< 21 July	23 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Atheist Day[edit]

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

I have checked the citations. There is no mention of a nationwide event called "Indian Atheist Day" in them. Although death anniversary of Bhagat Singh was observed, that can be added to the Bhagat Singh page. Googling for "Indian Atheist Day" shows only 294 results, notably of this article is debatable. Kenfyre (talk) 03:29, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page is basically an advert for a small group of people organising an atheist conference. I have found no evidence of meeting the GNG, and many Ghits are in fact WP mirrors. Moreover I can't confirm it meets the criteria of lasting effects or widespread notice to meet WP:NEVENT. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per BethNaught, fails GNG. Fai zan 07:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and WP:NEVENT per Faizan and BethNaught Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:54, 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 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The only non-press release source with some coverage is crn.com, a (from the looks of it) minor tech/business website. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the CRN link for the one in-depth article there (there are others with passing mentions); the reference link currently being used appears not to be working. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Single passing reference in NYTimes. Not finding anything else beyond what is already in the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:15, 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough substantial coverage, especially in non-newsy sources. What's more, if they can't say much beyond the fact that they can dissolve information technology infrastructure and emails (see WP:SOLUTION), it's spam-lite, and we shouldn't retain anything that's here. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. Delete per nom and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. No substantial coverages, references, or really anything to save it. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:55, 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 OP blanked page - Speedy deleted as G7. Alexf^(talk)

Fargo 4A[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this group meets our notability guidelines. I certainly can't find much about it out there, which would be unusual for a genuinely notable hacker group, even one in this time frame. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable nerdcruft. When they are mentioned (here and here) it's with the preface "list of hacker groups compiled by the editors of Phrack." No independent reliable sources, therefore no notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator has added CSD tag. --SubSeven (talk) 05:17, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aristide Antonas[edit]

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

BLP article on an associate professor, with no indication that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A7-speedy tag was declined. --Finngall ^talk 22:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of passing notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This inspired deconstructionist has, alas, made little impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no basis for WP:ACADEMIC, lacks the significant coverage for WP:GNG. He has published, but is not cited much at all. The two references in the article are his book jacket bio from the Greek BiblioNet, and the faculty bio from his school. The other footnote was a Wikipedia link to List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction which I moved to a see also. He has been listed at List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction since 2007; there was a footnote there to a paragraph from his book with typical deconstructionist language. I note, in passing, that the creator of this article has a single-purpose focus, at least so far. "Aristide Antonas" was added to the List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction at 10:10, 14 November 2007 by IP editor 77.49.200.218 as their sole edit. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 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 redirect to Amadéus Leopold. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Renaissance of Classical Music[edit]

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

Art project by Amadéus Leopold with no references or any indication of independent notability.

I am also nominating the following page on another project for the same reason:

I had changed both of these articles to redirects to the main Leopold page, but was reverted by another editor. Both editors have had few if any edits to subjects other than this artist. --Finngall ^talk 21:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amadéus Leopold most of the coverage in the article is really about him. Not significant in depth coverage of music programme for a separate article, --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 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 00:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Star Stecker[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, sourced entirely to primary (YouTube and Vimeo videos) and unreliable sources — the closest thing to a reliable source here, in fact, is a "local girl does something" press release on the website of the school board in her hometown. I'm sure that if she keeps it up she'll eventually qualify for an article on here under a legitimate inclusion standard — but as currently written and sourced, she is not entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We take BLP rules especially critically when children are involved, this child has done nothing to make her so notable we need an article on her, so we should protect her privacy and not have one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of adequate coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:NMUSIC, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD#G4, recreation of a deleted article. The discussion was earlier this year, so there's no good argument that standards have changed, and the differences between this and the deleted version are very minor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Declercq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of deleted article that still has the same issues as when it was first deleted. As far as I can tell it is the exact same article, to the point that the duplication detector picked it up on a Wikipedia mirror. A draft was parked in a file description on Commons [1].

Again, this subject who served as a provincial level administrator in a governmental body does not seem to meet WP:GNG in the fact that she has not been widely covered in reliable sources . The assertion that she is an example of "early emancipation of women" is, at this point, unreferenced commentary. EricSerge (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the hat, but delete per nom. I'm not finding anything that satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superx++[edit]

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

Very minor programming language with no sign of use in the real world. Project website has three links to coverage on third-party websites; two defer to a defunct website (topxml), one to an article by the project's maintainer. There's a passing mention in this ACM Queue article, but no in-depth coverage.

~~PROD declined by Amatulic.~~ QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very simply, this programming language is not notable. In my search, it was possibly notable as the "least readable language". In Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_133#Superx.2B.2B an unnamed IP address states for recreation "several unique concepts" as part of the article. I find no reliable sources for any "unique concepts" to verify and they are not reflected in the article other then the programming language exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to Qwertyus' assertion, I didn't decline the prod. The article had already been deleted as a result of the prod. I simply restored it by request at WP:REFUND and removed the long-expired prod which had gotten restored along with the article, as is the proper procedure.
The article hasn't been improved since then, so I see no reason to keep the article.
By the way, the topxml links are recoverable on archive.org [2] [3] — but they don't constitute "coverage" of the topic, just documentation. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have checked the log as well as the history. (Shouldn't refunds be listed on the talk page?) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although this esoteric programming language could be interesting to some, it definitely does not pass WP:GNG test. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:37, 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. for now as just passes GNG by a minuscule! If the sources haven't improved in a few months I recommend this being renommed, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Zilis[edit]

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

Article about a band whose only substantive claim of notability is winning a local music award in their own hometown — which is not a claim that gets a band past WP:NMUSIC all by itself. Further, the only cited sources are two blurbs about the band in the local alt-weekly newspaper in their own hometown, which is not sufficient coverage to even get them past WP:GNG either. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be suitably beefed up, but in this condition the article has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just about squeezes past the notability threshold. Significant coverage in this interview. Coverage in the UK (i.e. non-local) here. They seem to be up and coming and there are other sources out there. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They may get there soon but at present there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to have an article. There's a bit of local coverage, but the Vents interview contains no independent discussion of the band, just band members answering questions, and folk radio uk doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. If anyone can dig up some further independent coverage in reliable sources I'm prepared to change my mind, but I didn't find any. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Articles entirely about the band in The Hamilton Spectator and the Burlington Post, which I have just now added, allow the subject to squeak by our notability guidelines (although of course it would be nice to have something at a national level of coverage). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to some extra sources being added late in the discussion period - further input over whether notability is demonstrated would help form a consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the sources are either short or local, and the interviews, though longer, contain only some independent coverage. The Burlington Post source is a column to which bands can apply to be featured. On balance I would keep this, taking on good faith the Hamilton Spectator sources, which I have been unable to locate – adding a hyperlink would be very helpful. BethNaught (talk) 08:56, 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 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Trevena[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The reliable sources only give him a cursory mention as "the person Laura Vandervoort is engaged to". Claims to greater notability in the article are not based on reliable sources and cannot be verified. Huon (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actors in minor films do not generally pass notability for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His body of work as not attracted any notice. All that exists for coverage is the engagement as noted in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 04:39, 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. Tomwsulcer does make a fair case for keeping, but even so the consensus remains in support of deletion due to the lack of sourcing. I have looked through some of the links provided, and find that many of them are articles that interview Van Slyke about an issue, but the article is not really about her. Several of the other links are opinion pieces written by her, something that does not confer notability. The Heeb Magazine link is little more than a portrait and a brief paragraph explaining her occupation. There may be enough in those links to assemble a reasonable biography but it is not a sure thing. Finally, I have considered the unanimous consent that the article is underdeveloped and undersourced in its current state, and while that is a surmountable problem in theory, it is more serious when it comes to BLP articles. This deletion is without prejudice against a better sourced biography for Van Slyke that demonstrates that the notability criteria are passed. Note that WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to recreations that have addressed the original reason for deletion and significantly improved on the deleted version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Van Slyke[edit]

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

I just removed a cluster**** of CSD, PROD, AfD and other incorrectly added tags. But since there clearly is a notability issue, I will open an AfD. Only given links are not reliable sources. Notability is borderline. Safiel (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't agree notability is borderline, I think the subject is completely non-noteable. --82.41.251.96 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a true paucity of reliable sources. She seems to have gotten a bit of press some time ago, for an editorial or blog criticizing a children's animated TV show, but that's more of a one-event situation. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable here at all. Move along. --50.194.2.252 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is borderline or worse, but subject isn't. I agree the current article is not in the best shape, poorly referenced, one-sided, but these problems can be fixed. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and these conditions are met. True, she is a left-leaning progressive advocate, and while Wikipedia is a mainstream information source, it is a big tent in that we can cover people on the left and right as well as the center, and she is an important voice on the left. Further, she gets sufficient attention from mainstream sources (Guardian, CBS News, PBS) as well as elsewhere to qualify. PBS addresses Van Slyke in detail. She is discussed here. She was quoted by CBS News and quoted by Bloomberg News. She is discussed extensively in this article. Her provocative piece published in 'The Guardian' about the kids cartoon show Thomas the Tank Engine set off much battling between left and right leaning viewpoints, such as here in the National Review and here and elsewhere. She criticized US president Obama here so while she is left-leaning, she can criticize left-leaning politicians as well. Overall notable person, although she is not as prominent as someone like Betty Friedan. If the article stays, I will try to fix it up when I have time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eBay effect[edit]

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

This fails WP:GNG. Although I can find instances of the term "eBay Effect", they don't support the definition given here. This term does not appear to be notable. The article was speedy deleted previously and has been recreated with references that don't support the content. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete If it was AfD before and was deleted, and then recreated, then delete it. Even if it has a good source, this belongs in the wiktionary. Frmorrison (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term is used over the years by those who have anything that once was worth something only to find it now common on the net. Looked around on net and found many references the way the term "eBay Effect" is described and is correct. Try looking up "eBay Effect" and collectable. I kind of get the feeling creating an article is getting harder. Septagram (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Near-enough made-up. Certainly a neologism with inadequate supporting evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately the author has attempted to go down a neologistic path. The term has been coined by many people and has different meanings in different books. - Pmedema (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've heard of this neologism, but this is not even the definition. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've heard of this before but I don't think it warrants it's own article, at least not as it is. I think merging it with the main eBay article would be best. Coinmanj (talk) 20:13, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clio Area Amphitheater[edit]

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

No indication of anything in detail on this place outside of Flint newspapers, which is the closest big city. The section title "Big name acts" kinda sums up the WP:PROMO tone of the article. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Additionally, article was created by a WP:SPA account that never edited anything before or since. John from Idegon (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From above the venue looks tiny, pretty much the size of an average city park's bandshell. As the nom says, the 'where tribute and cover acts languish' list in the article says it all; average venue in average city where Demi Lovato or One Direction isn't performing any time soon and judging from its location in a school campus, seemed to be a misguided referendum check-off that didn't make sense. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 04:55, 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 00:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Oleszek[edit]

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

Not elected to a state-wide office, thus fails WP:NPOL. Fails GNG as well. References are election results only. Project Vote Smart external link only says she has a masters degree. – S. Rich (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Members of school boards, even county school boards, are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates, which means that passing or failing WP:NPOL depends on the notability of the highest position that she has held — and indeed, being a school board trustee is not an office that passes the test. In addition, the article is sourced almost entirely to raw tables of the vote totals in her election runs — not the kind of sourcing that passes the substantial coverage test — with the only more detailed coverage consisting of one brief blurb about her concession in a race that she lost. The end result is that nothing here properly demonstrates that she qualifies for a Wikipedia article as things currently stand. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she ever actually wins election to an office notable enough to get her past NPOL, but until then she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She was almost elected to the state senate. But almost isn't enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 05:01, 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. Unlikely search term, so I did not create a redirect. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC Cinematic Universe film actors[edit]

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

Similar to what was determined with DC Cinematic Universe it is just too early for any articles about this, with only one potential film in this "universe" and one in the very early stages of production. This article is not warranted at this time. In a few years, maybe, but not now. Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One released film does not warrant a list of actors as the information between the two articles is not difficult to retain.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this simply is not yet at the stage that we need this, unlike List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors which has 10 films released and the 11th released next month. This may be a good idea eventually but not yet.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DC Comics I'm sure the idea is to have the list like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors but again, there aren't enough films yet but I'm certain there will be. Redirect for now and then when there are more films, add to it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this would be a useful redirect there. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I stated above, rediret for now and when there are more films, undo the redirect and just add to it. It's well sourced now and the tables are fine, no need to full on delete it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with postdif that I dont' think this redirect would be useful. I would have suggested a redirect if there was a proper place for it to go. If by some chance, a reader searches for this, we would want the redirect to go to a logical place, and DC Comics isn't logical based on this page being searched. I understand your intent Lady, but by the time this page may be needed, it would probably best be done from scratch. (Also, there is some WP:OR on the page in regards to Cullen Mulvey's upcoming role.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there is only one released film and another one in 2016, I think it is worth keeping to let a reader know there is a universe being created behind the movies and the actors behind it. Frmorrison (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frmorrison please note that this "universe" is still not a definite, that it is very much hinging on the success of the upcoming film, because Man of Steel did not make it the definite that DC and Warner Bros. would have hoped for. The internet can talk all it wants about how it is happening, but until DC puts a plan forward, it is still an up-and-coming, potential thing. Hence my reasoning to delete the article at the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, at best premature, definitely unnecessary at present. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 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. I created a redirect to P versus NP problem where the subject is mentioned (and it appears to be a plausible spelling error). I also userified the content as requested by Robert McClenon. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Deolilakar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. He had a brief moment of coverage when he thought he solved P vs. NP. This does not denote notability per WP:BLP1E. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that there is a typo in the title. There is already a page for Vinay Deolalikar which redirects to P versus NP problem as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a typo in the article title. The spelling in the old redirect is correct. The spelling of the article is wrong. I suggest that the AFD be allowed to run its course without trying to resolve the spelling. If the article is kept, the closer can then move the article, and create a redirect from the incorrect spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that he thought that he had solved P vs. NP is notable, in that it had a great deal of attention in computer science and complexity theory. Notability is not temporary. Also, his proof, although almost certainly flawed, has not been conclusively refuted. Notability is not temporary. He had a great deal of attention in 2010. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage for one event (that turned out to be a non-event) does not make him notable. See WP:BLP1E. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His results on Scholar show that his publications get a reasonable number of citations, even after excluding those papers concerned with P!=NP. I make his Scholar derived h-index to be 11, which is quite respectable, especially given that a lot of mathematics journals aren't indexed by Scholar. This probably makes him marginally notable by WP:PROF, and that together with the excitement generated by the N!=NP paper makes him definitely notable to my mind. However, the problem here is the lack of biographical information. If the only information we have on him is his work on the P/NP problem his article is going to say no more than is already said in our P versus NP problem article. Even a search of the HP Labs site does not turn up a bio. I suspect that means that there isn't a usable bio anywhere. SpinningSpark 19:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an archived page from HP with some biographical info, but it's not live anymore. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that was used in the old redirected article. I wonder why HP took it down? Either he doesn't work there any more, or it was to save him embarassment (or possibly hate mail from intolerant mathematicians). In any case, I think we can use it after giving due weight to the criticism of his N!=NP paper. Along with my comments above, I think that is enough for a weak keep. SpinningSpark 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request - If the consensus is not to keep the article, can it instead be userfied back to my user space, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. A GS h-index of 11 in the highly cited field of computer science does not satisfy WP:Prof#C1. 20 would be closer. Looks like a WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As things stand now, at best a WP:BLP1E case. A few sentences about his incorrect proof in P versus NP problem are sufficient here. GoogleScholar usually gives an over count when computing h-index, and in any case an h-index of 11 for Computer Science is pretty low, certainly not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't help that his name is spelled wrong here; it should be Deolalikar. Anyway, he has one reasonably well cited and well received paper, "Sparse Indexing: Large Scale, Inline Deduplication Using Sampling and Locality", and one major embarrassment (the attempted proof of P vs NP). I don't think the citation record (in a high citation field) is enough for WP:PROF and I think per WP:BLP we should lean towards not including the embarrassment unless it has more lasting significance than I think this one does. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of independent reliable sources about the person. Without reliable sources to draw on we simply cannot write an article about anything or anyone. So far we have sources only for the claim of having resolved the P versus NP problem. That is, so far, only enough for a mention in the corresponding article. Deltahedron (talk) 05:37, 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. The NOTNEWS/BLP1E arguments are policy-based (even though there has been a goodly amount of disagreement over the proper application of those policies), whereas at least some of the rationales for keeping offer little other than "the event's currently in the news" or "we have other, similar articles". Perhaps when things settle down a bit, it can be determined whether the event merits an article, but the consensus is that the person currently does not. Deor (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oron Shaul[edit]

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

Csd removed, "as I believe the article does not meet the speedy criteria". No claim to notability: around 29 IDF soldiers plus c.500 Palestinians have died in the current events in Gaza: this includes six others in the same vehicle as Shaul. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep/wait to see if coverage continues To the OP's point, yes there are many others who died, but this is the one that is getting coverage on TV and that Hamas has claimed to capture alive. This AFD should run the 7 days. By the end either we will see if there is continued coverage of his story or not. That should determine if the article is kept or not. Bowe Bergdahl was also just one soldier among hundreds/thousands in total. Additional sources already covering [4] [5][6][7][8][9]Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

changed !vote to delete per WP:BLP1E which somehow slipped my mind. If this incident grows in stature due to WP:CRYSTAL ball/hypothetical prisoner exchanges or hostage situation or whatnot a WP:EVENT article can be created at that time. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I also mentioned below, this situation is no different than Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev and others who have their own page on WP - Galatz (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, but those should probably be deleted to due to WP:BLP1E and since articles exist for both the battle and exchange. However, I will likely not be nominating them for deletion at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a new breaking story and will will continue to develop. All kidnapped soldiers even the remains of soldiers, have their own WP pages and get pretty elaborate. This article is short now because news just broke, but it will continue to grow as the events unfold. - Galatz (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "All kidnapped soldiers even the remains of soldiers, have their own WP pages and get pretty elaborate." Huh? I dispute your claim. Or did you mean "Israeli soldiers?" Edison (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even true of all Israeli soldiers, notably the victims of 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid do not have bio pages; I just created them as redirects moments ago. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was referring to Israeli, sorry - Galatz (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, I can go and use the WP:POTENTIAL argument but in this case we are talking about a war, in which people do die. Even if he does pass notability, there is also WP:BIO1E to consider, is this person only notable for this one event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest being possibly MIA and possibly a POW are somewhat distinct events, He's also being searched for which is also an event. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has since been declared dead by the IDF. [10]. I do not see how this is anything other than WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Galatz. Gilad Shalit and other Israeli kidnapped soldiers have their own WP articles. The political and military repercussions/results of kidnapped soldiers are very big, especially in the region surrounding Israel. This is an onging event and very likely to have such results. --Universal Life (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I gather from this that Israeli soldiers have automatic notability and are somehow more important than other soldiers/fighters/rebels/whatever? That would be interesting. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment [11] It seems that he is believed to be a casualty rather than a hostage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is true, however many times its had huge precautions and lead to huge prisoner exchanges just for the body of dead soldiers http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/middleeast/30mideast.html?_r=0 as just one example. The example has Ehud Goldwasser Eldad Regev and 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid about it. Why would that story deserve their own and this one not? - Galatz (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That goes against both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERSTUFF though. Every article on Wikipedia is treated differently and, it is crystal balling to say that he will become notable and a huge precaution will result because he was killed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ordinary soldier probably killed in action. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A war death with remains not recovered or soldier missing in action. Not a notable hostage at this point. No inherent notability because of his nationality, even if otherstuffexists. Edison (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable soldier. No evidence he passes the GNG. Coycan (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like an ongoing development of some importance. See: Kershner, Isabel; Jodi Rudoren (23 July 2014). "A Blast, a Fire and an Israeli Soldier Goes Missing". New York Times. Capturing an Israeli soldier — or even withholding a soldier's remains — can have a powerful impact on Israeli society, more in some ways than death. If it turns out in retrospect that this meets WP:NOTNEWS then I'd have little objection to a merge, etc., in, say, a few months time. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The abduction of Oron Shaul, either as a person or a dead body, is a significant event itself with significant worldwide news coverage. The people citing WP:BIO1E as deletion rationale miss that the event is Abduction of Oron Shaul, and this policy only covers when to create both an article about the event and an article about the person. As with Gilad Shalit, Ron Arad (pilot) or Guy Hever we do not need both and the event is covered in the article about the person. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether a particular abduction case is notable or not can only be established afterwards. We don't even know what's going on right now. Are we in a hurry to get this article written? Why? And what about that dozen Palestinian children in the UN school--do they have any kind of notability? They certainly get lots of coverage, too. But maybe they don't have names. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is: why are we in a hurry to get this article deleted? Given the past history of Israel dealing with Hamas for either POWs or the remains of soldiers, it's not exactly WP:CRYSTAL to assume there's going to be a phase two [Edit: link removed] here. If there isn't, we can delete the article when it comes to that. Until then, what harm is there in standing still? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tangential question is why you'd link a South Park episode here. I think that's in poor taste. I'll get off my soapbox now. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean to be flip, have no idea what my thought process was there, and have removed the link. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kendrick7, I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and we don't keep articles based on the possibility they might become notable later. That's backwards. If he becomes notable later, then an article may be created, not the other way around. There has been a lot of press about the events in the Middle East and probably will be for some time. That doesn't mean we create an article for each event or for each person associated with a particular event. There has to be something more.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. If he becomes notable an article can be created then. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to make this soldier stand out from many, many others who have become MIA and then presumed dead over the last 100 years from the start of WWI. Or really any before that either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable if he is captured. Notable while there is still a possibility that he has been captured. Notable while there is a debate about whether he has been captured. All of these possibilities are notable because they are being debated in the press, and because the possibilty that he is a POW would have large repercussions on the current war. If the body turns up, or he vanishes from the news, then notability would no longer be a factor.--jackbrown (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the IDF seem to be fairly certain that he's dead TheLongTone (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had he been captured this likely would have been a major incident. However, as it stands, he was one participant in a much larger conflict and thus falls under WP:BLP1E. It's possible that this may change if there's significant conflict over the body for instance.GabrielF (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not CNN. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:30, 30 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 00:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Smith (basketball)[edit]

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

Basketball player who fails GNG and NBASKET. None of the leagues he appeared in meet automatic notability threshold, while his college career was non-notable as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable small college and semi-pro basketball player. Fails the specific notability guideline of WP:NBASKETBALL having never played in a top professional league, and also fails the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dirtlawyer1. In addition to not meeting NBASKETBALL, I don't find anything substantive when I Google search to suggest he'd meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lokeswara Rao Sajja[edit]

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

Broadly unreferenced autobiography. Requires WP:TNT if the gentleman is actually notable. His inventions may be notable, but is the man? Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A gS h-index of 7 is nowhere near enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Fai zan 19:53, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nhung Kate[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Her major claim to fame seems to be her boyfriend which has himself been deleted by AfD. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm seeing quite a number of hits for her from several different websites, but can't tell if the mentions are significant or reliable. Can someone with knowledge of Vietnamese help me out? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally just being someone's significant other does not make one notable, especially when the other person is not notable. She had one role in one film, that is not the 2 roles we generally require as a minimum, and it is not clear the film she was in was even notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because notability is not inherited.Mr. Guye (talk)

Delete I cannot read Vietnamese, but from what I can put together here, the roles she is in are extremely minor. Her biggest claim to fame is her romantic attachments. Notability requires evidence and I just don't see that here. Fails WP:NACTOR. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ^{♀ Contribs ♀} 08:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4. Do not recreate this again without a consensus at WP:DRV to overturn the deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football clubs average attendances[edit]

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

Recreation of the earlier removed Average home attendances of football clubs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average home attendances of football clubs) as can be seen in the first version of this article. The Banner talk 11:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And speedy. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 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 00:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne D'Cunha[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is not significant. Giant Snowman 08:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Only reference with in-depth coverage was here, think a few more are needed to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NFOOTBALL. Will be notable if he ever gets a game in the A-League or another notable league, but now is too soon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 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 speedy deleted by Orangemike. Sam Walton (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orthotropics®[edit]

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

As well as being a mess of an article which appears as nothing more than an advertisement, subject does not appear to be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the article nor Google offers evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of nomination for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry. Bus stop (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an ad and appears written by the founder. Frmorrison (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improve writing style. But sources show that “Orthotropics” validly exists. Bus stop (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? Sam Walton (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What if in the process of straightening teeth orthodontists are actually damaging your face? It's a claim which has long been made by English orthodontist John Mews, and for those claims he's been labelled a 'maverick' by others in the industry. But now there are general dentists in New Zealand supporting him and offering his alternative treatment called orthotropics. Those who offer the method claim they too are being ostracised by an outdated industry who aren't making patients aware there are other options than braces to straighten teeth."[12] Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is obviously an advert and undue in title and style. Further it appears to have very little encyclopedic content, and the fact that something "exists" is not relevant for WP:GNG. Can anyone find independed secondary sources that demonstrate notability? Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - clear G11, kill it now. ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 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 Speedy deleted at author's request, there being no other significant contributors since article creation. Euryalus (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Cambodian Air Force FC[edit]

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

Can't find evidence that this club exists. A google search finds mirrors and a search on Soccerway finds nothing. The 2014 Cambodian league doesn't list them -http://int.soccerway.com/national/cambodia/c-league/20132014/regular-season/r23030/ Probably a hoax but fails GNG if it is real Gbawden (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed when I stubbed the clubs a few years back. Can't find anything on it, I've db-authored it, not worth going through AFD. If you ever spot one of my articles again please ask me first and if I agree I'll db author it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staff Sergeant Melvin Wayne Ross[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER, does being "one of the very first troops to be sent to Korea" make him notable enough? Reads like a memorial page Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone's family history? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Intothat darkness 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. EricSerge (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable soldier. No evidence he passes the GNG. Coycan (talk) 18:35, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11, also salted for repeated recreation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandnew IO[edit]

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

Fails notability for companies generally. Speedied 3 or 4 times already - so salt as well. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominated for a speedy as unambiguous promotion. AlanS (talk) 10:07, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Oil Group[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. AlanS (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't see anything wrong with the article. RWCasinoKid (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is fine, and consider: "International Finance -- Sovereign Fund Watch: CIC Puts $300 Million Into a Complex Deal --- End Result Is Backdoor Listing in Hong Kong for a Russian Oil Firm; Oriental Patron Role?" Carew, Rick; Lee, Yvonne. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 16 Oct 2009: C.2. 402 word article (fairly long) which says the firm was founded in 1991, and is all about the complex deal and parties involved. Excerpts: "China's sovereign-wealth fund is investing $300 million as part of a complex transaction in which a Hong Kong-listed company is seeking to take over Russian oil producer Nobel Holdings Investments Ltd.....The agreement appears to be a route to a backdoor listing of the Russian company in Hong Kong. In one unusual aspect of the deal, Hong Kong-based financial firm Oriental Patron Financial Group is a shareholder in both Nobel Holdings and the Hong Kong-listed company, Kaisun Energy Group Ltd....it is paying $300 million to buy 45% of Nobel Oil Group and fund the Russian company's expansion plans in the next nine months.... CIC also said Oriental Patron, a Hong Kong-based financial company owned and managed by former Chinese government officials, had acquired a 5% stake in Nobel Oil." There's a January 2010 Wall Street Journal article mentioning that the 300m deal went through in October. This is substantial coverage, adding to what is already present. --do ncr am 04:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure if the creator of the article is allowed to plead to keep the article, but I would like to try and defend the article on the grounds that Nobel Oil is a large company in an important part of the world which is known for its oil resources. I am sure with more research a lot more information on the company can be discovered in reliable and respectable sources. I have just added one more bit of information to the article about recent oil exploration Nobel is conducting right now in Texas, USA. Please allow the article to stay in wikipedia- I believe it is a notable company, worthy of an article, and it sheds much needed light on an area of the world which is unknown to many. Thank you.Feelingfancyfree (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback: Yes, Feelingfancyfree, it is fine and good that the article creator participates and "!votes". Probably good that you self-identify as that, just to be helpful where you are coming from, as you did. You are also free to add more comments later, just "vote" once. But an AFD isn't really a vote; the closer can/should weigh the arguments and could choose to effectively dismiss weak arguments and go with a well-reasoned, policy-consistent minority view. Your comment is fine, IMHO, in terms of supporting the article, especially in that you were spurred to add info to the article (hopefully with a source!). Your asserting/claiming that the company is large and important and it would help readers on an area where there world is relatively unknown, is okay but doesn't carry much impact in the eyes of some. Honestly i make arguments like that myself, and i think they are valid. But some will say that is just your personal opinion, not supported by sources. Anyone could say it is an important topic; proving it is better. So adding sources to the article or to this AFD discussion is really the best way to ensure a KEEP decision. There is other advice about participating in AFDs at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and elsewhere, which you can consult or not. You're doing fine, hope you keep up your good work. Cheers, --do ncr am 22:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Feelingfancyfree and Doncram. --►Cekli 829 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Certainly passes WP:SECONDARY if you go to sources in Azeri (thank goodness for google translate) and Russian, and WP:SECONDARY provides for foreign language sources. There's possible confusion, though, with the Russian "Nobel-Oil", which has an article on ru.wikipedia.org and some day may merit an English language article. Therefore I suggest the article name should be Nobel Oil Group (Azerbaijan). Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:doncram and Feelingfancyfree. XiuBouLin (talk) 00:01, 31 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. Speedy delete as promotional paid editing and per WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Lievano[edit]

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

Autobiography of an unremarkable Youtuber, sourced to Youtube and 9GAG. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Kolbasz (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion. AlanS (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hired a professional to write the page in a neutral way. This is no form of self promotion either. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly speedy per WP:CSD#A7), non-notable youtuber, no reliable sources in the article, none found via a news or book search. @Sofloantonio: - unlike quite a few wikipedians, I think there's a market for paid assistance where an experienced editor assembles sources and creates a good article (or even a good article) that perfectly aligns with our policies ... unfortunately this is not one of those cases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article was speedy deleted per A7 on 2 February Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this to be against Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The basic guidelines for biographies state that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No source you have listed is reliable or independent. Youtube and Instagram will publish anything you ask them to, so we cannot trust anything they say to represent a neutral point of view, which is a core policy. Unless you have been mentioned in major newspapers, magazines or national terrestrial television and radio, it's unlikely we'll be able to find any independent source to write an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. I'll be updating the page soon. I am working on this with a professional. Sorry about my mistakes as I post on my behalf what is written for me. Thanks Ritchie333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A news search gives back a Twitter feed. Again, twitter will repost anything, if you want to tweet "George Osborne is a complete and utter pillock", they will not stop you. So it's not a reliable source. A news search brings back a few passing mentions of somebody answering to Antonio Lievano, but they appear to be decades old. Unless you were in the news in the 1940s, I don't think these are anything relating to you. Sorry, but I think you're going to struggle getting this article up to standards. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A news search for "SoFloAntonio" will find you plenty of entries. People call me "SoFlo" and my full name is not in any of my works, but my Twitter, Vine, Facebook & Instagram. I assure you that with a new search on SoFloAntonio and any of my pranks (especially my big ones like yesterday's Drugging Girls Prank) have plenty of secondary sources and such. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs)

News search for "SoFloAntonio". One hit to YouTube - as discussed, unreliable. Newspaper search for "SoFloAntonio". Zero entries. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be fair take a look at this search which is for "PewDiePie" the largest YouTubers with 28 millions fans: PewDiePie News Search As you can see even he has 5 articles. Other famous YouTubers like him with Wikipedia pages have no mentions on their news search. Also Google doesn't index all news articles on their search. I still feel like there is plenty secondary sources. I'll be adding them in once I compile them. Let me know what you think.

Give me a break Ritchie333. It's not like I right meaningless "LOL" remarks across my page. haha. :)

Perhaps you can also assist me in making this work. I mean let's look at it like this. You want a page that fits the guidelines and I want a page to be within the guidelines as well so it stays up. Why don't we work together on fixing it up? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs)

Delete Not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. AlanS (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited. Many secondary sources from just the past 24 hours were added. More articles will be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloantonio (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sources, fails WP:GNG. Paid editor is being WP:DISRUPTive. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominated for speedy on the basis of unambiguous promotion again after creator of page removed template. AlanS (talk) 14:16, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Doe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:BLP. I have initiated a discussion at WP:BLPN#Lindsey Doe to discuss the claims of notability on the talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - about as badly sourced as a BLP can get: YouTube, and the subject's personal web page and blog. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's an adjunct professor, which makes her almost certainly not notable on those grounds. The best source is a local paper article on her, and that is not very good. Nothing even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 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. Nominator withdrew nomination. Consensus is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lennox Lagu[edit]

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

This article seems to mix up the life of Chris Hani with the Lennox Lagu/Mongameli Johnson Tshali I'm not sure that it is possible to unravel this mess. Wayne Jayes (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The second and main body of this article is a direct copy and paste of the Chris Hani article it seems this article is a WP:COATRACK Wayne Jayes (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as per WP:SOLDIER, we should try fix it. Just delete what is not appropriate and take it from there Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a general, he clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove everything about Chris Hani and add what I can about the nominal subject and see where that gets us. Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I've changed my mind, I removed all of Chris Hani wrong info and found correct info on Lagu which I have now added. It would be good if someone who is more familar with the subject could also add info Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject satisfies the specific notability guideline of WP:SOLDIER as a general officer in the SANDF. With better sourcing of the subject, this article could become an interesting example of the transition of former ANC rebels into the post-apartheid South African government. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 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 keep. The consensus is that this topic satisfies the criteria for a stand-alone article. Possible merger to Operation Protective Edge can be discussed in the appropriate forum, perhaps when the events have receded a bit further from current news reportage. Deor (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja'iyya Incident (2014)[edit]

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

This fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT, and WP:PERSISTENCE. I don't see how this one battle in Gaza is any more notable than the myriad of others in the region. Many sources exist covering it, but nothing pointed out here show any sort of lasting impact. If an event is to warrant an article, generally it has to have wide coverage and lasting impact, and frankly I don't see that here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This information, while not to be discarded, is a part of the larger story of Operation Protective Edge. It should be included in that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...for now, at least. This incident (battle?) is all over the media, called a "massacre", etc - and might be important for the opinion in the west, and perhaps even the outcome of the war. It's probably more notable than the myriad of others, since it appears there was actually some real fighting, and it resulted in many Israeli casualties. Better to collect details here for now, and merge/delete later. Ketil (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One side calls it an operation, the other a massacre, battle/incident/etc any could apply here. But per that argument, I wanted to point out WP:NOTNEWS ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was also neither a Massacre nor an Incident. This was a Battle, with soldiers fighting soldiers, and descriptions of it as being otherwise are coming from highly biased sources that, while are worth mentioning, shouldn't be cited in terms of naming. They could be in the body text of the article (and I think that's a good idea, myself), but this is just a mistake. It's rather like renaming the article Homosexuality as Sodomy or Buggery. At any rate, it's pretty sad and regrettable that you have both Palestinian and Israeli fighters showing such disregard for civilians-- the mere 'thick cheese' to them (as their slang that I guess Hamas uses goes). God bless the victims. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - This article fails WP:NOTNEWS to the same degree that Operation Protective Edge fails NOTNEWS because it is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of a current event. It's not possible to make an evidence based statement about WP:EFFECT, and WP:PERSISTENCE at this stage. The event is clearly notable from a standalone perspective and within the context of Operation Protective Edge based on RS coverage. Building the content in a dedicated article is a practical solution. As Ketil says "Better to collect details here for now, and merge/delete later". Regarding the 'massacre' label, it's not important but it is something that editors must deal with. Many years of editing in the ARBPIA topic area tells me that this will only be a contentious issue for supporters of the belligerents and there's really nothing unusual about a significant proportion of RS and commentators applying a massacre label to an event in this conflict (see List_of_massacres_in_Israel for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by Sean.hoyland. --NSH001 (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event based on significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Maybe it will require merging in the future but for now it should stay as a standalone topic, albeit with a heavy injection of neutrality. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG. Many sources discuss it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. RWCasinoKid (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sean Hoyland. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. Sinai Horus ^〉^〉^〉 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a WP:CFORK of the parent article. It recieved a news spike, as does every day's battle. It is not of particular not as compared to any other battle during the ongoing conflict. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Operation Protective Edge or delete. This article fails notability WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc. and seems to fit into many categories of what Wikipedia is not. Propaganda. Memorial. News. Yet another battle in the middleeast. There were reports of more people being killed in Libya, Syria, and Nigeria on the same day that this took place and I don't see articles about any of those incidents. It's tragic. But not notable on its own. And the WP:RS on the page or Google show a battle took place not a massacre. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple 'Keep's above note that there is coverage in reliable sources. But those sources are news reports. Will any of those sources be covering this in a year or two? This is WP:NOTNEWS...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey92 (talk • contribs)
Comment Yes, books and notable magazine, do cover mention such incidents. 39.42.33.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - This article can esaily fit into the main operation article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently well sourced, notable, relevant, and won't be forgotten inside the Arab world at least. If 14 civilians murdered on Bloody Sunday is worth an article over 40-years later, then this one definitely is. D Dayus (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important, is being mentioned as massacre by many media outlets. Important event in the history of Palestinian conflict. 39.42.33.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — 39.42.33.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No secondary sources, and there can't be: it's all of four days old, so the context is ongoing. Read Secondary source#Humanities and history if you think that it's possible for secondary sources to exist at this point. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". You can't verify your speculation that secondary sources will be produced, that anyone will be paying attention to this after more than a few days have passed. Come back and write an article if secondary sources are produced that cover this incident. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument also applies to the main article Operation Protective Edge (and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and countless others). It doesn't work. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, that's an extraordinary comment, and I could only find a correspondence to your odd belief that an event which occurred 4 days ago is an 'anticipated event' in A.M.Dale's commentary to Euripides, Alcestis (OUP) 1954 p,57 lines 74-8, where it is used somewhat catachrestically, and as bizarrely as you do in this screwball 'logic'. I'd advise you to save editors of the embarrassment of having to read barrel-scraping specious arguments that fly in the face of all wiki practice on writing current articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, indeed mentioned all over the place. JJ Goldberg in Forward even called it the turning point in media coverage of the war here[13]. Whether that is right or wrong (I am dubious about it), but still important event. Kingsindian (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can all who comment about this appearing all over the news please see: WP:NOTNEWS . Should the article for this particular battle be separate from the one for the main operation -- think about someone reading this in the future, not when it is news... --Jersey92 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Well, how can we do that on an event that just happened? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says don't make the article until we find out. Doing it in reverse would mean you could not ever delete an article, because it always could become important in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says no such thing. That's about unknowable future information. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The false premise of the last three comments has already been disposed of. And as Dannydays says, whatever Western media say or pass over saying, the 'incident' will remain notable in the Arab world, recalled with particular intensity in Palestinian society, and, in their histories, which are rarely translated, detailed meticulously. It will also enter into IDF operational histories, which invariably cover all incidents in which Israeli troops die. This is not a prediction, but simply a known fact of regional historical practice. Already the lead has been thickened with details outlining the steps in Israeli military calculations that led to the escalation. This is a global encyclopedia catering to all communities and nations, and what they West might ignore is not a justification for eliding what the large communities outside customarily remember. If anything objections above smack of WP:systemic bias.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exact opposite is true. On the same day as this incident, more people were killed in several countries around Israel/Gaza than in at Shuja'iyya. Have you looked at the numbers from the recent killings in Syria, Iraq, etc. Why are those battles and massacres, in which far more people were killed, and, in the case of the massacres, clear massacres that nobody disputes, not notable and this one is? --Jersey92 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. They are not notable because they are not reported, except by cursory allusions en passant. 600,000 people are abducted or kidnapped every year, and by your 'logic', this means every listed article in List of kidnappings should be deleted, as relatively unnotable, to cite one of several dozens immediate answers to your poor analogy. The subtextual or interlinear innuendo in this kind of objection can often strike a reader like myself as suggesting there is something unusual (Israel-obsessed = antisemitic) in focusing on anything Israel does, when it is nothing in regional terms. It is a dismissive device in official government handouts to raise precisely this objection (meaning, go away and look at what is happening in Sudan if you find killing Palestinian children every other week objectionable and wish to maintain your credibility as impartial). In simple analogical terms, it's like saying: 'Hey, why print that I shot someone? Tens of thousands of people are shot everyday all over the world'. All things that are extensively covered by RS, like the 2014 Chibok kidnapping are written up here, in the face of the fact that, say in Kyrgyzstan, one half of the female population is subject to abduction and forced marriage, making it a massive daily event, but hardly ever reported, and therefore not RS unless the phenomenon becomes the subject of international attention and journalistic/academic study.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never made any personal allegations. The way I heard about Syria and Iraq was by watching the news as they are reported. Still not notable. And this isn't an issue of "all over the world" this is next door to the subject. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I am in no way an expert or even an enthusiast of military history, I know it is one of the most popular fields in nonfiction, and that the amount of nonfiction output is proportionally large. As this incident had 13 Israeli military fatalities and is a part of a longish military action, I have nodoubt it will receive attention in that field as long as that field exists, and the size of that field to my outsider eyes effectively guarantees this will be regularly studied for years to come. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable battles have articles despite being, obviously, parts of larger campaigns (or operations if we prefer). Those are not WP:CFORKs, but rather sensible applications of the Wikipedia:Summary style policy. So it is here. If it seems like there's a paucity of sources via the "find sources" link above, that's only because Arabic names are spelled dozens of ways by English media, as I noted especially in this case prior to notability being raised as an issue. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as extensively covered battle in an extensively covered conflict it easily passes GNG. I'm perplexed at it even being nominated. GraniteSand (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to withdraw my nom for this. Since I requested this based on a discussion on the talk page, this article has clearly fleshed out and come to a good fruition and the policy questions I raised with the nom have been answered. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. It's obviously notable. -- Hroþberht - picture yourself in a boat on a river... (gespraec) 04:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --علي سمسم (talk) 07:57, 30 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. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Hype[edit]

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

Non-notable superhero lacking references of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references are to the creator of the comic. A search for the term show nothing related to the comic, just bunch of sports pages. Fails WP:NOT, specifically Personal inventions/Things made up one day. Chillum 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability whatsoever 94.173.22.6 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a job for MOP-MAN, savior of the Wiki. Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources what so ever, just some drawings someone put up on a free hosting website. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:00, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athena (comic)[edit]

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

Non-notable superhero lacking references of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per mine and other comments at the parent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Hype. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:01, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simulo (comic)[edit]

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

Non-notable superhero lacking references of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per mine and other comments at the parent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Hype. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:02, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hype (comic)[edit]

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

Non-notable superhero lacking references of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good call. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage found in independent sources for this character; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per mine and other comments at the parent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Hype. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:03, 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 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Holloway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an unelected candidate for office, which is not a claim that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. All of her other work as an activist is sourced to primary sources — the web pages of organizations she was involved in, Green Party of Canada press releases, her own writing about herself, etc. — rather than reliable ones, with the few legitimately reliable sources constituting only cursory, not substantive, coverage of the unsuccessful candidacies themselves. While this article was kept in an earlier discussion eight years ago (the second discussion being a rapid relist which was speedy kept for not bringing anything new to the table), Wikipedia's standards and practices have evolved significantly since then — primary sourcing and "unelected candidates are notable just for being candidates" may have passed muster in 2005, but by 2014-vintage standards they don't wash anymore. I'd be prepared to withdraw this if good sources about her activist work started showing up to get her past our notability standards for that field of endeavour, but as long as the weight of reliable sourcing is sitting entirely on her forays into electoral politics she can only be judged on whether she passes WP:POLITICIAN or not — and as an unelected candidate, she doesn't. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~& Salt~~ per nom, No evidence of any notability that I can find, ~~The recreation is also ridiculous so thus should be salted.~~ –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC),[reply]

There's no "recreation" to speak of — the original article has never, to date, been deleted in the first place. The first discussion (dated 2006) was closed as a keep; the second discussion was speedy-closed because the nominator relisted it too quickly without actually providing any new reasoning; and the third discussion was closed "no consensus". Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well bugger me!, I simply went on the 4 above ... Should've checked the log!, Thanks for noticing my error. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The third nomination attempt turned primarily on using previous survival of nomination as a sign of notability. The problem is this ignored that back in 2006 when this article was first proposed for deletion, our notability rules were different. I believe at one time many more people who were only candidates were considered notable. This is no longer the case, so we have now come to the view that people who are only candidates are not notable for such, and so this article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, we didn't have WP:GNG before 2007.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:58, 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 redirect to C.I.D. (Indian TV series)#ACP Praduyman .281998-present.29. No need for AfD when the article has already been redirected. If G5 applies, tag the redirect. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACP Pradyuman[edit]

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

Though a character from Indian television series CID it does not have any clear reference to prove that article have signs of Notability. Ramakant Dua (talk) 00:48, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion on procedural grounds. The nominator reverted the article from a redirect in order to AfD it - as they have done for other nominations. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably reverting to a redirect). Even if an article is not warranted, a redirect or merge to the series article is entirely sensible as a likely search term. Editorial discretion. Thincat (talk) 12:53, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and The Law[edit]

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

Local talk show which airs on a single station in a single media market, with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMEDIA. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMEDIA. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NMEDIA. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; also fails as spam, advocacy, and as a how-to resource. I am especially wary of legal websites and radio shows that purport to hand out free legal advice without meeting people. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 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. Without prejudice to a redirect, but with prejudice to the existing content. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Bikini Olympia[edit]

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

Non-notable, one class of several in a one-weekend event that hasn't happened yet. Neither of the sources cited mention it at all; one is "Copyright © 2014 Weider Publications, LLC", so hardly independent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bikini Olympia. A plausible search term (although the target article is pretty awful), but nothing here suggests a standalone article is merited. --Michig (talk) 07:06, 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) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The article is almost entirely an advertisement and probably a candidate for WP:CSD#G11. I'm not convinced that Bikini Olympia is notable either.- Mr X 01:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe even Speedy Delete. This appears to be a promotional piece. WP:ARTSPAM --Jersey92 (talk) 03:02, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Seshadripuram Bangalore[edit]

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

There isn't a single verifiable or third-party source in the references. It is all Original research. Could not find any third party source after doing a good-faith search Emily shy girl (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided I checked out a couple of other temples from Template:Hindu temples in Bangalore. They did not seem to have any coverage in depth from non-Hindu sources, other than a few trivial mentions in newspaper travel sections. Strict WP policy seems to say they are not notable, and if I was to !vote I would !vote to delete them all. However common sense tells me that the main building of a major religious denomination (and ISKCON is fairly major) in a large city should be important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia with (what is it now?) three million articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out other temples pages from Template:Hindu temples in Bangalore, they seem to be notable, for example, this Deccan Herald article about Halasuru Someshwara Temple [14]. IMO the temple in question is not a "building", but a small center. I do not think all ISKCON centres deserve a separate Wikipedia page, especially if they are not notable. They can probably be a part of Wikipedia lists (Wikipedia:Lists_in_Wikipedia). Also ISKCON Temple Bangalore seems to be the major ISKCON center in Bangalore. Emily shy girl (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying delete that article, but the newspaper story was of local interest only: "When we visit any ancient monument in the State, we generally forget that there are some beautiful temples to be found right here in Bangalore..." Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Seshadripuram just acquired 1 and a half acres of Land, In the Heart of Bangalore. I don't think this requires to be deleted. Something Big is Going to Happen! Apart From That, ISKCON Temple Bangalore Does not get along well with this Temple.. By The Way, This Centre is Not Small - It has 4 More Centres In Bangalore and It also Has over 190 Weekly Programs.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The link in one of the comments above is for a different temple that doesn't appear to be anymore notable than this one. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all.Reader n writer (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Seshadripuram's Page is simply Being Deleted because ISKCON Temple Bangalore doesn't want the public to find out that ISKCON Seshadripuram even exists. They Paid Many People to Remove us from Many Directories... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.247.27 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as per above comments. KatieRoses (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete. My name is vinay, Incharge of all Online Communications of ISKCON Seshadripuram. All Information provided on that page is true. If there is any misunderstandings, please email me directly at info(at)iskconbangalore(dot)co(dot)in , also on a personal note, ISKCON Temple Bangalore doesn't like us and they have alot of monetary funds to get us a bad rank on google and list our Wikipedia page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.28.86 (talk) 17:53, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Navy equipment[edit]

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

This is an orphaned list - it mostly points to other lists. Don't believe there is a need for this as the equipment is well listed at List of active Royal Navy ships and List of aircraft of the Royal Naval Air Service Gbawden (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as stated on the talk page, this list was created as decided at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 26#Category:Royal Navy equipment. The missiles, control systems and other items are not included in the lists above. As for being orphaned, this is not a criterion for deletion of a list. It is categorised within Category:Lists of military equipment but feel free to add navigation links to it in other Royal Navy articles. –– Fayenatic London 15:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being orphaned is not a reason for deletion, merely an opportunity to build more links. Historical equipment is as WP:Notable, if with reliable sources, as active equipment. When the equipment goes out of service, it should be listed at this or other historical articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but reopened as feel this does merit a discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: being orphaned is not a reason for deletion, the list is notable, and although they overlap the list is not a duplicate of either of the other lists mentioned.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully suitable topic for a list article. The coverage of topics covered should not be limited to the current situation. Thincat (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The list of missiles and other equipment is significant. There is plenty of room for further expansion. Jacona (talk) 12:29, 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) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Island Records artists[edit]

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

This is an orphaned article - I don't see the need to have a list of lists. The lists mentioned in this article are well linked to - a list like this adds nothing. Suggest deletion rather than redirecting Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, extremely likely search term. Also there was a list here in the past, so there are probably links from outside Wikipedia, and people's bookmarks. Tag with ((disambiguation)) perhaps. Siuenti (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's more properly a WP:SETINDEX, as the two lists are related instead of just coincidentally sharing a similar name. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly acceptable navigational page. --Michig (talk) 07:03, 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) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. This list adds nothing and per WP:ORPHAN. The others link but not this. It's totally unnecessary. Waste of server space. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by either merging List of former Island Records artists and List of current Island Records artists (a "years active" column can distinguish the two in the final list) or turning it into a disambig page. Whatever happens, the cleanup isn't a task for AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 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 redirect to Qubool Hai. No need for AfD when the article has already been redirected. If G5 applies, tag the redirect. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 13:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aahil Raza Ibrahim[edit]

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

Non-notable fiction character, This article is about fiction character played by Karanvir Bohra from the show Qubool Hai. Not much sources to verify the character

Ramakant Dua (talk) 00:33, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above, and i believe the page was likely recreated by the same sock as before. was their block lifted? or is this actually a case of speedy?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close on procedural grounds. The nominator created the article in order to AfD it by reverting. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:42, 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. and replace j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the House[edit]

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

This disambiguation page only has two entries, and one of them is a pipe to a section: Songs from Les Misérables#Master of the House. This topic doesn't appear to be notable enough to become a standalone article. Therefore, it seems to me that the other entry on the page, Master of the House (film), can be considered the primary article, and that the disambiguation page can be deleted in favor of a simple hatnote. Lemuellio (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace as noted. That seems a sensible course of action with a notable film and a reasonably important song. I can't see any other entries that might belong here: linking to housemaster would be a stretch, I found a book by a non-notable author, and IMDb has a couple of short films, an adult film, and a few episodes of TV shows whose individual episodes aren't typically notable (The Bill, Beast Machines: Transformers, Sharehouse, Crime Scene University). The web series Masters of the House doesn't seem notable either. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 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) 01:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:10, 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 delete. After 2 relists no arguments have been made for why the article should be kept. Davewild (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beatbox Championships winners[edit]

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

Unsourced article that does not make clear what sport "Beatbox" is or tells anything about the "Beatbox Championships". In fact, the author kept it a secret where this article is about and this makes the article useless for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 18:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatboxing is a pretty obvious place to look for what "sport" this is about. But then we find out that no "championship" is even mentioned there. If the "Beatbox Championship" isn't notable, then there's really no basis for maintaining a list of its winners. Banner, you might want to also add List of UK Beatbox Championship winners (which just duplicates a section in this list) to this nomination. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 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) 01:22, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the hawk[edit]

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

Don't believe they meet WP:BAND - not notable imo Gbawden (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any obvious signs of notability. Punk bands can be difficult to source, though. Most of them are not exactly itching to sell out, get famous, and do interviews in glossy magazines. Punknews.org is sometimes a reliable source, but this is a trivial mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are almost no sources available with which to establish notability for this three year old band. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 01:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG . Davey2010 10:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable. Delete per nom. and the above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:01, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Known Agile Estimation Techniques[edit]

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

Wikipedia articles are not for lesser known topics. Referenced by other wikipedia articles and single white paper. Feels slightly spammy. RadioFan (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete . Taken together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agile Estimation Based on Size and User:Syphron/sandbox, looks like a hit-and-run school project, rather than spam, to me. Can some admean please look into article history of Agile Estimation Based on Size who created it? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The title says it all. The article is a non-notable collection of lesser known estimation techniques, held together with some original research. I'm sure the author had the best of intentions, but unfortunately it does not meet our minimum notability standards.- Mr X 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Agree with RadioFan. Definitely spammy. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:01, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Htc mobile bluetooth profile[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced and orphaned article. It seems to list the bluetooth capabilities of a small snapshot of HTC devices. Since bluetooth is so basic these days I can't see why this level of detail is needed. If it is really necessary it would be included in List of HTC devices Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a candidate for WP:CSD#A1 deletion. The article is an arbitrary collection of product specifications. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMANUAL.- Mr X 01:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is just a list of specs and is not complete. Frmorrison (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr. X. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTMANUAL. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:00, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Michael Hall[edit]

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

This person appears to not have sufficient notability, in particular as an "entertainer", to warrant a Wikipedia article. Merely appearing on certain television shows does not suffice. Was this article created by the subject's publicist?--Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rpclod (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an unreferenced BLP, this should have been deleted - his twin's article at Seth Hall has much the same problem, with a single ref to YouTube. However, I just did a quick Google, and I do recognise the Underhill photographs - major pin-up images that repeatedly pop up all the time. But being in a famous image is not in itself sufficient for notability. Adam Perry from the Man and Baby poster doesn't have an article, for example. (OK, yes, that's WP:OTHERARTICLESDONTEXIST...) I don't know if the role on Passions is sufficent as it was one of the minor Passions characters but it's an interesting note that one succeeded the other twin in a role. Certainly they should both be mentioned somewhere, but I don't see anything particularly compelling on a quick Google showing that either is notable enough to be on Wikipedia - loads of drooling blogs, as per usual for any hottie (male or female), but that's it. Mabalu (talk) 09:35, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only available sources seem to be fansites and trivial mentions elsewhere. Fails. WP:GNG.- Mr X 16:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have gone ahead and nominated his twin brother too. Mabalu (talk) 15:35, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (1968–present)[edit]

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

This list is an amalgamation of existing pages viz

i don't see the need for the amalgamated list Gbawden (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see a problem with having an amalgamation of those lists, or any stated reason for deleting.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but to be honest, I can't see the value in the three arbitrarily separated lists now that we have the amalgamated one. I'd be okay with keeping the whole list but we can probably consider getting rid of the others unless there is a particular reason for them to be divided that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I second Stalwart's comments immediately above: keep the combined list, delete the smaller component lists and replace them with redirects. Wikipedia does not need redundancy; that's why we have redirects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect the three component lists per Stalwart111 and Dirtlawyer1. Duplicating content is to be avoided, and there's no obvious reason (e.g. per WP:CONSPLIT or WP:SIZESPLIT or for ease of reading) to divide this content between multiple pages. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of resignations[edit]

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

Unnecessary list IMO - orphaned so nothing is reaching this list Gbawden (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See List of lists of lists, which I just linked this page to. We have plenty of lists like this. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems kind of pointless to me, but Wikipedians do love their lists. Like Jens24 says, these sorts of things do exist on Wikipedia. I guess maybe WP:OSE could apply on either side of the argument. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a reasonable list to me, to which I will add a couple more entries. I'm also going to replace the three lists from the See also section of Resignation with this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 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 Theo Van Gogh. No need for AfD when the article has already been redirected. If G5 applies, tag the redirect. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 13:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Theo van Gogh[edit]

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

Most likely, the page was redirected to Theo Van Gogh, but a sock master has violated the Wikipedia policies and declined to seek consensus whether a Split Article of the above to be kept RamakantDua • (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the sock master? It was a redirect until you added the AFD template and restored the article. So I would suggest that it not be deleted, but just changed to a redirect, and then protected against any changes for 3 years. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three AFD nominations, all by reverting redirects and then tagging the restored article. Strange behaviour, care to explain it? QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:45, 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.