< 18 July	20 July >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denz (company)[edit]

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

Not my field of expertise, but looks like this article created by a company role account of the same name fails to establish notability (but not quite blatantly enough for a speedy deletion). Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam posted by the company, no financial or employee data to establish notability, just promoting the company, its products an "honors" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award-, ASC Awards, iF product design awards-winning Company => notability. See also Panther (company) and Arri 93.135.115.70 (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate As it now exists, the article does not belong in mainspace. It is overly promotional and not encyclopedic. Our IP editor comment above lists awards to establish notability but all were awarded to Peter Denz, not his company. Peter Denz is almost certainly notable enough for a biographical article just based on his awards. The company may also be notable. There are a lot of reviews and articles about Denz products such as here[, [http://www.fdtimes.com/2012/01/04/denz-camera-base-plate-2/ here, here and here. Those seem to be independent sources. An editor(s) interested in the technical aspects of cinematography and familiar with niche publications that may feature the company is/are needed to develop the article. I don't have a crystal ball to predict the eventual outcome, perhaps a redirect to a short section in a bio of Peter Denz or maybe a decent article about a niche company specializing in products for the film industry. The role account (now blocked) did a poor job of writing and sourcing due to her/his COI. There is a potential for an article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The incubator was closed down some time ago. Alternatives are now WP:DRAFT or userfication. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only relevant source is a primary source. Good faith attempt to get a company listed, but otheriwse a COI from someone who probably failed to understand what Wikipedi is/is not, and fails at WP:ORG The article is more about the company ownr than anything else. As Doctree suggests, that person may be notable enough for a BLP, but of course it would need substantial, multiple, independent WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything non-promotional and supported into Peter Denz, who does seem to be notable qua Oscar winner, as observed above, but seems to need secondary sources. If a non-COI editor farms it off into its own article, then review it again. AdventurousMe (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a focus on cinematography: Technical Achievement Award to Peter Denz of Präzisions-Entwicklung Denz for developing a flicker-free Color Video-Assist Camera, 2 ASC-Awards to the company and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.199.209 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this would be a merge to Peter Denz but the only content not on that page I can't find in WP:RS. SPACKlick (talk) 20:22, 29 July 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 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golf International AUS vs USA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's barely any assertion of notability here. Admittedly, searching for sources is hard, but there's still nothing that I can find to establish notability. Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably WP:HOAX. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a «high school program» at best.
Delete - the link on the page is faulty. It should point here: http://www.downundersports.com/sports/golf it is clearly a golf holiday sold as a competition. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Marilyn Manson[edit]

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

There is already article titled "Marilyn Manson (band) discography". Not all the songs he recorded are notable. Those that are notable are already in the Marilyn Manson (band) discography. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Nirvana, List of songs recorded by Jay-Z, List of songs recorded by Common, List of songs recorded by the Beatles, List of songs recorded by My Chemical Romance, List of songs recorded by "Weird Al" Yankovic
^ There you go, delete those too — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckT187 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:LISTN doesn't require that each members of a list be notable, only that the group itself (i.e. the list or set) be notable. Pburka (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a standard/threshold as to how many songs should be notable themselves in order to keep/delete such an article? I mean, the Beatles example is sitting at about 99% of the listed songs have articles. The one in question is probably closer to 50%. I also wouldn't think the My Chemical Romance article would be a good example of a standard, considering its entirely unsourced. What is the standard for this? Is there one? Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This serves a different purpose to the discography and doesn't duplicate the information there. The discography could be edited to include all the track details, meaning that we would only need one article. --Michig (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Nomination fails to give a relevant policy/guideline to back the nomination. Some of the content is not being notable is not a sustainable reason for the deletion of any article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by the Notorious B.I.G.[edit]

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

There is already article titled "The Notorious B.I.G. discography". Not all the songs he recorded are notable. Those that are notable are already in the The Notorious B.I.G. discography. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Nomination fails to give a relevant policy/guideline to back the nomination. Some of the content not being notable is not a sustainable reason for the deletion of any article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Tech N9ne[edit]

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

There is already article titled "Tech N9ne discography". Not all the songs he recorded are notable. Those that are notable are already in the Tech N9ne discography. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles. --Michig (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination fails to give a relevant policy/guideline to back the nomination. Some of the content not being notable is not a sustainable reason for the deletion of any article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per the above two comments. STATic message me! 05:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur[edit]

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

There is already article titled "Tupac Shakur discography". Not all the songs he recorded are notable. Those that are notable are already in the Tupac Shakur discography. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles. --Michig (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has to be notable, not each song on the list. Given Shakur's stature as a major artist, I would say a list is notable in the vein of Wikipedia:FL#Music - Songs recorded by artist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NeilN's comment. STATic message me! 05:40, 22 July 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. (Although there's no Keep nor Delete !votes - Per other AFDs nommed (IE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur) it's obvious this is gong to be a keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by D12[edit]

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

We already have article titled "D12 discography". No need to have two articles with the same scope. I remind you that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles. --Michig (talk) 06:00, 20 July 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 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systems Biology and Learning Machine[edit]

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

This is an academic paper, not an encyclopaedia article. It appears to be based on a master's thesis (see redirect to this page). Peridon (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : the article appears to be a research thesis. It seems the user is here specifically to promote the author of the thesis and the thesis itself (Wikicology (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be almost completely WP:OR. The fractured English doesn't help. Msnicki (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Agree that this is WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Jorge Guerra Pires (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Dear all, this is the author of the page. My intention was the best, I did not want to promote my work, besides I have been working with that. Don't you think that someone that spent time with something can talk about it? anyway, if you all decide to delete, it does not matter to me. I was just trying to contribute, that is all. Best Regards.[reply]

--Jorge Guerra Pires (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Dear all, as some of you have commented, my page is OR, from the page of Wikipedia "...To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented..." did you all really read the article? there are several references in the end for supporting the idea. There are more, but I need time to edit or other users could complemente.[reply]
Hm. The more I look at this the more I think it isn't OR. There are many inline citations. Msnicki and Lesser Cartographies what about this article makes you think it is primarily OR? --Pine^✉ 07:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The giveaway was in the first two sentences: "This is a short paper about Systems Biology and Machine Learning. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out herein the natural synergy between them." There's certainly a list of citations but I'm extremely skeptical that any of them actually state the basic thesis of this article. At best, this may be impermissible synthesis if not pure junk. Msnicki (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine:: Both machine learning and systems biology are legitimate topics in isolation, but I failed to find anywhere in the primary or secondary literature where they were linked (outside of a couple mentions of molecular systems biology). The topic was, as best I can tell, invented by the author. The citations, such as they are, give examples of how machine learning is used in systems biology, but they don't discuss those techniques as a topic. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Msnicki:: Just because someone is copying their paper into a new article doesn't mean the article is a bunch of OR, although that can be the case. Relying on Lesser Cartographies' independent findings, I will say delete for now, with the possibility that the article can be recreated in a way compliant with Wikipedia policy. --Pine^✉ 07:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does citing your own (published) thesis count as WP:OR, or WP:PRIMARY? Regardless, whilst machine learning is used in systems biology, I wouldn't think it is deserving of its own entry any more than Carpentry and Set Squares (or Carpentry and Square Sets). I would recommend writing a summary paragraph, and merging with Systems Biology. U+003F^? 08:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
U+003F, masters' theses are published, but not peer reviewed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they are examined, which means that they undergo a more rigorous review than most scientific books, though less rigorous than most scientific papers. U+003F^? 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the article is a clear WP:OR. The user from his statement above has also violated WP:COI policy. This is an indications that the user is only here to promote his thesis paper. We need to be careful in the use of material as U+003F suggested that it should be merged in is own WP:POV. I don't support such an idea because despite the claim of the user as the author the thesis, we cannot be certain if he his truely the author. Merging such article might be detrimental to wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation (Wikicology (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
If you look in the history of On the Applicability of Computational Intelligence in Transcription Network Modelling, which was an article about the author's master's thesis before it became a redirect to the article in question here, you will see that this thesis appears to be the centre of the author's editing. I feel that he may not have understood that Wikipedia does not publish scientific or philosophical papers, and that the references given in such a paper are not indicators of that paper's notability. Peridon (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Classic example of an OR essay DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. The literature list is not enough to save this article, for two reasons. First, the article is too full of conclusions and opinions for which a master's thesis is not good enough a reference. Second, the cited literature is itself not enough to even establish the notability of this field, since the citation counts for the cited works are too low (using GScholar to measure them, which is usually quite good at finding references in CS-related fields). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm very sorry, but we don't publish original papers at Wikipedia. We're a tertiary source. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 22 July 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. (Although there's no Keep nor Delete !votes - Per other AFDs nommed (IE List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur) it's obvious this is gong to be a keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by The Game[edit]

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

We already have article titled "The Game discography". No need to have two articles with the same scope. I remind you that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, why don't you delete all the other articles like that? There's a Jay-Z one, there's a Common one, a My Chemical Romance one. Why are those ones okay?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 20 July 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 Primary schools in Singapore. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyang Primary School[edit]

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

Was tagged for notability. Tag was removed, by editor who apparently believe the school is notable and should have a stand-alone article. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such primary schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore. Primary schools are not inherently notable. Also, the article is promotional in tone. However, a redirect is more appropriate per WP:OUTCOMES. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore. Primary schools are not inherently notable. A redirect is more appropriate per WP:OUTCOMES which is not a guideline, but documents the accepted practice\, and alternatives recommended at WP:DELETION Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 22 July 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 06:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Doles[edit]

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

I have severe doubts about the subject's notability, especially in light of the WP:BLP issues. What news coverage there is does not seem to meet the standards of WP:CRIME. Huon (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Huon. Further, neither element of WP:PERP is met.--Rpclod (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of minor, low level crimes that did not reach the level of coverage to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian Federation of Accountants[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is listed as one of the apex bodies of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. With more effort I think the notability could be established. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a bit, including a couple easily found sources. Nomination appears not to meet wp:BEFORE guideline. Perhaps it was based on there being no sources in the article, but that calls for tagging for development, not AFD, IMHO. An obvious keep, if i dare say so. --do ncr am 03:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doncram's edits and sources show evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:40, 27 July 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 06:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Krishna Lal[edit]

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

Subject completely fails WP:NAUTHOR. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. The one source that does meet it, briefly mentions the subject as an individual working on fame and fortune. This failed A7, but I don't see any claim at notability here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 19:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Shabratha (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of too soon. This persons first novel has not even been published yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Jumping the gun a bit. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 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. Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Plastics Corp.[edit]

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

The claims are unverifiable. The references do not contain the cited material even the name of this company. Iniciativass (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Do not agree with the nomination. The company is mentioned in reliable source here. Article needs major update, but looks to me that is passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --BiH (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a passing mention of the company for making plastic anchors.Iniciativass (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom seems perhaps mistaken. Explanation for at least one of nominator's complaints is that the name of the company is found in the 2nd, continuation, page of an on-line article, which you wouldn't find in a quick text search of the linked source. E.g. this continuation page of a New York Times article cited in the article provides quote about the company exporting to 24 countries, and actually quite a bit more. I added a direct link to the continuation page into the reference, though the reference was NOT wrong. Also, reference #11 and other references are off-line sources. Off-line sources are FINE, we do not require on-line sourcing of everything. Those sources are in fact verifiable, just requiring more work than simply looking on-line in the open free internet (could well be verifiable behind paywalls, and definitely verifiable at a library with a hard copy). So, although I am not reviewing all the sources to find proof that every assertion is indeed supported, I expect everything is or was supported. --do ncr am 03:13, 21 July 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 06:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Products[edit]

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

Non-notable software products based on press releases and self published sources like ireport of CNN. The article is a recreation of LMS King which was speedy-died 3 times under G11 criteria. Iniciativass (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject lacks notability and appears to be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Per nom, refs provided are all Press Releases or self-published, and not RS. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my search did not reveal significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources, while the article contains just press releases. 4 attempts of re-creation of this article warrants salting King Products as was done for LMS King. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:48, 21 July 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. Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bruce Blakeney[edit]

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

It is of no priority and has only 1 reference, I don't see why this person should have his own article. SilentDan297 talk 17:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blankeney appears to have been a significant participant in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. See, e.g., Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trials and Virginia Law digital exhibition (collecting sources). An argument to merge and redirect to the tribunal is one possibility although he was an author, lecturer and translator on other topics. See, e.g., A Sketch of the Development of Japanese Law and The Cause of Japan (1952). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article is correct, the subject played a pivotal role in an important historic event.--Rpclod (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important, notable, and of historical significance per sources above. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The nominator, who edits mostly in popular culture, should understand that articles are kept on the basis of Wikipedia policy not on wp:Idon'tlikeit. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Apologies for the poorness of my explanation, what I was meant to say what that it's not consideed of high importance as seen on the articles talk page, had it said "High Importance" then I would have recognized its value and not had gone through this process, but it lacks in references and I didn't see how it was notable in any way, but that's probably cause I don't often edit such articles in this subject, again I don't dislike the article I just failed to see how it was notable due to lack of indication. SilentDan297 talk 02:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to refrain from editing in areas that one does not have a good understanding of. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

SilentDan, I have a slightly different take. I am not troubled by your nomination. I applaud your efforts to contribute and I encourage you to continue. I think that the discussion aspect of the AfD process is relatively forgiving and, in fact, often results in improvements to articles. For example, assuming that you are not an "expert" on the particular subject, your understanding is consistent with the vast majority of the readers/users. Accordingly, they may also be confused by the article or its importance and hence I think it is incumbent on the "experts" to heed your comments. Please, remain bold. Your contributions are appreciated.--Rpclod (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Rpclod that SilentDan is to be encouraged rather than admonished. That said, he might be advised to familiarize himself with the pre-deletion process at WP:BEFORE as the number of references in an existing article is not a determinant of the subject's notability (in particular, "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability 1. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your feedback, I will be sure to take extra caution next time I come across such articles. SilentDan297 talk 17:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan. My best wishes for your future editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep - while I'd like better sourcing, he appears to pass my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources indicate notability. James500 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 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) 18:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Stigge[edit]

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

I am not seeing any encyclopedic notability here. Most of the sources fail WP:RS and what doesn't does not meet the in depth requirements for GNG and BASIC. The awards are not major and are for team efforts. He is an engineer, one of many thousands. What am I missing? Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are overwhelmingly WP:PRIMARY or just plain trivial (e.g., the wedding announcement). I agree with nom that the award is not sufficiently significant to confer notability. Subject might qualify under WP:ACADEMIC but a Google scholar search turned up only a few papers, none of which received more than 6 citations. (As a general rule, a significant paper would be one with over 1000 citations, so this isn't even close.) I was unable to find anything helpful on the web or in books. Msnicki (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO and seems more like self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I'm sure there are many people who wish they could post such a CV to LinkedIn, but this article appears to be at the wrong site. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete less than notable, and written in a promotional manner. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 26 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Karan[edit]

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

A list of people (kings - Raja), mythical and historical? who were called Karan/Karna. A non-notable list Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the names in the list has a blue link. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with prior comment. This list is of no use to users.--Rpclod (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Foster (drummer)[edit]

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

He may have worked in two bands, but without sources he is not notable. Existed, played the drum, we enjoyed the music, no doubt about that... However, with the present lack of sources he cannot have a bio article as a musician in WP. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An absence of sources in the article has no bearing on notability. What efforts did you make to locate sources? --Michig (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet search. (I recognize I did not go to the public library.) You can do the same internet search using the above-provided tools. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found these, which confirm many of the details in the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. If you care for the drummer you should add those sources to the article and make it better. So other people who join this discussion will see the new aspect of the article and possibly opine in favour of keeping it. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom doesn't give the impression he undertook WP:BEFORE, however I don't think the refs you found are strong enough. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here shows notability. It's all very well editors saying references are out there. If they are, add them!--Egghead06 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of two notable bands in an established criterion of WP:NMUSIC and I have already provided sources that verify the facts stated in the article. AfD is not for cleanup. If he's notable the article should be kept. Don't expect other editors to do all the work. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN applies. It is not the job of readers to supply refs. Originators and editors must do this. --Egghead06 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not an editor, why are you here? --Michig (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have I edited this article? No. Have you?.........No. Do the references given establish notability? No. What can a reader verify by reading? Next to nothing. Like the nominator says, if you've got the refs, add them!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a few sources. What is surprising is that there has been this much discussion and nobody has found sources. Or is it that nobody else tried? WP:BEFORE means you should undertake this before you start the process to delete. Trackinfo (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add, the "Find Sources" section is utterly useless. The inserted name is the name of the article, which conforms to wikipedia naming conventions, which has nothing to do with the reality of his name, or nickname. Go the extra step and use either of those . . . then read. Trackinfo (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Michig Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Serdena[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for an Oscar - sounds good and is proof of a job well-done. However, the only source is about this nomination. (Are there others that the editor did not see necessary to add?) For me, it looks like a one-time success; and could be Deleted. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was nominated for an Academy Award, which is pretty clearly a good claim of notability. He has clearly had a significant career beyond this, with plenty of sources available, but obviously these won't be found if people don't look for them. This states that he also won a Primetime Emmy Award for his work on Northern Exposure (see also this). This discusses his work on Chain Reaction, as does this. This book discusses his nwork on the Twilight series of films. There are dozens of further sources available confirming his work on other productions. --Michig (talk) 15:31, 26 July 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 Speedied per below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6[edit]

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

This is a POV opinion essay, inherently unbalanced. Fails WP:NOTESSAY. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure where you are seeing the document as unbalanced. While it references the law, it is not interpreting it. Where there are other related issues which are more subject to bias, they are NOT included. The cross references are all in order.

The intent is to provide information regarding the issue of a historical event. Two non-lawyers present their challenge and attempt to re-secure their constitutional rights. Finding along the way that the Law is nationwide in every state. The law which causes their issue, is the law which mandates a conspiracy of silence within the judiciary. The problem presented is that the judiciary enacted an unconstitutional law, and the way they did it, they have made it illegal to remove their own law because their integrity has been undermined.

This is also not a conspiracy theory. The referenced facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeranceH (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem presented is that the judiciary enacted an unconstitutional law, and the way they did it, they have made it illegal to remove their own law because their integrity has been undermined." That is your analysis of the situation... which is the heart of the problem here. Wikipedia is not a place for your analysis. This piece is full of your statement of your opinion ("The integrity of the court is affected when the judiciary is mandated to injustice without ability to explain."), of quotes that you have selected because you feel they build your case rather than because some reliable third-party source says they're relevant (we can be pretty sure that Alexander Hamilton was not talking about Rule 1.6) Even headers like "The Real Matter" speak to a point of view. This is all a fine and wonderful blog post that you should put on your blog, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a source of individual opinion or original analysis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is an argumentative essay that inherently cannot have a neutral point of view.--Rpclod (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider speedy. Most of the article appears to be a verbatim copy of a lawsuit filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit doesn't make a lot of sense (and names as defendants a lot of people having no connection with Pennsylvaina), and there is no evidence it's a notable lawsuit. In fact, the lawsuit was dismissed by the court in 2013 on the ground that the federal court had no jurisdiction to review state-court decisions as the plaintiffs were seeking, and that dismissal was recently affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The introduction to the article also contains fanciful claims, such as that RPC 1.6 (which prohibits lawyers from disclosing confidential information provided to them by their clients, unless an exception applies) was created in response to Operation Greylord in the 1980s, although the duty of confidentiality has been contained in the Canons of Ethics going back at least to the early 1900s. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find a speedy deletion criteria that fits (it would be a bit of a stretch of WP:A11 to make that work), otherwise I'd have marked it for speedy. The article author's username suggests a strong relationship to the case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is blatant enough as not belonging that I could justify a pure IAR deletion, but if I'm compelled to check a box, I would indeed go with A11 ("obviously invented"), as this is clearly the page-creator's own frivolous, dismissed lawsuit. Relatedly, I'm not sure which speedy criterion applies to wholesale (but non-copyvio) reproduction of a non-notable, unimportant primary source document, but there certainly should be one. Another alternative would be to get a few more "deletes" to pile up here and declare a SNOW deletion. But having this nonsense sitting in mainspace for a week and getting mirrored is the sort of thing that brings the project into disrepute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like flagging it for A11, I'm certainly willing to IAR enough not to delete that tag. I cannot speak for anyone else. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and speedied it. It's primarily a copy of a source document, which is not an article at all, and the balance I think does qualify as A11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 21 July 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 06:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drake (fairy)[edit]

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

While drakes are well known in mythology as dragons, this article presents unsubstantiated claims that the term is also used historically to describe a class of fairies. The only reference is a blog entry credited to an anonymous social worker. From that blog, I've found a potential reference here but I'm skeptical that this should qualify as a reliable source. Pburka (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While the blog entry is anonymous, the blog itself appears to be run by User:Francoferret, this article's creator. Pburka (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've long been deeply suspicious about this article's veracity. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic and lacking any coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps even made up by the author. --Michig (talk) 15:35, 26 July 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 UFO sightings in France. SpinningSpark 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valensole UFO incident[edit]

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

No WP:FRIND sources available to establish notability. jps (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, better sources now added. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to merge and redirect to UFO sightings in France#1965 given the below comments, sounds fair enough. However, I'd like to point out that LuckyLouie should refrain from removing sourced information simply by judging its name. I appreciate you taking your time to find better sources and copy editing, though. Good job. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources such as a page from a TV entertainment website entitled "Paranormal Science" aren't suitable. I've found more appropriate academic sources and copyedited accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A pretty old article; but is this incident notable enough to deserve a standalone place. Although there are coverages in seemingly academic sources, these kind of solitary/sole experiences need more, such as an implant or a captured alien artefact. To be sufficiently notable, should have made a lot of noise, like Roswell for instance. French wikipedia and List of UFO sightings coverages look adequate. Logos5557 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing user/admin In case the decision/consensus is delete, you might consider merging the summarized version into the List of UFO sightings, turning the page into redirect (to the list of ufo sightings) and protecting (to prevent recreation). Logos5557 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to UFO sightings in France#1965. Well summarized by Victão Lopes.--Rpclod (talk) 14:51, 20 July 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 06:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damone Morris[edit]

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

Subject fails both WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Played professionally at a very low level (below the NBA D-League) and for a small college that generally doesn't get much press coverage. A Google search found no substantial coverage from reliable third party sources. Rikster2 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE.--Rpclod (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others' arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per the specific sports guideline of WP:NBASKETBALL, and fails to satisfy the requirements of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable basketball player who fails WP:NBASKETBALL . No evidence he passes the GNG. Coycan (talk) 18:39, 23 July 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 Ying Wa College. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Wa Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Redirect per established consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Ying Wa College.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom & JohnBlackburne –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: There are news articles about this school, like [6] and The String Orchestra Getting International Awards. --Good afternoon (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ying Wa College. Primary schools are not inherently notable. A redirect is more appropriate per WP:OUTCOMES which is not a guideline, but documents the accepted practice\, and alternatives recommended at WP:DELETION Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 22 July 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) 14:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scv purge[edit]

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

Contested PROD as WP:NOTNEWS, tag removed by IP without rationale. Cannot see that this will be an event of lasting significance TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination might be right in the end, but it's fair to note that this particular episode is getting a lot of attention right now: a typical news article is "Nude photos apparently of Santa Clarita Valley teens land on Twitter", Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2014. There are dozens like this. While NOTNEWS will probably counsel against a standalone article here, it's possible that some of this content might belong in another article (sexting?) --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local crime story with local breaking news coverage. No evidence of passing WP:EVENT. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is too poorly WP:V sourced to consider anything but delete. Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS. If later on this gets lots of coverage the article can be recreated with better writing. Even in that case, it is now WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I am also very concerned that this will become a WP:BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kill it with fire. A story about somebody Twitter-posting photos of nude minors? Are we encouraging child pornography now, or what? No reliable sources are cited in the article, and the occasional news coverage pointed to above fails WP:NOTNEWS. The sooner we get rid of this the better. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 23 July 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) 14:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current news of india[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources, content is unduly promotional and not verifiable. Was prodded for those reasons; prod removed by author, who also routinely removes maintenance tags, without improvement. Huon (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have not identified any significant secondary source on this subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should strike out my vote. After all, it is rubbish. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nicely presented, useful info. Marswiks (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't about presentation, but about whether article is notable enough or verifiable. I find no news about this anywhere that can be used to prove either. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the page's own source: "currentnewsofindia.com did not score particularly well" (sitescore.co). Their scoring criteria may well differ from WP:Notability (web), but it certainly doesn't bode well. Cnilep (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple wp:secondary, wp:independent and wp:reliable sources, therefore fails wp:general notability guideline and does not meet any of the WP:Notability (web)#Criteria as well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:59, 24 July 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. Ekabhishek^talk 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kovilthottam Church[edit]

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

~~Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources.~~ Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no sources are provided. I would guess from what the article says, especially that the church was built in the 1700s, that the building is notable. The article could be rewritten latter. I also suspect that its name is different. I have never heard of a church called: [Someplace] Church. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the prod was simply contested because the article had already been prodded and deprodded once; prodding it again is against procedure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a source. It is clear from its age that this church is notable for historical reasons. It actually appears to be called St Andrew's Church, Kovilthottam, and the article therefore needs to be renamed on completion of the afd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a reference that supports a name of Saint Andrew's Parish Church, or if that becomes a disambiguation page, Saint Andrew's Parish Church (Kovilthottam). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:31, 21 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- if it were not for its age, I would not have wanted to keep it. It needs expanding to say soenting about the building's architecture and history. It is only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Necrothesp, I have added another reference.--Rpclod (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The management of WP is strongly encouraging us to edit and improve monuments articles with the Summer of Monuments initiative. If the church dates from the 1700's, it's likely notable and would certainly be no question of its notability if this were in the US. Does the initiative not apply to India?.--Oakshade (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to thank Jeff G. ツ for nominating this article. I think that, based on the article's initial condition, his nomination was appropriate. His nomination and subsequent discussion resulted in Necrothesp and others improving the article such that it is now appropriate. That seems to suggest that AfD offers a somewhat Darwinian benefit of evolutionary selection.--Rpclod (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to the verifiability of its age. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the recent additions of verifiable reliable sources. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:31, 21 July 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) 14:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EXHIB-IT! Trade Show Marketing Experts[edit]

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

Article is about a company that fails to meet notability as it lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability, and I can find no better. Note that the article on the company's owner was recently deleted via AFD. Whpq (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found of attained notability for this firm. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regional trade-show company, so delete. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 14 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage and sources do not qualify as significant coverage. This seems like WP:ADVERT.--Rpclod (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 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) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soap soccer[edit]

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

Unremarkable sport. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be a niche sport, but it has some sources and some of the YouTube videos have a lot of hits. Frmorrison (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some of those sources, as YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wholly non-notable. Giant Snowman 09:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found an article in the Qatar Tribune, a one line mention in Wellington Times under the name "bubble soccer", a passing paragraph in a NZ newspaper at Stuff.co.nz and a page on a radio station website about the abovementioned youtube video Keyj. JTdale ^Talk 16:10, 12 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article effectively concedes, no global or even national oversight body exists. The events appear to be sporadic, scattered get-togethers that do not give rise to notability, at least at this time. YouTube videos typically do not qualify as authoritative or reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable pseudo-sport. – Pee Jay 17:39, 24 July 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) 14:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ninaro[edit]

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

Private educational institute with no indication of WP:Notability. Only external link is to a free web host providing the institutes website. Google searches not finding any signficant coverage. noq (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this article does not meet notability guidelines for Wikipedia and should be removed.Ultimatemythbuster (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's full name appears to be "NINARO HIGHER EDUCATIONAL CENTER". Not that that helps, appreciably. Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no GNG, no nothing. Some IP keeps adding spam links to the page. Delete it is from me. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above deletes. Epeefleche (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep~~. Private, but there are plenty of private establishments providing mainstream education to A-Level. That its web site is on a free web host is not a concern of ours, not should we be overly concerned about the lack of Internet sources for a school in Sri Lanka. The article is informative and not promotional. Spam links can be contained by regular maintenance users. We have a long-standing precedent for keeping secondary schools as reported at WP:OUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 19 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." WP:ORG There is no indication that this organization is subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.--Rpclod (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see some of the policy at WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R (these are policies rather than just guidelines)., and bear in mind that if school articles are not allowed to be deleted per WP:A7 and only need to be proven to exist, then this article shouldn't even be here at AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A7 relates to criteria for speedy deletion and relates solely to "notability". This is not a nomination for speedy deletion. Even for speedy deletions, verifiability and reliability of sources remain criteria. Noq raises valid concerns regarding the latter issues and none of the current references are reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am frankly unsure of the nature of these "educational institutions" that do not 00specifically call themselves "schools" Kudpung, can you enlighten us. Some of them are not mere tutoring academies. And from the description in our article, I think that this one is just that. -- offers course in various unrelated subjects, no indication that it leads to a degree. If it were a secondary school I would of course be !voting "keep", but the bar for tutoring academies is much higher. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm not so sure that it is a mere cram school. It seems to be a lot larger than that and it does offer education to university entrance level. I have changed my !vote to 'Comment'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, not a cramschool exactly, but a place that offers courses in specific subjects, but not degrees. We've usually defined the sort of school we keep as a matter of course as one that a/has real existence and b/offers a high school diploma, or a college degree. (making appropriate modifications in terminology for the country's educational system). Some people add c/accredited, but I consider that not necessarily a requirement. Of course, there will always be borderline situations, but I think its clear from their website they do not offer anything corresponding to a degree. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with DGG here. Going by this theory, anyone can create a website of a fictional school and a few facebook/twitter pages and come to Wikipedia. Notability must be established through atleast one reliable source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:37, 22 July 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. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Clousing[edit]

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

Is his really notable? IMO not notable, sounds like any of the servicemen who go AWOL Gbawden (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect your opinion whether he is notable or not is irrelevant. Is there a policy that this article does not meet? This article isn't sourced the best but that can be fixed easily. It's not a common thing for a soldier to go AWOL because he opposes to the war. I can find plenty of sources and books just by searching Google. NBC, SeattlePI, HuffingtonPost, Desert News, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune. Press the Books button to find sources and you can also find many books about his story. Remember notability is not temporary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the existing Iraq Veterans Against the War article (which needs work). I question whether he's notable on his own. After looking at the books results, he's mentioned in some books (mainly because he gave interviews), but they aren't about him in particular; he's one of many being talked to and/or quoted. Intothat darkness 19:53, 3 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Intothatdarkness and WP:BLP1E. Jinkinson talk to me 17: 21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep Closer, please pay attention to WP:VOTE. The arguments for deletion are thin to nonexistent (nomination framed as a question?). The article is sourced much more in depth and reliability (book interviews) than RS requires. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:MILNG.--Rpclod (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:54, 20 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional landship[edit]

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

This appears to be mostly original research with a random assortment of details pulled from various fictional series not backed by any sources. TTN (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm the editor who created this article by WP:SPLITting from Landship). I would support removal of unsourced info (and the picture?) from the article, but deleting the article would mean that those editors who want info about Gundam etc in wp would (once again) be putting their info into the Landship article. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Landship. The general concept seems notable enough, but seems to exist mainly in the world of fiction. Real landships tend to be things that have been proposed and/or tried but didn't work out. There is probably enough interest in the topic so that an article would be useful, and it would be better to give the readers the real world info in the same place as fictional info so that they can be better informed. The material about other large real vehicles is also good for background. An encyclopedia is about education after all. (BTW serious SF authors such as Wells and Heinlein were making real-world predictions and/or proposals, not just entertaining their audience.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would imagine that Fictional landship could be much expanded, and would overwhelm the parent article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Rpclod (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simple description of elements of notable works of fiction is not original research. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a tough one. Some of this content looks valid, but there is also a lot of dubious unsourced material. I agree that a full merge would overwhelm the parent article, so I think the best course is a selective merge - e.g. perhaps leave out the sections of unsourced prose and just take the better examples.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:56, 27 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) is right when he says that mentioning elements from fiction is not original research (after all, we have an article on the Starship Enterprise!). I also think that Rich is right when he says that adding this article to Landship would overwhelm that article. Finally, are the fictional landships covered in this article notable? Yes, The Land Ironclads, the Traction Cities and the land battleships of Gundam are all notable in their own rights, and the concept as a whole is sufficiently widely mentioned in speculative fiction to be worth including here. Sourcing for the unsourced items should of course be improved. RomanSpa (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game. The only available sources seem to be books by the game's creator and trivial mentions at a few game-related blogs. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added one really good source, so I suspect there is more out there. BOZ (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that User:Brainy J added a couple of ref ideas to the article's talk page a couple months ago. I don't have access to either, but I would say this makes the topic WP:GNG-worthy. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep More sources would be great, but we've at least one very good one and this game has been fairly important in the history of RPGs (he says of personal knowledge). Will change to keep if anyone can find an additional solid source (I can't find anything on the talk page?). I can't find anything on-line that's a RS, but that's not shocking given the age of the game. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, see the box that says "The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:". BOZ (talk) 00:25, 14 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: you can use this review from RPG.net as well. Searching around it appears this game is widely believed to have exerted a lot of influence on later RPG battle systems.AioftheStorm (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Autonomic Society[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I cannot find any kind of significant or independent coverage on Google for this subject. Biglulu (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A medical society with a long history and plenty of reliable references. -- 101.117.1.78 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.1.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It has also been recognised by a publisher, which has the society as an official society its main autonomic journal (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/9106549); the journal has a good reputation in the field of clinical autonomic neuroscience. I agree the comment about its eminence. Klbrain (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. YabbaDabbaDooooo! (talk) 15:06, 16 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did the nom. do a Google Scholar search? - [7]. Seems to pass WP:NOTABILITY to me. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above.AioftheStorm (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Hoek Library[edit]

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

Zero indication of notability, most of the content is about the town, not the city. No independent references Jac16888 ^Talk 12:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero notability" means it should not have come here in the first place; but, as you brought it already I say Delete, per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and maybe revisit after a year has passed. It is a first article created by a new editor, and wp:BITE applies. Per discussion at the creating editor's Talk page, it was then being created as part of a wikimedia event, the Western Cape Libraries edit-a-thon. The article seems perfectly factual. There are many articles about individual libraries. It can be asserted that "wikipedia-notability" of this particular library is not yet established in the article. So it would be nice if the editor could try to find other coverage of the topic in newspaper or other sources separate from the library's own publications, to add to the article. Is the building historical or distinctive in any way? Anyhow, keep for now. --do ncr am 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small thing that could be added: The library has a monthly "literary tea", e.g. where long-time journalist first-time author Claire Robertson discusses her novel "The Spiral house" (about the tea); the book was favorably reviewed in the Cape Times (copy of review here). So I am sure by the way that there will be multiple mentions of the library in newspapers, at least in calendars for hosting of events like this.

Also, I tried a Google search and found some articles (one involving "Cakes"?) there, but the link from Google goes to the Cape Times website where it wants me to create a one-week trial account. Maybe at this link or maybe that is a temporary link. Someone else could/should search the Cape Times for articles having significant coverage of the library. Given that the new editor probably did not try this, and given that there quite likely is coverage there, I say Keep unless or until someone with access checks and says that the library is not notable. --do ncr am 01:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For much the same reasons as mentioned by Doncram. Also this article falls within WP:LOCAL and although there is not unanimity on this issue I feel it does give weight to the argument for keeping it.--Discott (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LOCAL subject to removal of off-topic forking. Fish Hoek is a separate article.Helen Online 11:38, 25 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rin Nakai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted in a previous AfD, recreated, redeleted under G4, then brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to relist it at AfD for a clean discussion. My listing here is thus an administrative action; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete She has no top tier MMA fights so she doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Being highly ranked in judo in middle or high school does not meet the notability standards at WP:MANOTE, nor does her grappling record. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Who you fight is actually immaterial - where you fight them is. No top tier fights. Does not meet WP:MMANOT.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of the references in this article are from one website, MMARising. In order to retain this article, one would need to add references from other reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article creator, I abide by the Wikipedia rules and will accept whatever consensus is reached here. I want to comment, however, about why there are more citations from MMARising than other sources. If there is a skew towards that website is because it's a reliable source in English and the English Wikipedia favors sources in this language over others when they are available. The majority of sources that give her in-depth coverage before her UFC signing are in Japanese, and, therefore, are mostly not included within the article.
On the notability of the subject, I will offer no voted opinion because, being the creator, I have a subjective perception, and I don't plan to add more sources or edit the article more than what I already did in the past to improve it. I was well aware that she may or may not meet the WP:MMANOT criteria depending on how the MMA promotion Valkyrie (where she became champion at the time the article was created) was cataloged (which wasn't or was top-tier for women's MMA, as it was one of only two WMMA promotions before it disappeared). With only English-language sources, I believe she meets the basic criteria of people, but not the basic criteria for athletes, unless one looks deeper into printed and TV media in Japan, which is not easily available even with the Internet. In any case, I see no problem if the article is deleted since there is a MMA wiki where the article can be moved without problems and if she ever meets the current criteria the article can easily be restored. Jfgslo (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that she has signed with the UFC although not fought yet. I could suggest you userfy the article and wait until she has had a couple of fights. If someone has a winning record in a top tier organization the article tends to be kept on the assumption that the chance of meeting WP:MMANOT will be met.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jfgslo (talk · contribs), would you provide a list of two to five Japanese reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Rin Nakai? For each, please provide the link (if the source is online), the publication's name, the translation of the source's name, and how much coverage the source devotes to Rin Nakai. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the reviewing admin to relist this discussion for another week to give Jfgslo time to provide links to sources that may establish notability. To avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias, Japanese-language sources should be considered to determine if the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline before concluding whether the article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and coverage is routine sports reporting--results or upcoming fight announcements.Mdtemp (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hill (antiques expert)[edit]

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

Subject is an antiques expert who has made occasional TV appearances, maybe best known (if at all) for co-hosting a BBC2 anittiques series with the more famous Lucy Worsley. The remainder of the sources are not secondary, while his books are largely self-published and I'm unable to find multiple reviews about any one of them. As for independent coverage about Hill, the best (and only) thing I can find is a promotional piece on Surrey Life news site. Falls too far short of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. Sionk (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (maybe) - the source itself isn't really reliable but he was indeed chosen as a "poster boy" for National Antiques Week (whatever that is). This article is both about him and by him but it shows they've printed his stuff in the Daily Mail. This is closer to what we're looking for I think. This has more about him and National Antiques Week. This is less about him and more about the program he founded. One more from The Mirror. I'm still not entirely convinced. He fails WP:AUTHOR but the reviews of his TV shows might get him over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think that the article quite demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not absolute. It may be present or absent or "not enough" as in this case: Not notable "enough". --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - regular appearances on Antiques Roadshow probably count for notability, if we could find independent sources about the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is included in Who is Who following his TV shows and books. Also, his books have been widely reviewed by specialist UK and US publications on glass and ceramics and generally viewed as important summaries on their topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preichers (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence to prove to these claims? Sionk (talk) 23:56, 26 July 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's mentioned here today and given the other sources shown above, I believe passes the bar for notability. It would be good to see the refs asked for above, but I'd !vote to keep nonetheless. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can find selected articles and reviews of his books and work mentioned by me above on [8]. Who's Who [9] do not have direct links or allow access unless you are a subscriber but if you check a 2014 printed edition in your library you will find him listed under Hill, Mark Roger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preichers (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heilind Asia Pacific[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Organisation is not notable. AlanS (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 05:36, 20 July 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being #9 among the largest electronics distributors in North America, really isn't much of a claim to notability. Company has no in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pernom and Bejnar. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 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 06:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen G. Sturgis Playground[edit]

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

"Helen G. Sturgis Playground" has 5 results. Pretty hard to understand if there is any notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here are some clearer sources about this small Philadelphia park and rec center [10][11], but I can't find any suggestion that the building is architecturally notable or that the park has another particular notability that lifts it from the run of the mill. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability, Plus do we really need an article on a non notable playground?... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:06, 20 July 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. -Although there's no !votes - Per other AFDs nommed (IE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur) it's obvious this is gong to be a keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Hopsin[edit]

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

There is already an article titled "Hopsin discography". no need to have two articles with almost the same scope. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you fool. His discography shows his albums, mixtapes, and guest appearances. This is ALL of HIS songs. A songography, totally different thing. Someone thinks "Hey I wonder if there's a list of all Hopsin songs", Boom. Here it is. You guys don't even have a page for Gazing At the Moonlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckT187 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility is not optional here. Namecalling and personal insults will not be tolerated. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in the United States[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a address book or list of external and red links. The Banner talk 10:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Otherwise the lists of churches and temples, such as List_of_Catholic_churches_in_the_United_States and List of Buddhist temples will need deletion too. More broadly, when the goal is encyclopedic, lists that relate to a covered subject like this list relates to Islam are wholly apropos. ô¿ô 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both mentioned list seem to cover only notable temples/churches. They are not an indiscriminate list of addresses and websites of mosques without own article. The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And cleanup. Article meets inclusion criteria for a list and is part of a bigger scheme of list of mosques by country (see the navigation templates at the foot of the article). I don't think there's any need to have all the external links included in the tables, or linking to each state name 100+ times, but these issues can be addressed on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing special about a mosque. Any Muslim can open one. There is no authority (like the Roman Catholic Church for instance) that says one is more important than any other one. Sad to say, the reason an American mosque would become notable (that is of course covered by secondary sources) is if it was involved in some kind of controversy, either involvement of some members in extremism or it being a target of local bigotry. A list of all mosques would be against "WP is not a directory." A list of "notable mosques" would give a false picture of Muslim Americans. The list is not needed anyway since a category can take care of readers' needs. BayShrimp (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note A list of big, landmark mosques would also give a false picture since most Muslims worship in "non-notable" places.BayShrimp (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant here (nor is "false picture" an accurate characterization regardless, unless the list incorrectly states "these are all the mosques in the U.S."). It is standard for Wikipedia to have a "list of X" limited to notable entries (only those that merit articles) where not every X that exists is notable. Doesn't matter whether it's a list of shopping malls, shoe manufacturers, firefighters, or mosques. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of view the purpose of an encyclopedia as making people more knowledgeable and informed. A list of notable mosques would inform people who were looking for that information (although it might still be a directory.) But a person wanting to know more about Muslim life in America would end up disinformed if he makes the natural assumption that these notable mosques are somehow representative of Muslim places of worship, especially since in most cases the notability will be accidental depending on what the press happens to report. BayShrimp (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it suffices to say, as a measure of how far that is from policy, guidelines, or consensus, that I've never seen anyone even make that argument here before, that we shouldn't have a list of notable X because someone might draw incorrect inferences from it about the Xs that aren't notable. We list articles we have on various subjects, and so have plenty of lists limited to notable things. Period. See WP:LISTPURP, see the first two sentences of WP:NOTDIR, see WP:CSC. I suppose we should also delete Category:Mosques in the United States for the same reason? Hell, our poor confused reader need not even see a list or category grouping; simply googling "mosque" + "united states" + "wikipedia" could call up listings of just these notable mosques, so perhaps we shouldn't have any such articles at all. Lest this hypothetical person make the "natural" assumption that the mosques we choose to write articles about "are somehow representative" of all American mosques. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Notable: "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." From the article Encyclopedia: "Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." Quoting Diderot. I agree that it is possible to put together a list based on the 3 qualifications: Mosque, in the United States, and mentioned in some secondary source. However I don't think it helps the purpose of an encyclopedia, according to M. Diderot, and it is not required that we do so, by WP policy stated. Thank you. BayShrimp (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about an article Mosques in the United States? It could be based on serious sources (like books on the subject) and give accurate information on Muslim places of worship in general, and at the end have a list of the very few historically and/or architecturally important mosques in the US. Not every "notable" one. BayShrimp (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources substantial enough to write such an article, go for it. But that has nothing to do with whether we should also keep a separate list of all articles we have on mosques in the U.S. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list topic is certainly appropriate, but I wonder if this might be a WP:TNT candidate, given how little of it would belong in a proper list. It might be easier to start afresh by building a list directly from the category with AWB or some other automated tool, than to sift through this for the relatively few notable entries. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a List of Catholic churches in the United States and this one is put up for deletion, then quote all the rules you want there is just, something wrong with the AfD process. WP:IAR. Anarchangel (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference between the two is that only few churches have no article. Regarding the mosques, only a few have an article. The Banner talk 04:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also vote to delete the list of all notable Catholic churches. There is the same issue. Once you get below a certain level of importance, notability is more or less accidental. It depends on finding a published source, newspaper story, local history book, or whatever that tells about the church. What you end up with has very little connection with the state of Catholic churches in the USA. I can imagine that more written about cities like New York and San Francisco would have more notable churches, as well as notable mosques. In both cases a category works just as well to help readers find articles. Remember "If an article lies, it must die." BayShrimp (talk) 17:39, 28 July 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know WP is not a directory but we have similar lists. Banner, many links are blue, some are red. You can help turn to blue some of the notable ones, or ask the editor (or directly do yourself) to trim what is unnecessary, but better not ask deletion. I prefer to have not-very-well-made-lists to our readers' searching for them -in vain- and thinking that WP has a preference of churches or synagogues or whatever against mosques. I think neutrality policy is more important than the Not-a-directory argument. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-but limit to mosques that have an article. A list of notable religious structures is a valid list topic. I'm not seeing a reason to delete as the problem provided by the nominator can be fixed by editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. There are several misguided ideas in comments above, IMHO.

TNT is offensive: First, the call(s) for [wp:TNT]] are offensive I think, as if they are meant to be deliberately insulting, as if to say the work by editors is so terrible it must be exploded. That is mean and unnecessary, and to simply delete the article and start over would violate the spirit and explicit policies of Wikipedia. People's contributions are meant to be credited in the article history. If, outside of wikipedia, someone publishes a list of notable mosques copied from here, they would be obliged to give credit to the article authors. Calling for violating the social contract within Wikipedia, to allow/give editors credit, is inappropriate.

No need to limit to bluelinks wp:Redlinks help Wikipedia grow. Everyone should agree that a list of notable mosques is obviously welcome/needed/valuable. But it is good for lists to include items that don't have separate articles, including both items worthy and not worthy of future articles, per policy and guidelines and practice on lists. One good purpose served by a list like this, by the way, is that it allows for diplomatic redirecting of articles on non-notable items to the list, rather than confrontationally deleting them in the AFD process.

--do ncr am 17:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original list was one big list of external links (just like List of mosques in the United States#Florida with hardly and wikilinks to notable mosques. The Banner talk 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm not doing what you think I should be doing. However I do agree that a list of important mosques is obviously welcome/needed/valuable. The problem is that notable does not equal important. Some important mosques will be left off the list and many with very little importance will be included. We WP insiders understand this, but an outsider seeing something titled "List of mosques in the United States" will not. BayShrimp (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to actual examples of anyone being confused by just what such a list represents? Because, as I said above, you're the first person I've ever seen make this claim. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is now a directory of virtually every store front mosque around. A list would be appropriate. I'll try a crack at trimming it down. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do so, but the formatting of the list is too complicated for me! Can some person who is advocating for its being kept trim it down a bit, in good faith? Otherwise, I'll have to go along with the nay-sayers. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lego timeline[edit]

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

Seems redundant to History of Lego, which covers the company history, and List of Lego themes, which covers the all the product ranges and the dates they were launched and discontinued. McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: timeline articles are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia even if they contain redundant information. See Timeline of chemistry which is a featured article and contains information already found in History of chemistry, their purpose is about presentation rather than containing new information. Also List of Lego themes is not redundant to Lego timeline, the former only focuses on Lego products whereas the later looks at things like Lego movies, company history, etc.AioftheStorm (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lego timeline lists and state important 'years' of major events of a family own company history. Not just product or theme timeline, but when the company started and what happen that made important decisions depending on the year. History of Lego page is just a 'VERY' general information. It does not list or state important details that lead to major events. Please understand there is a difference between Lego as the brand or product, and the history of the Lego company and The Lego Group. If the Lego timeline is deleted. The information of important events, themes, products and people within the company will be gone for good. I don't know what is wrong having a timeline listing major events/themes about the company and not just about the toy Lego. GoTLG (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govt Girls PG College, Rampur[edit]

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

Not really notable, its own website is big so there are a few results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to previous version, the present version seems promising. After further research, I withdraw this proposal. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No policy based rationale presented by the nominator. "Not really notable" - it either is or it isn't. There is no grey area. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've undone the closure since someone has an issue elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is about Govt Girls PG College which is part of higher education information in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.
Keep per WP:UNI/AG: The college offers recognized degree. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 14:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recognised-degree awarding institution. What is required is a search for sources in the language and using local sources and thus developing the article rather than deleting it. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-granting institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 July 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. No valid reason for deletion, Feel free to renominate with a policy-based reason. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golf International AUS vs USA[edit]

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

Searching "Golf International AUS vs USA", hardly 6 results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No policy based rationale presented by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion. WP:NPASR. Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 19 July 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Jakszuk[edit]

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

1600 results, facebook, twitter and google plus. Subject fails WP:GNG and I was about to tag this article with A7, but I think article had been reviewed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No policy based rationale presented by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been a prod or even a BLP prod... for a person that's supposed to be from Croatia, it's most peculiar that a Google search for site:hr "Evan Jakszuk" returns no hits whatsoever - is that information false/hoax? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone a non-admin speedy keep closure here. This discussion is not without merit. The nominator was very likely referring to search engine hits on the article topic - indicating a notability problem; and to that coverage being mainly on social networks - indicating a reliance on unreliable sources. In addition, I later mentioned another verifiability issue. The discussion was clearly not started in a perfectly orderly manner, but there's no indication it was a bad-faith nomination, there's a modicum of corroboration, so it's clearly not WP:SK material. No prejudice to another admin deciding to uphold the SK, but I'd like to see a modicum of an explanation for the issues raised before we throw it away. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One observation - I never Speedy Kept it .... I assumed good faith and closed it as a normal discussion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Mostly regulars participate on these AfD debates, do you think they really need to re-read the policies for understanding some of the most common words that are used in AfD? Anyways, I am willing to cooperate so I have updated the reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I treat everyone the same - If you don't provide a reason it gets kept, I've reclosed as someones decided to renominate it, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just saw. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term WP:Speedy keep to refer to the closure done well prior to the expiry of the normal discussion period - seven days. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find any coverage at all, let alone anything independent and reliable. Seems to have a couple of tracks available via social media or user-provided sites, but found no evidence that he's gigged at the Decibel Festival, or anywhere else for that matter--Google and Songkick seem to come up blank. I cannot verify that he is a working DJ or producer, let alone a notable one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 00:41, 22 July 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 Cillit Bang#Advertising campaign. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Burgess (actor)[edit]

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

I doubt he is a notable actor per WP:NACTOR. Lack of sources. Only IMDB (which is not a RS) and a newspaper item on a fictional character he played. My searches in the internet shows a few more bits of his existance but do not yield to multiple independent reliable sources. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cillit Bang#Advertising campaign, this actor does not have independent notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient WP:NACTOR notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:52, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect: Not notable as stated above. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to whomever will close this 16-day discussion. It is clear: We should redirect the title. So please proceed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:18, 28 July 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 06:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Sombra del Pasado[edit]

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

This telenovela is not yet confirmed, have only been rumors. They have not even started their recordings. and references has only speak another telenovela Damián80 (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Advertising as an upcoming event. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new user, Valeria1998, has added this to the talk page: "exigo que la eliminen por falta de pruebas perdon por no escribirlo en ingles". She "demands" us to "eliminate" it. (What, I don't know.) And apologises for not writing in English. I brought this here for courtesy. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet made, we can recreate if it gets enough notice after creation to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 26 July 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 06:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Tay[edit]

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

Seriously problematic biography. Fancruft, listcruft, entirely sourced from source lacking in independence from the subject. It's an utter mess that needs a complete rewrite at best. Delete this and start from scratch. Ohc ^¡digame! 03:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all but one reference is to MediaCorp Studios. Methinks this written by a publicist.--Rpclod (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:59, 20 July 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. Ekabhishek^talk 04:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitanshu Yashaschandra[edit]

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

The article's references are PR pieces, directory entries and other fluffy and cuddly things, but there is no significant coverage, which is independent of the subject, and is in WP:RS. While the draft was at WP:AFC the sole editor and reviewer was the author. This has not led to a well constructed and well referenced article about a notable person. Fails WP:PROF, fails WP:AUTHOR. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Timtrent. Sitanshu Yashaschandra is notable person in Gujarati literature but there are not many English language sources covering him. I had to use web sources as I cant access google book on my mobile (I edit from mobile phone mostly). If you have problem with notability, he is recipient of Padma Shri 2006, award given by Government of India for notable contributions in related field.(have news source in article) and Sahitya Akademi Award which is the highest literature award(ref of government website). Search in Find Sources: books above. It may confirm that he is notable person. Is it Ok? -Nizil (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. The burden of proof is on you. I am sure, if he is notable, you will be able to prove it. English language sources are desirable bit not mandatory. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here are some sources: 1. Govt if India website archive citing him 2006 Padma Shri awardee 2. One India News citing 2006 Padma award 3. DNA News citing he was special guest at convocation of CEPT University, writes 'noted poet, playwright, translator and academician' 4.Times of India news 5. Press Info. Bureau-Govt of India about Padma award ceremony -Nizil (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put them in the article. Putting them here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but they are citing same information for article. I have already inserted citation for Padma Shri award and does not needed many more citations. Please search and add citations from Google Books, as I cant access them. They too have refs. -Nizil (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more Google book refs too. -Nizil (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recipient of Padma Shri- a prestigious award conferred by the Government of India.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that Nizil saved this article by demonstrating substantial coverage. As such, the subject meets WP:SCHOLAR among other criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:55, 20 July 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 06:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. L. Ashliman[edit]

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

Fails GNG, could not find independent sources about the subject, neither does this article state notability. The ChampionMan 1234 07:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 07:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 07:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 07:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SCHOLAR.--Rpclod (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 20 July 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 06:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Giovanni[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've tried various searches in an attempt to find independent sources that would support WP:N notability, but was not successful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and may be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 20 July 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 Hanna-Barbera Productions. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna–Barbera Classics Collection[edit]

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

This is an unsourced, unencyclopedic catalog of everything released in a DVD series/ Recommend redirect to Warner Home Video. SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, if keept its need to be re-written in similar manner to Walt Disney Treasuries series article, or Looney Tunes golden collection. If deleted its need to have it history removed and then redirected not to warner Archive only half of this series has been released through there, I think redirect to List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions. DoctorHver (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT.--Laun chba ller 06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge- There is no doubt that this article meets WP:NOTABILITY, however, I find that it should not be afforded its own article, but rather to be merged into one of the other Hanna Barbera articles such as the one earlier suggested List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions. The information is valuable and helpful to readers and therefore should be looked at in such a way.--Canyouhearmenow 11:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Myers[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Myers is mentioned in passing in some WP:SECONDARY sources but has no in-depth coverage. The primary sources which are used in the article do not help towards notability. (I thought I found a good source in New Jersey's website but that Myers is a black track coach, not the white game designer under discussion.) Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I've also tagged a portion of the article as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains merely conclusory statements and provides nothing that suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic does not have have any hits in a video game reliable sources search. Found some stuff for SIM Couch, but I'm not sure that's the same thing (and at any rate, it isn't proving notability for his individual biography). czar ♔ 03:55, 21 July 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) 14:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Syed Abdullah Shah[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The linked sources do not support the claims of the article. There is no time context given by the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not supported by any authoritative references.--Rpclod (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per others above. Fai zan 19:45, 24 July 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. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.V Kapil Dev Public School, Ranchi[edit]

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

Issues with notability, few search results but those websites are directories. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy delete as copyvio from the school's About Us page. The author appears to represent an advertising site. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mateen[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Subject is known only for his alleged involvement in a scandal, but no other significant coverage of him exists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the one-event rules, and also since most of the accusations against him are only alleged, we are on very shaky ground as to BLP rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A previous relist apparently failed to actually move this to the correct redated list, I assume a script failure. I've manually corrected that by rerelisting and refactoring away the previous half-failed relist attempt. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:20, 29 July 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) 14:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtam4 (hacker)[edit]

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

Subject notability not demonstrated, all sources from single non-reliable organization. Sounds like a fan or an autobio. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 04:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, change request to Speedy delete. Notability is not asserted or sourced, and you get the feeling that this is a complete hoax when you look at the source. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 04:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with speedy delete.--Rpclod (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced negative BLP. Unverifiable. References are from a user-generated list site. Search for reliable sources only gets open wikis. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable "hacker" ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hacker. Frmorrison (talk) 21:21, 21 July 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) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niykee heaton[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:MUSICBIO, unless this line from one of the few sources can be considered something: "is arguably becoming better known for her Instagram pictures than her music". Unable to easily find any WP:RS relating to her music career. Should it actually meet some success would not object to an article at that time. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be too soon for a standalone article on this person, as I can not find sufficient significant coverage to warrant an article per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The best I could find, along with The Source reference from the article, are these "artist to watch"/"on the rise" pieces that fall short, in my view. Gongshow talk 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO--Rpclod (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims to notability, and too soon for any. Fails WP:BAND.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT. Maybe is a WP:TOOSOON. In either case, Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:52, 20 July 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 per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lionsgate Building (Toronto)[edit]

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

I am unable to confirm that this building exists, so I suspect a hoax. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I couldn't find anything about the building. The address provided is a double-storey house. Lionsgate Films do indeed have an office in Toronto but the sources available suggest they occupy a floor or two of Two Bloor West. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete - I punched up the address listed in the article "97 Burnaby Blvd Midtown Toronto, Ontario" into Google Maps Street View. Although the address is probably real, there is definitely no skyscraper there. I was unable to find verification of the building's existence through cursory Google searches of "Lionsgate Building Toronto", "Cinépix Film Building" and the address in the article. I will suspect WP:HOAX as well. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. As stated above, listed address is a house in Allenby, Toronto. Can't find any results at Emporis. Movie industry production related buildings and structures in Toronto are not located within the uptown, midtown and bits of the downtown parts of Toronto but in Leslieville. As stated by Stalwart111, the official offices are near Rosedale Valley. ///EuroCarGT 03:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article actually says that the building was located at 980 Yonge St and then moved to 97 Burnaby Blvd. 980 Yonge St. is part of a condo building that may indeed have been built in 2000, and at the time when the building is said to have been there, the St. Lucia / British Virgin Islands Travel Office was at that address - but I can find no trace of a Cinépix Film Building, the building cannot have physically moved, the new address is clearly wrong, and the details are all strange - repainting of the building, signs on the doors ... something is indeed wrong here. At best, if not a hoax, the article rests on serious misspellings and misunderstandings and would need totally rewriting. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the first to notice something suspicious. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Shoe Company[edit]

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

While it's impressive that it's lasted this long, I see very little notice of it,[12][13] so I think it fails WP:CORP. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is reasonable to believe there is plenty of coverage of this company in its history, including off-line sources. The article states it is a company that has existed since 1891. (And apparently it was started in 1891 to provide rugged outdoor boots for Alaskan gold-rushers, per nominator's link to a Kent reporter article). It's "Western Chief" brand, one of its six brands, is quite a major brand. There are reviews of its Western Chief products in major newspapers. There's a 110-year-old Washington Shoe Building in the Pioneer Square area of Seattle which was subject of some controversy in 2000 (see "In Seattle, a Cobbler's Legacy Is Being Repaired", by King, Harriet New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 13 Aug 2000: 11.7. Photo of the building was included with the NYT article, including: "Mr. Israel was criticized for decades for letting his buildings decay. Ironically, Samis this summer received bad press when it refused to renew leases in the 110-year-old, six-story Washington Shoe Building at Occidental and South Jackson so that it could start rehabbing the building into apartments or offices. / Street-level tenants -- an antiques store, a picture-frame boutique, an art gallery and a kite shop -- reluctantly moved out. And so did artists who had been living illegally in studios on the five upper floors that were not in compliance with building codes."

Example hits on "Western Chief" and ("boot" or "shoe") in a major newspapers literature search for just recent times:

- "Catalog Critic: Puddle Protection" by Charles Passy. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 04 Feb 2000: W4.
- "Stormy weather? Take it in stride with spot-on rain boots" by Donahue, Wendy. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 06 Apr 2014: 23.
- "50 UNDER $50 Put the light in someone's eyes with gifts that won't lighten your wallet too much" Anonymous. New York Daily News [New York, N.Y] 11 Dec 2008: 28.

I expect that searches of historical newspapers would provide more, and that as a major company there will be plenty in Seattle histories. I'll stop with this much found by me, for now. --do ncr am 20:45, 6 July 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, Wifione ^Message 12:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nom which contains links to sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic. Andrew (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. "Very little notice" is not enough for the notability of a corp. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their are several topics to do with them that have some notability, but not sure they have any themselves. Did just track this down, re: a seemingly notable court case they were involved in. SeattlePI, 2. Their old building itself is moderately notable, Zynga now has its engineering center there per GeekWire plus its age and historic stats. All I can find on the actual company is an article noting they have a contract with Warner Brothers to release licensed boots and the already linked article from the Kent Reporter. But I suspect no matter how much googling I do, without access to an archive of historic paper I'm unlikely to find anything. Also, their own website is not working for me at all. JTdale ^Talk 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I added a section on the court case to the article, and Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc. now redirects to that. I added other info to the article, may add about the significant building as another section, too. I continue to believe that there is extensive coverage, in total, over 120 years, mostly not online, about this company, in addition to the building and courtcase topics (each of which could merit an article) so it is best to simply Keep the article, covering them all. --do ncr am 21:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject seems to meet at least the minimum requirements for an article. Andrew³²⁷ 07:29, 17 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This 1916 book, History of Seattle from the Earliest Settlement to the Present Time, Volume 2 says " SHOE FACTORY The Washington Shoe Manufacturing Company was incorporated January 24, 1891, with L. B. Allain, president; T. J. Thorsen, vice president and general manager, and G. M. Barber, secretary. This company opened Seattle's first real shoe factory at 807-09 Western Avenue, where it had installed modern machinery. By devoting its energies toward the making of high grade heavy boots and shoes, designed especially to meet the requirements of the outdoor workers of Western Washington, it soon built up a good business. Other grades of shoes were added and within five years the company had found it necessary to seek larger quarters at Second Avenue South and Jackson Street. The company now occupies a large factory building in the south end of the city and its product is sold all over the northwestern states." which is significant coverage of the company. 98 years later, the company is still in business. That's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 20 July 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 LeBron James. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LRMR[edit]

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

Delete - Not notable enough for it's own article...should be included as part of the LeBron James article, but not a stand alone article. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vjmlhds. This should Merge into LeBron James article.--Rpclod (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:50, 20 July 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of in depth coverage, notability is not inherited. Fails WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 27 July 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) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WZMT - Minecraft Radio[edit]

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

Article fails the general notability guideline and WP:WEB and ultimately should not have an article. However, it does not qualify for an A7 as it makes a claim of significance and my PROD was contested. There appears to be no sources other than the social media and iTunes links, which are primary sources and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Additionally, when researching for the sources, there does not seem to be sufficient secondary sources to garner notability for the topic at hand. Tutelary (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tutelary says it all – not enough coverage in RS to show notability. BethNaught (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criteria A7 and G11. VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Found no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral Made some improvements to the article, none of which address notability. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral Added a source that sites the history section. Zachster1996 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, just links to social sites, mobile application stores and personal website. Non notable web content per WP:WEBCRIT. ///EuroCarGT 05:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Sources are not WP:RS per above comment from User:EuroCarGT. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources about the station. It also bears mention that if you compare the creator's username to the name of the person who launched the station, there's a probable conflict of interest here — which, as always, isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself if good sources exist to salvage the article with, but is an additional reason why the article can't be kept if such sources aren't locatable. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 20 July 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 Nom Withdrawn. (Despite being involved I see no issue with closing a withdrawn afd), (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ace and the Ragers[edit]

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

Does not comply with notability for musical groups. Only self website and social website sources are not enough for general notability guidelines. (Note: My first trial of proposing an AfD. I hope I did not make any technical or evaluation mistake. My PROD's generally work.) Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not a lot found online, but there's a brief bio and review from Allmusic ([14], [15]) and a review from CMJ New Music Report. Also a CMJ chart placing ([16]). Given that the band started in 1993 there may be more coverage in print sources than can be found online. --Michig (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:30, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what you're missing, but there seems to be plenty of mentions of the band's name on google. Yes, not a lot of prose, but mp3, posters, charts, albums for sale. They are not the non entity portrayed above. Trackinfo (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added to the article in the time since this was nominated. There does not appear to be a wealth of coverage, but reviews in Allmusic and CMJ are just enough to get over the hump. Gongshow talk 03:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The added sources make this meet minimum notability. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Hobbes Goodyear (Thanks Hobbes Goodyear). –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination happily over the development of the article and the opinions of the Wikipedian colleagues. Thanks to all and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The majority of opinion here is that the subject has received sufficient coverage to be considered notable, and evidence has been presented to back this up. Michig (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina del Mar[edit]

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

fancruft, "references" self-published, previously deleted G8 Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found one good source (Huffington Post) and 3 marginal sources ([17], [18], [19]). Seems legit. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:17, 17 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The article appears to be somewhat of an ad and the real notability is questionable. I made a few changes to the most objectionable issues, but much work is needed for this to be acceptable.--Rpclod (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of significant coverage of Katrina del Mar to be found. Articles about her in reliable sources such as Photograph magazine, Musee magazine, Papermag, Posture Mag, and HuffPo demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several in-depth sources, nontrivial, independent, reliable, meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:28, 22 July 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. Notability is not inherited. No prejudice toward creation of a focused article written from reliable sources. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Meetze[edit]

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

blatant selfpromo with loads of useless sources (Meetze unmentioned) or sources about mr. Meetzes companies, not about himself. The Banner talk 21:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This appears to be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion, sources are about the opera company, not him. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It seems incongruous that the founder of a notable opera company should not be considered notable. The subject's objective achievements do not outweigh his deplorable tendency for promotional writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve. While there is a lot of self-promotional material that needs to be removed, he is still notable as the founder of a notable opera company. Another problem with the article, though, is that some of the sources might be fabricated-for example, I couldn't find the britannica article. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 13:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 26 July 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 Incense and Peppermints. Consensus that the article does not meet the notabiltiy guideline and Whpq's proposed redirect is sensible and has not been argued against. Davewild (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Time With The SAC[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSONG. - Mr X 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Incense and Peppermints. I see no indication that this song is notable, but a redirect to the album would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 15 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A great wee album track but no evidence that it ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:52, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:36, 27 July 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) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Allard-Gomez[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. All i could find is WP mirrors and one line mentions. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage and not just say "inherent notability". LibStar (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR--180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per generally accepted outcomes, a diplomat at this level is inherently notable because they are part of the diplomatic history between two sovereign nations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote, since apparently WP:DIPLOMAT was removed with what looks like minimal consensus (!) I don't remember seeing an RFC about it, but if the threshold for high-level diplomats is now GNG then I'd rather not have a say in this AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's very much overdue for resolution and wish I knew whose ass to light a fire under to get it done, trust me. But even when it was an active guideline, it still didn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on all diplomats regardless of the quality of sourcing that was actually present. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, ambassadors are not inherently notable, in fact several articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per generally accepted outcomes, a diplomat at this level is notable if they are actually the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to get them past WP:GNG — but is not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL.--Rpclod (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL is not the standard that a diplomat has to meet — that guideline's exclusion of diplomats means that it's not the test by which the notability of a diplomat is measured, and not that diplomats are never considered notable. Rather, until the dispute over the separate notability guideline for diplomats is resolved, a diplomat has to pass WP:GNG, not NPOL. She still doesn't meet that one either in the article's current form — but NPOL is not applicable to diplomats one way or the other, so failing to meet NPOL has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable source coverage. No prejudice against recreation if someone can write and source a proper version of an article about her, but diplomats are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassador of a far away country in a small capital, nothing of importance to our readers. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Given that she is currently active in her post it's reasonable to assume that most sources would be on-line, yet I'm unable to find anything of substance. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 22 July 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 06:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj K Shah[edit]

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

Article fails WP:MOVIE, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:you name it, it fails it. Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like self-promotion at least WP:COI or WP:PUBLICIST.--Rpclod (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Seems more promo than anything, certainly fails MOVIE. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to have been created by a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI. Anyway fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 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 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Irish RFC[edit]

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

Team playing in the fourth division of a suburban competition; no non-primary sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. AlanS (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable local Rugby club Seasider91 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 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 14:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sharmila Banu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Violates WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just about the killing. It also deals with the continuing aftermath of the killing, including a protest and a court case. Several national newspapers in India have covered the protests and court case. Public response to the police coverup of the killing is likely to raise the profile of the continuing issue of police corruption in India.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This event does not appear to meet WP:GNG.--Rpclod (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and above; Does not appear to be notable and is written much like a news article. Staglit (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. While the victim may fail notability, the killing is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have put WP:BIO1E. Even without it, I still think this fails the others mentioned above. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while poorly written, the story was international news. Whether the case will be appealed further is unknown. I'd file this under WP:TOOSOON, WP:Incubate, or WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 22 July 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 06:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picoponics[edit]

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

Seems like this topic lacks notability, it's maybe even made-up. Google search returns very few hits [20] non of which contain significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be distinct enough from Hydroponics. Gccwang (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no coverage. No evidence that this is even a widely used term. --Michig (talk) 14:36, 26 July 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 06:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something for the Streets Vol.1[edit]

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

I was close to nominate this article for speedy deletion under WP:A9, but then I noticed that it does have some assertion of significance. I still think that it should be deleted because it lacks Notability. The article claims that the album debuted on #6 on the "independent charts", but does not explain what charts, nor does it cite any source. By the way, it seams that the article is written by the artist himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:A9 would qualify. Non-notable artist. Independently released from a non-notable company. Only thing I could find about "independent charts" is his Facebook post where he give this as a link. Nothing out there in reference land except to social media and the usual music promotion sites. Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found - nothing on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 14:35, 26 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countries/entities using "Republic of Macedonia" for bilateral purposes[edit]

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

This exact topic is already covered in the "Macedonia naming dispute" article. I am not using speedy delete wp:a10 because that is only for "recently" created articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jan CZ (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context. It is not at all clear what this list is a list of. A while ago I asked for clarification on the original contributor's talk page but none was forthcoming: Noyster (talk), 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The context is clear to me. It is a list of those countries that use the phrase "Republic of Macedonia" for official international relations, as opposed to those that use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The issue is not the context, but the fact that exactly the same list can be found in the article "Macedonia naming dispute". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List that duplicates another article for no compelling reason. The context is clear enough, but the fact that we already have the information elsewhere is more definitive. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This information is better covered in Macedonia naming dispute, where one can also find a list of countries which use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in contrast to this list of countries which use "Republic of Macedonia". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicative articles should be redirected in most cases, but when they have unusual/implausible titles such as this one, they won't be useful redirects. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 21 July 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.