though I don't subscribe to their belief systems. I reviewed this article for WP:DYK and noted that it was all based on primary sources except for the 2 newspapers that only speak about opposition to the college. Per our many AFD discussions for yeshivas, I knew that it needed independent sourcing to last on Wikipedia. More sources have subsequently been added by Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for butting in, but unless I'm mistaken the sources need not have been in the article. They need merely have existed -- which a wp:before search should ascertain. Yoninah -- are you suggesting that you now agree with all the other editors that this is a keep? If so, you might consider withdrawing the nomination. Also, see Common outcomes; Schools, which is often referred to with college-level AfDs ("Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."). Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Per my above comments, and this having appropriate sources. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. Of course I tried to search for other sources before nominating this, Epeefleche. I was doing my best to accept it for DYK, but couldn't find other sources and didn't get any help in this regard from the page creator or the nominator. The new sources that Cwmhiraeth has added have definitely improved notability, and I hereby withdraw the nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks. I only raised the point because the nomination focused on what the article itself relies on, in terms of refs. And then your response to Izak also focused on the refs in the article itself. In any case, I believe per Common Outcomes that even with the refs then-existing-in-the-article, the common outcome of an AfD of a college article is to Keep it with such sourcing. Per Common Outcomes. Thanks for the withdrawal. Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 9 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teacher (film)[edit]

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

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

No references or claims of WP:Notability, external references are to Youtube and blogs. It does not meet WP:MOVIE. Since it is not yet released it is probably too soon for inclusion. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Soft Delete, per TOOSOON as this is "upcoming" and has not (yet) received the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Nigerian films are often harder to source than even older Indian ones. Apparently casting is complete,[26] and filming has begun,[27] but for an incomplete and unreleased film I can nothing (yet) to merit meeting WP:NFF paragraph 3. It may have enough to at least (for now) merit a mention in the article on its writer Chika Ike or its director Serah Donald Onyeachor. Allow recreation or undeletion once it can meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes. More participation herein would have been ideal. The rough consensus from what we have here is to redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Ghostly Girl[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. It's just another normal episode. Dcbanners (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Give creator a week to create an article that conforms to WP:GNG. If not done by then, Redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes#ep29 and tag with ((R to list entry)). Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 04:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes (NOT #ep29) - Since we have a List of eps it may aswell be redirected there, I've chosen not to redirect to "#ep29" tho as it's unlikekly anyone will ever search for the episode names and if they do it may (or may not) be confusing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:30, 7 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 13:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Mediacracy[edit]

New Mediacracy (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)

Article of a podcast created by one it's hosts Chris McCaleb - Cmccaleb (talk · contribs) with no coverage. Sources include 1. spidvid, a websites blog. 2. Hollywood Reporter half a sentence mention. 3 and 4 are tech blogs, and 5 is its own website. Does not meet WP:GNG. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N due to lack of coverage by Independent Reliable Sources. The only real source listed at the article gives this subject only a passing mention. In a search I found nothing to add.--MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 04:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. No references, and none to be found. Lovely article, but given the preponderance of SPAs I'm guessing WP:PROMO. LaMona (talk) 21:34, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of General Caste in Sikhism[edit]

List of General Caste in Sikhism (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)

Sources do not discuss Forward castes in this context. It is a peculiar list that tries to conflate two subjects that really have very little connection per se. Sitush (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unverified, unreferenced. And if Sitush says the subject doesn't work, I take his word for it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 04:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems quite easy to find sources which list and explain Punjabi/Sikh caste structures. Examples in English include:

1. The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies
2. Sikhs in Britain
3. Routledge Handbook of Religions in Asia

The topic is therefore notable per WP:LISTN and should be improved rather than deleted per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding. General Caste means Forward caste, which is a government administrative categorisation in the Indian positive discrimination scheme. That is, this isn't some issue about traditional caste structures in India or elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that aspect just fine. The sources cover this point and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we are not. Find me some sources that lists the forward castes in Sikhism, a religion that only vaguely acknowledges that caste exists at all. In India, it is a Hindu concept although those of other religious beliefs, including Christians, are tagged with it due to the dominance of that creed. You certainly will not find a government source because there is no list. Furthermore, in past AfDs it has been noted that the lists of non forward castes (assuming we are trying to deduce who is forward by excluding those who are not) are ambiguous and inconsistent, with something over 1200 attempts at clarification by the various government agencies. This is the usual ARS nonsense: I've lost count of the number of times people involved with ARS have tried to rescue this sort of thing and every time it has turned into an argument about clue. And every one of those times it has turned out that they had none. You may be different, of course. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I originally closed this article as no consensus (NAC), but was asked to wait for an admin to close. Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Caste system in India and write under Sikh. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That article is 90K and so, per WP:SIZE, should be split rather have more merged into it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed target has long been something of a mess but WP:SIZE is a guideline, not policy, and its subject matter is inherently complex and wide in scope. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is not based on any policy or guideline, just your personal opinion that the Sikh community and caste are not connected, which seems quite mistaken. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be more understanding if you could demonstrate some knowledge of the Indian caste system, its relationship to Sikhism and its relationship to the modern legal classification system. We're joining disparate strands here just as sometimes happens with categories. As I said earlier, we need sources that discuss general castes in Sikhism as a topic and I've not yet found any. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I provided three good sources above and you have failed to address them. Here's another source which, being fully available online, makes easy reading: Divisions among Sikh Communities in Britain and the Role of Caste System. This is an interesting account of the rivalries between Sikh castes such as the Rajputs, Jats and Ramgarhias and how this persists in their diaspora and causes them to set up separate temples. These castes are the stuff of this list and so we see them confirmed. The author, who seems to have no particular axe to grind, states "Sikh communities ... history cannot be fully understood without reference to the continued operation of the caste system." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : the regimental system of the Indian Army today & the British martial races theory was predicated on their existence. Keep but improve, well-referenced & free of trash. It's a socio-political reality despite the theoretical equality of Sikh religion. AshLin (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in a comment within the discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harpaxophobia[edit]

Harpaxophobia (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's not clear that this is an actual medical condition, and the article does not cite any reliable sources. As noted at List of phobias, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name." Srleffler (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - mentioned in medical handbooks and dictionaries since at least 1973. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per VMS Mosaic, easily sourcable, "the article does not cite any reliable sources" is not a valid argument for deletion, we have WP:BEFORE to avoid such type of arguments. Cavarrone 12:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection. It's not clear to me that the topic is notable, but the edits to the article have addressed the concern I raised so I have no objection to keeping it. My goal is removal of links to content-spam sites, and removal of articles on supposed medical conditions that exist only on such sites and internet word lists.--Srleffler (talk) 13:13, 9 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 13:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neurostethic Acting[edit]

Neurostethic Acting (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)

Does not currently meet the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like WP:OR. Couldn't find anything substantial to verify its notability. Harsh (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are zero sources on Google news, newspapers, books, and Scholar. WP:MADEUP? Bearian (talk) 22:58, 8 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. j⚛e decker^talk 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Nichols[edit]

Margie Nichols (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)

Vanity page constructed exclusively of press releases and primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. Googling turned up absolutely nothing useful. The main contributors to the page don't look like SPAs to me, so I'm don't think this is a vanity page. But the subject certainly isn't sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Msnicki (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Could not find much. She might have a weak claim based on awards but the Peabody went to the station she worked for, not her. I can't find confirmation for a regional Emmy that old. The Polk award is confirmed. Vrac (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - As Vice Chancellor, does she pass WP:PROF? Bearian (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's an administrative position. Google scholar turns up nothing in the way of citations of her scholarly work. Msnicki (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is one of 9 Vice-Chancellors at UT Knoxville so she wouldn't qualify on notability as an administrator.Vrac (talk) 01:41, 9 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 00:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Replogle[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article relies entirely on press releases and other non-notable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing has changed since my comments here. Mogism (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For lack of reliable sources. All I could find were social media sites and music/fan blogs. The "examiner.com" is not a newspaper but a fan site around art and music -- sort of a "huffpost" for those topics. The story of the sale of the statue is very strange - the artist's site doesn't mention it, and I can't find evidence in any reliable source. The story, originally on Replogle's site, got repeated frequently, but never investigated, AFAIK. The LA Times does note that the statue is in a private collection and that Replogle announced that it was for sale, but it is a brief mention and they don't confirm it. [28] Note that Replogle has a brother, John_Replogle, also on WP and also of questionable notability. LaMona (talk) 23:53, 13 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) 08:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bobroczky[edit]

Robert Bobroczky (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'd call this a case of WP:TOOSOON. Yes, he's really tall, but not that tall when compared to the tallest people; and yes, he might play for the NBA - starting in 2021. But as of now, the encyclopedic notability just doesn't seem to be there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed that he may be notable someday, but at this point, it's just tabloid material. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. Notable only for record-setting physical characteristic for his age group. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 10 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) 08:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rösch[edit]

Rösch (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 company doesn't look like it meets the notability criteria of WP:GNG. I assume the article exists because the company produces a laundry detergent named "Linux", which is amusing, but even in its country of origin this company and its products are, to my knowledge, mostly unknown.  Sandstein  17:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. Only 1 reference, which seems to be first party. It seems to be a list of products sold, rather than an actual article. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 18:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Not anywhere near to the WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the family name rad mean[edit]

What does the family name rad mean (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)

Wikipedia is not a Q&A site. This content should be merged with the corresponding encyclopedic article (if created). George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Possible speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2, this is an attempt to ask a question, not an article. Everymorning talk to me 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Everymorning. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom. Wikipedia is not "for primary research ... or defining terms". Imitch5 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 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) 08:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Turkle[edit]

Tyler Turkle (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)

appears non-notable. Most of the sources seem to be passing mentions, as opposed to detailed and about him as an artist. There may also be some copyvio issues, but may be backwards copying going on as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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))

• delete as hoax, ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer. JSTOR shows 0 mentions. Google Scholar shows only a single self-made reference inserted into World-Cat. I think we, and not only us, have been conned, starting in 2008. I suggest that impeccable art historian sourcing be consulted. The artist is not mentioned by the Metropolitan Museum's art history series encyclopedic review addressing the subject of Plastic in Arts: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mome/hd_mome.htm . --Mareklug ^talk 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless better evidence of notability can be found. I searched for a while and had no luck. He's had about 5 pieces sell at auction in Sweden, which isn't very significant for someone who's apparently been an artist for over 40 years. The sources cited are evidence of particular 'facts', and not even of the claims that would indicate any real notability. As far as I can tell from searching, no critic of note has ever discussed him. Revent^talk 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, ban. DS (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - especially per the research done by Mareklug and Revent. With the amount of time since the article was created notability seems to have decreased. MarnetteD|Talk 05:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading my appeal… Respected editors, I am appalled at this “synergistic hunt” that I believe was started when Mr. Revent wrote December 7th on the Proposed Deletions Page; it seems to have missed this page. It has been suggested by Mr. Revent that Webmeister1 and Tyler Turkle are 1 simply due to the fact that I (Webmeister1) uploaded images and placed into the “Source” category the words “Own Work”. I have just explained to Mr. Revent on his talk page that I did so because I believed I was to upload accurate information about the producer of the product who is Tyler Turkle - plain and simple. This is why I stated the source as "Own Work" because it is his "Own Work". If I was in error for doing so in this manner then I stand corrected, but to begin from that point to assume Mr. Turkle as a hoax is not right. To use words such as “ ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer” and that you “have been conned” are rather harsh and possibly harassment, especially having justified the words on such a basic user error. I implore you to reconsider this deletion you are proposing and to cease the defamation that seems to be continuing.

• Delete, but willing to reconsider. Emotional appeals and extensive lists of exhibits don't constitute significant coverage of the artist. Arguments for keeping must be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We need to see evidence of significant coverage of the artist (not just his works) in reliable, independent sources. That's all that matters. Other than the coverage in Press Democrat (that's a good source and good coverage but it's in the External links section, not used as a reference), what else is there? Would the proponent please explain what in the bibliography listed above constitutes coverage, more than a trivial mention of the artist, and more than a picture of a work in an exhibition? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for this opportunity. I do understand about "emotional appeals" it is just that I don't feel American contemporary Artists are being represented so it is important to me, sorry to have come out of the box that way. I am providing some additional coverage as you requested. I do appreciate this consideration.

Tallahassee Newspaper Review

Art show Review American Newspaper

Canyon Cinema Review

Oyster Boy Review

Canyon Cinema Salon - Recently Mr. Turkle was invited as the presenting Artist Filmmaker Webmeister1 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have two reviews in a low-circulation local paper, two pages on the website of a local theater (not reliable as the purpose is to promote their business, and arguably not independent since they're showing his films), and the oysterboy one is just a list of photographs. The Tallahassee Democrat pieces are decent coverage but I'd like to see something more significant than local coverage. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this point my view to delete is unchanged. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Thank you, I would like to provide additional evidence of coverage.

NOTE: For many of the Exhibitions I have listed above when they read "catalog" at the end that means that the coverage of Mr. Turkle has been cataloged and is available for review. Some can be purchased.

NOTE: Within the list of Collins & Milazzo Exhibitions Wikipedia page, Mr. Turkle is noted many times as having exhibited in their exhibitions.

Below are a few of exhibition catalogs that will show an excerpt of Mr. Turkle's presence in the catalog:

The 41st biennial exhibition of contemporary American painting, Corcoran Gallery of Art, William Fagaly

The 44th biennial exhibition of contemporary American painting, Corcoran Gallery of Art, Terri Sultan

Plastic Water – Art Magazine, Volume 64, Donald Sultan

“A New Low,” Claudio Botello Gallery, Turin, Italy – curated by Collins & Milazzo – catalogue
Webmeister1 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition catalogs are not independent sources because they have a relationship with the artist. And the Plastic Water magazine doesn't mention Turkle at all, as far as I can see. I don't believe you are understanding Wikipedia's requirements for evidence of notability. We need independent and reliable sources, preferably with an audience larger than a narrow niche, that provide significant coverage of Turkle. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't merit a Wikipedia article and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - After researching the meaning of notability for living people as applied on several sample category pages (e.g. Florida State University Faculty, Kent State Alumni, or University of Mount Union alumni), it would appear that approximately every other entry should be deleted according the standards mentioned above. Also, the concerns raised do not seem to be severe according to the deletion policy, leaving me to wonder why they weren't first raised in the related talk page. I am by no means an expert on the editorial process, but this is confusing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycotn (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC) — Mycotn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Mycotn: You may find WP:OSE an interesting reading in this context. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find enough evidence on Google books to convince me that he exists (at least to the same extent Banksy exists: a name on some artworks with no personal detail behind it). And he appears to have worked with or shown with Serrano, who is unquestionably notable. But the only thing I saw that looked like nontrivial coverage of him (as opposed to announcements of showings, or one-sentence mentions in reviews of group shows) was this magazine article link that I can't actually read because it's only on snippet view. Being online is not a requirement for our sources, but evidence that one source exists (without the source itself) is not the in-depth coverage in *multiple* sources required by WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exists? of course he exists. Mr. Turkle's art and films have been in exhibitions, museums and shown all over the world. For an American Contemporary Artist this is an accomplishment. His art using the painstaking process of flowing multiple layers of plastic is unique. No one else uses this technique.

I would not say that these articles are nontrival as was suggested that nothing other than announcements of showings were available:
Canyon Cinema
FAb Four Art Show
"Last of a Kind" Film ReviewWebmeister1 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Giant Records (Warner). Sam Walton (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Records[edit]

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

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

The subject is non-notable and has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. It is a defunct subsidiary incarnation of Giant Records and has only a one line passing mention in 2-3 industry news articles. It does not require or qualify as a stand alone article and could be included in the Giant Records article should any sources be found. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Giant Records. If sufficient sources can be found for the older label and article for it could possibly take this namespace. Artw (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep in mind there are about a dozen articles linking to this topic. So whatever the outcome, those will have to be catered for. In case of a redirect, the article name should be mentioned on the target page so that readers understand why they are being redirected. --Midas02 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge warpozio (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'm not sure yet. Check google books and news. There was an awful lot of chatter on Billboard between 1996 and 2002 regarding this label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• further comment. see [29] It wasn't a subsidiary, Giant Records was renamed Revolution Records in 1996. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from filing party--Merge is Ok with me too --- My initial reaction was to expand the article but when I saw there was no significant coverage in sources I did a blank and redirect to Giant Records since Revolution Records was already mentioned there (also without sourcing). My blank redirect was reverted so I've brought the issue here for the community to consider. 7826spin is correct that it became Giant Records, so all the more reason to combine these two.
  • "In response, Azoff restructured his label, renaming it Revolution Records and bringing in Larry Jacobson to serve as president and handle day-to-day operations." -- Big Head Todd escapes label impasse, August 16, 2002 | Alan Sculley, Post-Tribune correspondent
  • "They have added vocalist John Mullins and former Score bassist Phil "X Crace to record "Between the Lines on Revolution Records" -- Area Band Releases New CD, The Charleston Gazette (Charleston, WV), April 2, 2014
• The above are the only two sources I can find on High Beam. Also editors should note that the Giant Records article is likewise devoid of any citations.---- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

further comment I think Keithbob meant to say Giant became Revolution, not the other way around. It should also be noted that Giant had numerous appearances on the most significant charts, and had multiple signed artists of not only notable but highly significant importance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Giant_Records_(Warner), as it is the same topic, and the label had significantly more success under the original moniker. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 9 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. j⚛e decker^talk 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is completely unsourced. While the subject appears to be notable, it is hard to determine based on WP's notability guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I agree with nom - this person seems to be quite accomplished, but I can find no 3rd-party sources. The article itself has existed since 2008 (created by an SPA) without references. In some versions of the article great detail is given about family life that could only have been added by a close acquaintance. Other versions had extremely long bibliographies. He is the founder of a company [30] run by his sons. I can find evidence of his articles in GScholar, but they have very low citation rates. It seems like it should be possible to establish notability for this person, but I simply cannot. LaMona (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced biography so it fails to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:14, 12 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 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Betoota Advocate[edit]

The Betoota Advocate (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)

Mess of an article (part-hoax?) on a satire website that doesn't seem notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only reliable source coverage I could find was the ABC Mediawatch transcript of the story that Channel 9's Today Show fell for. That's not enough for the GNG which, for good reason, requires in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see any significant ongoing coverage by anyone. Its not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:15, 11 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 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Cabrera (baseball)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor leaguer, fails GNG and ATHLETE. Nothing out there to give him a standalone article; even redirecting should he end up signing somewhere may not be worth it. Wizardman 14:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete per above - Obviously fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created this when he was a member of the Pirates' 40-man roster. Obviously his career hasn't progressed to the point of notability, and while it may, it more likely will not. It can be recreated if necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardiman[edit]

Michael Hardiman (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)

Clear vanity page about a non-notable individual using primary sources, self-authored pieces and other riff-raff. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable due to no significant coverage. Just reads like anyone's LinkedIn profile--Mevagiss (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Vrac (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Sources are valid, easily verifiable and significant, such as testimony to Congressional committees as an invited subject matter expert speaking directly to members and taking questions under oath. Also relevance to ongoing conflict in Iraq. added by DesertRat16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat16 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Respectfully addressing comments above: a) the LinkedIn.com format has some similarities to bios, so not sure if that criticism is relevant, b) do not know what GNG means, c) NOTWEBHOST the page is not a blog or FB or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat16 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: GNG = General Notability Guidelines. WP:PSCOI might also be relevant reading. Vrac (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Florida[edit]

Republic of Florida (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 the article, this is at most an "informal" name. No useful content to merge. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Florida in the American Civil War. No viable content but perhaps a plausible redirect. Deadbeef 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the same nonsense like what we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Louisiana. Neither this article nor the others on the chopping block should have been created. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing new here unlike the South Carolina and Mississippi. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect - too little substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no basis for the article so even a redirect is problematic. No verifiable content to merge. Red Harvest (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also there is a recently created template that goes with several of the "Republic" pages: Template:Pre-CSA states that should be a related candidate for deletion. I don't see what the template adds since the pages it is on will likely soon be gone or redirected to the stat "in the American Civil War". There is already a template on each of the state "in the American Civil War" pages that lists these states and others in the CSA so this second template only adds clutter at the bottom of the page. Red Harvest (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, Red Harvest. I've nominated it for deletion as ell. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:06, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Republic[edit]

Alabama Republic (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 the article, this is at most an "informal" name. No useful information to merge. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was messed up as it flowed on to a deletion discussion about the Republic of Georgia (1861). That deletion discussion did not have a header, so some of the discussion there may apply to this discussion. I have added the header that now keeps that discussion separate, but those who understand the topic may want to add something here from the Georgia discussion.--Bduke (Discussion) 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the same nonsense like what we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Louisiana. Neither this article nor the others on the chopping block should have been created. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or plain redirect per other nom flagged on page. Little worthwhile content. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly merge flag info, but the name "Republic" itself is still dubious and not adequately supported. Red Harvest (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as written — attempting to elevate a colloquial name for a short-lived independent state to "Republic" status — with no prejudice against later creation of an article Secession of Alabama, which would be encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 10 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. czar ⨹ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Georgia (1861)[edit]

Republic of Georgia (1861) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of Georgia (1861) Stats)

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

Per the article itself, the only use of he term "Republic of Georgia" was by unidentified local printers on dates uncertain.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be discussion on deletion of these pre-CSA sovereign states (albeit unrecognized). If your point for deleting the articles is solely based on name, then discuss renaming, not deleting. For the 2012 country of Azawad, there is disagreement on the name. It doesn't mean you delete the article.—SPESH531Other 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any verifiable evidence/reliable source of the name in contemporary official use. The article has been up for 8 years without really changing the speculative/dubious nature of the name. Red Harvest (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there was anything sourced in the article, it would merit a brief mention in Georgia in the American Civil War. Otherwise, it is a redundant article. bd2412 T 18:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This appears to have been lost at some point, so I've added it to today's AfD list. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the same nonsense like what we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Louisiana. Neither this article nor the others on the chopping block should have been created. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:18, 8 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. j⚛e decker^talk 19:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Banjavich[edit]

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

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

The WP:SPA creator seems to be asserting notability on grounds of actor, writer, inventor and entrepreneur. I couldn't establish that he meets this criteria on any of these grounds, or all put together. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found this article about him but there's not enough coverage for WP:GNG. He also falls drastically short of WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the occupations in question is a notability freebie under which a person gets to keep a Wikipedia article just because they can be demonstrated to exist — they all have specific markers of achievement that have to be passed for a person to earn coverage on here, and absent that the only other path to an article is to add enough reliable sources to get them over WP:GNG. But neither of those conditions has been satisfied in this instance, and as written this article is dancing on the edge of being an outright advertisement for his business endeavours. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmistha Mukherjee[edit]

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

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN. She hasn't won any election. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep -Subject may meet the WP:NPOLITICIAN #3, WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as they appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources such as, Zee News, The Hindu 1, The Hindu 2, The Hindu 3, TImes of India, Indian Express 1, Indian Express 2 DNA 1, DNA 2, Business-Standard 1, Busness-standard 2, First Post 1, First Post 2, Rediff, Sify, Hindustan Times, Deccan Chronicle, Deccan Herald, Telegraph India, etc. There are actually are many more (Jagran, click for more Hindi sources).

I request nominator to withdraw as the subject meet WP:NPOL criteria #3 that says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". They are also a renowned Kathak dancer and have received coverage for. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WITHDRAW @Anupmehra: thanks for searching the sources. I want to withdraw this nomination.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:18, 7 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. Wifione ^Message 18:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailao Family History[edit]

Cailao Family History (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)

Unreferenced article with no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY.– Gilliam (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think 'unencyclopedic' best describes this. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Blue[edit]

Powder Blue (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)

Dab with only two entries: this is why we have hatnotes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there are more than two entries now. Would support moving to Powder Blue (disambiguation) with Powder Blue redirecting to Powder blue as primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid dab with 4 entires, WP:ATD found. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Valid dab now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 8 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) 08:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewie Coyle[edit]

Lewie Coyle (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)

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTY. There are a couple of sources in the article, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. C679 06:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Halifax[edit]

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

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

This article appears to be unverifiable, as a search for sources found nothing to confirm the existence of this person. I tried Google, Google Books, the British National Archives, the Internet Archives, and JSTOR and found no sources. At the very least Mr. Halifax appears to be non-notable. Note that this article was created back in 2005 by an IP and the article content has been essentially unchanged since then. Below are some of the places where the article's veracity appears to be in question:

• The article claims William Halifax became the ninth Earl of Stirling in 1817. This is impossible, because the title of Earl of Stirling was vacant from 1739 onwards [31] and even in 1839, the right heir of the Earl of Stirling was still in dispute with a possible pretender.
• The article claims William Halifax served as the Lieutenant Governor of St. Lucia in the 1820s. This is unlikely, as the title for the chief executive of St. Lucia was not termed "Lieutenant-Governor" until 1834 [32], before then the title was "Governor and Commander-in-Chief". Halifax is not listed among the governors of St. Lucia during the 1820s [33].
• None of Halifax's supposed reports (Conversations with Sir William, Fifth Viscount Howe, K.B and General of the Army From His Time in Plymouth Concerning the Defense of England...) could be verified to exist, neither do they have records in WorldCat.