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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The only claim to notability was the character UFO Phil (Rick Still article had previously been converted to a redirect). However, the only remaining ref linking the character to this person fail WP:RS (per discussion at talk:UFO Phil#Identity). As he has no other claims to notability, and the remaining refs are trivial mentions at best, nominating for deletion. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not notable. DELETE. 23.240.224.233 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor actor and director who has not yet received wide-spread notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rick Still page because he is not a big player in hollywood and/or famous yet. His is best know for being the UFO Phil Guy.Thunderpilot (talk) 04:56, 17 March 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) Mz7 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Through searching, the artist lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. The AllMusic bio cited is basically it and Wikipedia is not a directory. STATic message me! 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How hard did you look? Hip Hop DX, Rap Reviews, Prefix Mag, Exclaim!, Okay Player, Pitchfork, AV Club, Spin, and so on; he's been covered multiple times in most of these sources. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC and point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Source examples include:

• Pique newsmagazine
• San Francisco Bay Guardian
• Pitchfork
• Exclaim
• Spin (very short article)

 – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not to pile on, but as noted above the subject clearly passes GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this is why Google sucks, 10 pages of results and all I was getting was garbage. Maybe if the citations were present in the article, this would not have been a problem. STATic message me! 04:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google does suck and yes creators need to be more on the ball with their sources. But that's life. I have had my head handed to me a couple times for dicey AfD noms. It happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources shown above. Meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Makes great records, too. — sparklism ^hey! 14:33, 18 March 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 recreation as a redirect Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable primary school. We don't generally have articles for primary schools unless they are especially notable. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-secondary school that makes no claim to notability in the article. No sources are cited. A Google turned up nothing even remotely hinting at notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Education in Singapore or to another relevant article - Per WP:OUTCOMES, primary schools, unlike secondary and tertiary schools, aren't inherently notable. If they are confirmed to exist but lack reliable sources, they should be redirected instead to a school district article or to its geographic location's section on education. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 18 March 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 03:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article reads like a coat rack with mostly unreferenced facts which i have not been able to verify easily online. Subject himself does not appear to rise to the level of notability required. James of UR (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't an encyclopedic article, it's a resume. There is a huge laundry list of unsourced claims in the article. The few sources mostly fail WP:RS and the one that doesn't isn't enough to ring the WP:N bell. A Google failed to yield much of anything in the first 5 pages of hits. (Caveat: The subject is cursed with a common name). Even if I were convinced of the notability of the subject (and I am light years from that) this article is hopelessly promotional. It would be better to scrap it and start over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete -- REdlinked businesses suggest NN.

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

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

The result was procedural close. The page is a redirect, and this nomination is therefore in the wrong forum (should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead). Redirects are simply titles that one can search for and be taken directly to another page. They have otherwise no content as an article. Note that certain rules about articles (like notability) do not necessarily apply to redirects (see WP:RFD#DELETE for valid reasons to delete redirects). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm really not convinced that this individual is notable; I've done some basic Google searches, and I'm coming up with very little in the way of secondary sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is a redirect. Shouldn't you have started this discussion on WP:RFD? Jinkinson talk to me 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, to be honest - I didn't recall the deletion process pages saying anything about the RFD pages (but might well have missed them). Happy to take your advice on it. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced biography of a writer of a lot of ebooks and self-published books through PublishAmerica. I couldn't find evidence he meets our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Prolific author who has not been noticed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with caveat. No sources (a major no no for BLPs). No real evidence of notability from a Google search. However I note the author's background is one that would suggest sources might be available in languages other than English. If some are found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article on one of his ebooks has just been created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zarathustra : the Golden Star. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If true, he may be prolific enough to warrant the article being kept. If the books or films can be shown to exist, that will be source enough for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why? How does being prolific make someone notable? A prolific Yale professor, I was told, still didn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, so how can someone whose literary output seems basically self-published be notable without even meeting WP:GNG? Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say that he's not prolific enough to qualify under that criteria. That's the sort of thing that would qualify if he had written an extremely, extremely large amount of books. The expectation for prolific as notability is that the writer would have written closer to 100+ books, but even then that's not really enough to qualify because there would still need to be some sort of coverage to mark this as notable. The thing about this qualification is that self-publishing is making it incredibly easy (or at least easier) for people to publish everything they've written, whereas in the past only people who could afford the cost or had a publishing contract could get that many made. In other words, the only way that someone would get notability for writing a lot of books is if they were to have written an extremely large amount in a certain time period and/or received coverage about that doing so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Although that said, I do see one of his works listed as a cite in this book through University Press of America. It's not enough to keep or even really show notability, but it does help assert that there might be sources in another language. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I thought that this was a candidate for speedy deletion, but an admin has disagreed. It is accepted that Vpered is the primary meaning, with only one other possible meaning we can deal with it by a hatnote and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. PatGallacher (talk) 16:40, 14 March 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 March 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems silly to create this page in order to remove that one. Anyway, there are more possible entries and I have added one - Vpered!. Andrew (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With three pages that contain the term, this qualifies for a disambiguation page. I can't find any discussion where it states that "Vpered" is the primary meaning, so this also qualifies per WP:TWODABS. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply As a third meaning has now been added I agree to withdraw nomination. PatGallacher (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly legitimate disambiguation page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I see that the nom just withdrew the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 15 March 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) Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Spammy tone, largely unsourced, mainly a list of fairly standard research, not sure that he meets the notability criteria for academics Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Subject is probably notable on the basis of "Hasan was an elected Fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India) [FAMS], Indian National Science Academy [FNA] & National Academy of Science, India [FNASc]." This would ring the WP:NACADEMICS bell (see #3). Unfortunately the sources as cited are so confusing as to be completely worthless and thus WP:V is a legitimate issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep possibly an example of one of Wikipedia's biases. Some examples of notability:--LT910001 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]

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

• Keep. I think the Padma Shri award and the sources listed above are clearly enough to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. WP:PROF#C2 and #C3 are also both likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a problematic article with some POV editors that are apparently not really familiar with our policies and have not much clue about what constitutes an encyclopedic article. I have wrestled with it myself, at some point even proposing it for speedy deletion as spam. The article is still rather disastrous, but for better or for worse, Hasan appears to be notable and the sources are there to prove it. Article should perhaps be stubbified to get rid of all the fluff. I'd be willing to add it to my watchlist again to help avoid that the POV editors put that stuff back. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: An article that said "Mahdi Hasan is an Padma Shri recipient" would have been enough for keeping. AfDs are not for cleanup. However if you wish, you may do so now as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:49, 18 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Nitro Snowboards has not been the subject of any significant coverage by independent sources. The company's name or products are mentioned in passing in some article, such as lists of various snowboard products, or lists of sports sponsorships. But none of these sources are primarily about Nitro Snowboards. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - Thus far, I have only found one source that provides coverage beyond passing mentions, from Onboard magazine. Otherwise, source searches are providing content with passing mentions, directory listings, etc. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim to notability in the article. No sources are cited. Nothing that would pass RS showed up on a Google search. Article appears to fail WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:V. That's three strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - FYI User:Ad Orientem, the source I provided in my !vote above from Onboard magazine is a reliable source; it's from a paid-subscription magazine with editorial oversight. I post this because you keep saying "no" about everything that has to do with this article (e.g. "Nothing that would pass RS showed up on a Google search"), but the one I provided above is indeed a reliable source. Not to be overly picky, but did you bother to read and assess the source I provided above? You state that the topic appears to fail WP:V, but this is just incorrect per the source I posted. Please read the source I posted above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi NorthAmerica. I did actually take a glance at the source you found (good job in source hunting btw). I am uncertain as to its reliability though. Many of these magazines that deal with niche sports and limited markets are heavily dependent on advertising revenue from the same companies whose products they review. I have seen this with other sporting type publications that are bound to have a limited readership. One prominent example would be magazines that deal with guns and shooting sports. It is a common practice to give the velvet glove treatment when reviewing guns manufactured by major advertisers. In cases where they are so bad that one just can't write something nice about them they are usually returned to the manufacturer with a note suggesting a different model might be better for reviewing purposes. The practice is sufficiently widespread that it was mentioned rather prominently in a NY Times article a while back. My bottom line though is that while I don't dismiss all niche sport magazines as non-RS, I do treat them as suspect pending some firm evidence beyond their own claims to impartiality. I also note that Wikipedia discourages the use of sources too closely associated with the topic. But I do concede that this is a gray area and different people can look at the same source and come to different conclusions. If you feel it's RS I won't say you are wrong, because I can't prove that it is not RS. All I can say is that I am not convinced. This may be one of those situations where we may have to agree to respectfully disagree. Setting that aside however, the clear standard is for multiple reliable sources. So even if other editors were inclined to accept this one as RS compliant, I think we would still be a ways from meeting requirements for WP:N. Thanks for your comment and your work here. It seems like there is a chronic shortage of editors participating in AfD of late. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, which is appreciated. I'm aware of the points you make above, but the source I provided doesn't appear to be a paid advertorial. It's a product review from a snowboarding magazine that snowboarding enthusiasts read to learn about snowboarding topics. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. LIke I said, this is a gray area. In the meantime I am suffering from sleep deprivation and making a hash out of adding a simple reference to my earlier comment. I think I will just delete it. If anyone wants the link to the NY Times article drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If additional sources are found, users can feel free to ping me, as I'm always open to reconsideration (e.g. changing my !vote) in light of objective sources that may surface about topics. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 March 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 03:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Article currently cites no sources so that's an automatic delete based on the minimal requirement for at least one WP:RS source for all BLPs. But assuming that some are found and the claims laid out in the article are verified, Mr. de Mori seems to meet notability per WP:NBOX section 1a. on the basis of winning the WBC Asia Pacific title and World Boxing Foundation (WBFo) world heavyweight title. But right now it fails WP:V and WP:BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WBFo is a minor organization.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

• Delete Unsourced BLP and according to their website has never fought for the WBC's Asian Boxing Council title.Mdtemp (talk) 18:53, 18 March 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 03:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Aside from publications by the sect, I can find no discussion of this person in reliable sources, using either the Bade Maharaj or Tarachand names. (Bade Maharaj does have several other meanings, eg: synonym for typhoid and a general name for "supreme deity"). Sitush (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per G-12 (unambiguous copyright violation) Delete. Additionally subject fails WP:BIO. No sources are cited and a Google turned up only promotional and affiliated hits. Frankly from the article I can't really even tell what this guy is supposed to have been. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete based on decline of speedy delete.-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to Stress (biology). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confusingly there are two articles that cover the same ground, stress (physiology) and stress (biology). Stress (physiology) is the inferior of the two being much shorter and although references are listed they are not integrated into the text, making it very difficult to work with. At least some of the refs appearing in stress (physiology) also appear in stress (biology) properly integrated - so there is quite a lot of duplication. IMO its almost impossible to clean up stress (physiology) and then try to merge the two articles, which I originally thought of. There is probably little in stress (physiology) that isnt already in stress (biology) anyway. I propose that stress (physiology) is deleted and then stress (biology) renamed as stress (physiology) as it seems to me to be the better of the two names. Penbat (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect into Stress (biology). But I would suggest first getting some input from people who are knowledgeable on the subject to help with the merge. Maybe an RfC would be in order? They might be able to help build consensus on any name change as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doing a merge just isn't practical. It would need an expert with access to most of the sources and it would be a lot of effort for very little benefit, there's very little in stress (physiology) that isnt already in stress (biology). I suspect any merge will takes years to get done. Also the choice of name isnt that much of a big deal, one would redirect to the other anyway. IMO the most important thing is to get stress (physiology) deleted ASAP to eliminate the confusion of two articles covering the same ground.--Penbat (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge-- agree this article largely duplicates content on stress (biology). However, the paragraph beginning with the terms neuroplasticity and long term potentiation does not seem to be represented in stress (biology). It is also a well written summary, and seems a shame to just delete. Perhaps it could just be lifted largely untouched into a section called "Overview". Lesion (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So how do you propose to get round the problem that the refs in stress (physiology) are not integrated ? An alternative idea is to paste the Stress (physiology) text in its entirety onto the talk page of the new single article so it can be used as a resource rather than lost for good.--Penbat (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lack of inline citation causes many problems down the line, particularly when other uses start adding unreferenced content into it. Do we know who the primary author was? Maybe they are more likely to have access the to the sources. Otherwise seems like it might be easier to find new refs... But, it is not like it is unreferenced. Seems strange to delete it/remove it to a talk page because no-one is available to merge it properly right now (that's not an attack on anyone, I include myself ... too much on atm). If merging only the paragraph I highlighted above, would not be so bad to stick all the refs from stress (physiology) at the end of the paragraph, as a temporary measure perhaps. Lesion (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary work was done by User:SarahMorse back in 2010. This was the only article she ever worked on. She obviously never realised that stress (biology) already existed at that time. The chances of contacting her are zero. A cleaner idea that I have seen done before is to set up the entire text of stress (physiology) as a subpage of the new single article and a note about the existence of and link to that subpage prominently displayed at the top of the talk page. Anybody who wanted to do serious work on the article would inspect the talk page for ideas.--Penbat (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Merge Same topic. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly we aren't going to delete this and its too soon to see whether we have a standalone article or an extended section in a wider article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Berkin Elvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. While tragic, this smacks of WP:RECENTISM for a non-notable individual. The usual media coverage following the death of a youngster. Salvage any meaningful content and merge it into the 2013 protests in Turkey. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots and lots of people have been hit on the head by tear-gas cannisters and then died, I doubt we have articles on most of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but you speak as if we live on a world full of flying tear-gas cannisters and deaths caused by them are more common than car crashes. Just how many people do you think may have died as a result of getting hit by gas cannisters? How many have you ever heard of? Just how many is lots and lots? 10 million? A hundred thousand? Few hundred? Well, I have only heard of a few and Berkin Elvan is one of them. But all in all, I don't think the total number of people who died in this fashion would be more than a few dozen at most, so your argument that "lots and lots of people have died this way so it doesn't warrant an article" is rather unfounded. 78.182.218.250 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to 2013 protests in Turkey. In addition to the valid points made by the nom and John Pack Lambert, there just isn't enough here to warrant a separate article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to 2013 protests in Turkey. not notable at all falls under WP:NOTNEWS Dman41689 (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't have the time right now to get this article up to scratch, but I just wanted to note that it's annoying we have to go through this every single time. It's quite clear that Berkin Elvan's death is going to be and has been a major catalyst in the resurgence of protests in Turkey. We had to do this dance with Khaled Mohamed Saeed, Neda Agha-Soltan, and so many others. AfDs like this are just such a waste of time when the effort could be better spent on improving the article. Silverseren^C 08:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Berkin Elvan is one of many victims in Gezi protests. However, it becomes a significant symbol for all activists and center of interest for international activists as well (Full page ad at New York Times ). Another good example is Faris Odeh. --Sbasegmez 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbasegmez (talk • contribs)
• Keep. This death is one of the most prominent in the 2013 protests. --Esc2003 (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely Keep. This death has become one of the most talked about issues in Turkish politics for some time and it is not likely to be forgotten anytime soon. Due to the unusual circumstances surrounding it and the public outrage it sparked, this incident has become a prominent focal point for the international media as well and IMHO it would be totally unjustified and absurd to delete this article when for example a Rodney King one exists. 78.184.164.89 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is a non-notable stub and as equates to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please outline the reasons as to why you may think Rodney King is notable and does not equate to WP:NOTMEMORIAL under the circumstances? I suspect your claim that this incident is non-notable stems from the fact that you read nothing about it other than the current stub on WP. 85.96.145.247 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the WP policy you referenced is aimed at preventing people from creating pages about any odd person who died of natural causes etc. and is of no particular interest to anyone. However when the death of a 14 year old kid sparks nationwide protests leading to more deaths and injuries and his funeral attracts a bigger crowd (1.3 million people) than that of any Turkish president, PM or statesman perhaps with the exception of Atatürk, I believe that makes him rather notable. 78.180.194.76 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The event is all over the news as the trigger for a whole new wave of protests. Certainly notable.99.226.44.125 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Berkin Elvan caused public indignation in Turkey. Protests are more extensive than other deaths of Gezi Park Protests.--Sabri76'^talk 20:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect subject doesnt seem to have enough information for a stand alone article. Redsky89 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please enlighthen us as to how thoroughly you've researched this topic to conclude that there is not enough information for a stand alone article? If this needs to be merged with or redirected to 2013 protests in Turkey, then surely Rachel Corrie should not have a stand alone article but needs to be merged with Israeli–Palestinian conflict no? Or why have a Lee Harvey Oswald article when it can be simply merged with or redirected to Assassination of John F. Kennedy? 78.184.164.39 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Or why have a Lee Harvey Oswald article when it can be simply merged with or redirected to Assassination of John F. Kennedy?"" That's the worst reason I've ever read for keeping an article. Jesus wept. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Do enlighten us please. Just how do you find Lee Harvey Oswald notable for anything other than his involvement in JFK assasination? How is he otherwise a notable person to warrant an individual article? And for contrast, I'd like to add that the reasons cited here are the worst I've ever read or can imagine anyone coming up with for deleting an article. 78.182.218.250 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The worst you've ever read? Under which other account do you normaly use? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of all the anon posts above with the exception of the "Strong Keep" vote. Apparently my IP address changes frequently without my changing computers or resetting internet connection and that's obviously because I live in Turkey where the internet infrastructure has been recently tempered with to accomodate the wishes of the psychopathic PM of the country and his ilk. I believe the context makes it obvious that those messages were all written by me despite the different IP's, and the accusation of suck puppetry is fully unjustified. 78.182.215.227 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though Berkin Elvan did not accomplish much in his short life, his name has symbolic value for many Turks and there have been mass protests reignited by his death. Also taking into account the public debate his death has relaunched and the comments made by Prime Minister Erdoğan, I think his name and death will be remembered for quite some time in Turkish political history. Instead of deletion I invite you to expand the article as it has been done in German and Estonian Wikipedia, for example. -- with greetings from et.wikipedia.org, Toomas (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Toomas and many others who commented above in favor of keeping the article. Berkin Elvan was a 14 year-old individual and on his own as a kid, he might have been an insignificant individual in terms of notability but what happened to him and how he died, made him an important figure and therefore the claims that classify the article in question as non-notable are precisely irrelevant. Regarding to the example of JFK's murderer; although the contents of two stories are completely opposite and different in various ways, it is quite an accurate example because of the similarities in change of notability of said persons after the incidents, which I believe was the reason to give JFK's murderer as an example in the first place. If JFK's assassination happened now, wouldn't Lee Harvey Oswald become a notable and noteworthy person for an article in Wikipedia? Berkin Elvan's incident is just very recent that's all, but notable nonetheless. --WikiBronze ^[M] 17:36, 23 March 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 both. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Torkaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both - They fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Players have not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both – as neither individual has received enough coverage in order for the topic to meet WP:GNG. C679 15:19, 21 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Walsh (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page fails the notability criteria. This individual is not a widely notable politician they are simply a low level municipal councillor in England. Wider press coverage and actual inherent notability in the individual has not been established. This page there needs deleting in-line with the notability policies of Wikiepdia as Wikiepdia is not a collection of every Tom, Dick and Harry elected to hold public office in England Sport and politics (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable local councillor - the commonality of the name isn't helpful in conducting searches for references, but I can't find much about him out there. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless better sources can be found. The article contains one citation, for one piece of information. Google search finds a page on West Sussex council website (not independent of the subject), a small number of news reports that don't provide much information, and various passing mentions. Peter James (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that outside his political career, he was also the most senior medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. I'm not yet sure if I think this qualifies him for an article (it carries the rank of captain, not a flag rank), but it's certainly a factor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Local councillor (even long-serving) = NN; failed Parliamentary candidiate = NN; Naval junior officer (medical) = NN. Summary NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that outside his political career, he was also the most senior medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. I'm not yet sure if I think this qualifies him for an article (it carries the rank of captain, not a flag rank), but it's certainly a factor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nominator is rather more dismissive of the subject's political career than is really warranted - the only reason that the subject probably does not meet WP:POLITICIAN#1 is that we do not regard any level of English government outside the major cities as being (major) sub-national - and thus his thirty years as a West Sussex county (population 800,000) councillor, and the years in leading positions both in West Sussex and more locally, do not count as automatically notable. And his four years as a South East England regional representative on the Committee of the Regions only (probably) fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN#1 because, while the Committee is clearly international, we presumably do not regard it as a legislature (though it does in fact have some weak legislative powers). I would, though, expect someone with a forty-year political career with this variety of near-misses of WP:POLITICIAN to stand a good, though not certain, chance of meeting WP:GNG - but whether we can find the relevant sources, given the subject's relatively common name, the length of the period needing searching and the absence of the Google news archive search, is another matter. PWilkinson (talk) 18:36, 17 March 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 03:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No infication of notability and only seems to be a resume with one external source. Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject appears to not meet WP:BASIC. I found this article from The Hindu, but it may be about another person with the same name. The Wikipedia article states the subject is from Jodhpur, and the news article is about a person with this name in Jodhpur. Otherwise, not finding other significant coverage in News and Google Books searches. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Speedy delete No proof of notability.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:01, 21 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page fails the notability criteria. This individual is not a widely notable politician they are simply a low level municipal councillor in England. Wider press coverage and actual inherent notability in the individual has not been established. This page there needs deleting in-line with the notability policies of Wikiepdia as Wikiepdia is not a collection of every Tom, Dick and Harry elected to hold public office in England. Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A local politician who lacks a notable office. He might later hold notable office, but does not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• There's more coverage here than of many of the peers and baronets listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Proposed deletions. Peter James (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really an valid argument to keep this page, it is more of an argument to improve or delete the other pages. Sport and politics (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not sure about this one. Eighteen is very young to be elected to a council, which may be a reason to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Still NN. We may hear more of him yet, but district councillor and town mayor (in a parish council) are not neough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a long precedent that serving as a principal authority councillor in the UK is not sufficient for notability. Being elected at the age of 18 is also not particularly notable; since the minimum age was lowered, it has happened in quite a few authorities. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:29, 19 March 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 03:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mugaiyur Magimai Madha Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local church. Nothing out of the ordinary here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete No discernible claim to notability in the article, sources fail WP:RS and a Google turned up nothing at all. That's three strikes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I see little notable in this stub. Being among the oldest churches in the area might make it notable, as might its architecture. I am willing to be convinved that it is notable, but this is certainly not yet shown. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 21 March 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. Some good ideas about perhaps taking the article in another direction, but clearly no consensus to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Scouring of the Shire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Do we really need an article on one chapter of the Lord of the Rings? There are no references apart from a WP:PRIMARY and a WP:FANSITE. I can't see any reason why this article should remain. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. On its own, I'm not sure it would merit an article (though I was surprised that I wasn't able to find sourcing up to my standards). However, I think there probably has been enough written on Tolkien's political views re: industrialization and such to write and split out an article on that, citing secondary sources which discuss this chapter and his other writings (this chapter is alluded to in our existing biography under "Views"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are numerous sources which demonstrate notability; I have added a selection. Andrew (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Although I'm not a huge fan of Tolkien and there may be dangers of overdoing in terms of coverage of him, I think this is more than one chapter, it is a significant if problematic episode in the story. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tolkien being Tolkien there are enough sources to create a 10,000 entry encyclopedia on every aspect of Tolkien and his world. Which is where things are headed. The only thing I find off about this article is it doesn't say much other than "Adaptions" and "Summary". There's nothing really encyclopedic other than Tolkien's denial of allegory, which is true for most of his work. -- GreenC 19:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Delete Frankly I am conflicted on this one. In general I am opposed to creating articles about individual chapters of works of literature. But I might be persuaded to make an exception in this case. The Scouring of the Shire is one of the more important chapters in one of the more important works in the canon of English Literature. It has been discussed and dissected endlessly. My problem is that like GreenC, I am not seeing anything in this article that justifies it's existence. If someone were to undertake an expansion of the article to include some discussion of the various literary interpretations and so on, I think I could be persuaded to swing my vote in the other direction. For now I will keep my eye on this discussion and the article in case anything changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is notability, not whether the article needs improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The article is lame but I think the topic does ring the WP:N bell. I am changing my vote to Keep with the caveat that it needs some major work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete we do not need articles on individual chapters of a novel. Short section easily merged into The_Return_of_the_King with no length problems. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Return of the King. There's no reason to have a separate article on this. We do occasionally have articles on sections of books, e.g. The Grand Inquisitor is about part of The Brothers Karamazov and there's lots of articles on Biblical parables. But the Scouring isn't notable independent of the book (e.g. no notable self-contained adaptations/derivative works, no discussions that don't refer to LotR as a whole) and there are no grounds to split for length. Although it's currently not well-sourced, lots of sources about LotR/RotK exist, so it could easily be sourced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge/redirect, as immediately above. Neutrality^talk 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GScholar search shows significant critical attention devoted to this section of the novel, in and of itself. while virtually all other chapter titles produce only passing mentions or specification of textual references. GBooks search also turns up results like these [5][6][7], commenting on the particular text in ways that go well beyond mere in-universe analysis. There are also sources that treat the chapter as key in interpreting the novel in light of Tolkien's religious beliefs.[8][9]. With such an extensive range of sources focusing on this chapter apart from the novel and its broader thematics, a separate article is clearly appropriate, possibly necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew's improvements and per editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. There's now no question about notability or encyclopedia importance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:05, 21 March 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 03:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable boxer. Unreferenced. No major title fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete No discernible claim to notability in the article, no sources are cited (huge WP:BLP fail) and nothing that would pass WP:RS turned up in a Google search. Three strikes... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no references, no notability, and does not pass WP:BOXING or WP:ATHLETE. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced BLP.Mdtemp (talk) 18:48, 18 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable boxer - minor title of minor organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No discernible claim to notability in the article, no sources are cited (huge WP:BLP fail) and nothing that would pass WP:RS turned up in a Google search. Three strikes... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being a four-time national champion isn't a discernible claim to notability? --Michig (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from other AfD discussions is that the WBFo is not recognized as a major boxing organization at this time and does not satisy the requirements of NBOXING. If that understanding is incorrect I am open to correction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced BLP. Only link is to his fight record and that doesn't show anything that meets WP:NBOX.Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 18 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Fails WP:PRODUCT. I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Consistent efforts over many years to spam WP - see TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting which also fails WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does not fail WP:PRODUCT. Sources are indeed reliable and verifiable. Publications and authors cited are reputable. I am not familiar with deleted article TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting, and do not see how its violations relate to the article under discussion. I am working on rewriting article to address issues of neutrality and would appreciate the chance to complete my work. --Gisli Súrsson (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — Gisli Súrsson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Restore TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting and merge Tosca there  This nomination shows no work that can be reproduced, but does speak to years of questionable decisions by Wikipedia admins.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting in which two admins intent on moving articles from the incubator to deletespace did a number on with a history of deleting articles in the incubator deleted a properly improved Wikipedia article with references showing national and international attention.  As a WP:NOQUORUM situation, this MfD should have been closed at most as a soft delete, and not as per Silence (Doctor Who).  This is not a glamorous topic, one that titillates the mass market, so proper respect must be given when international third parties attend to the topic.  I think that Tricentis is the more wp:notable and that Tosca should be merged to Tricentis.  The current article has some material that is of no interest from the viewpoint of an encyclopedia, so would benefit with a merge to the parent article.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely accurate. As an admin I can see the page history. What actually happened here was the article was incubated in 2011. There it sat untouched until 2013. Then you worked on the article and had a long conversation with yourself on the talk page in which you agreed with your own proposal to move it back to mainspace. Yet you never did so. A month later I nominated it for MFD. Neither you nor anybody besides me said a single word about the nomination, and so it was deleted. I would really appreciate it if you would stop attacking my motivations at every possible opportunity. The incubator is dead. Get over it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the deleted version of that article before nominating this for deletion (and again just now), but I couldn't find anything to show that the requirements for CORP or GNG were met based on the references cited or a search in gbooks and factiva. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The existing article is a bit of a mess, but it's clear that folks have tried to source the statements. There are some not-too-unreasonable WP:RS trade-rags buried in the current refs for the article. I suspect more such WP:RS exist, for somebody that speaks German and works in Austria/Switzerland/Germany where the company does most of their business. The ones I found below are new, from what I can tell.

  p.s. I have no opinion on 'correctness' of the incubator thing in 2011, when Tricentris was deleted and yet Tosca was kept, but I'll ping Beeblebrox in case they wish to comment. From my scan of the sources, Tricentris just makes the one product Tosca (software), so if we keep the overall topic, it should be an article about the company (with a subsection on the product), as Unscintillating suggested above (and as the WP:PRODUCT guideline suggests also). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to research sources. Personally though, I don't think it changes much since they are either very brief or in very specialist publications. The Gartner source is the best, but that's still not really sufficient to merit an article - more a mention in List of GUI testing tools. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are three references, the first two suggested by the last DRV:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]

Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: Can you please link to the original sources rather than translated ones? I can't access them properly like that. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My concern in the previous deletion discussion was based solely the article languishing indefinitely in the incubator. I have no opinion on its fitness as a mainspace article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG; the apparently-COI editing is indicative. Miniapolis 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Simply not a notable product (or company) in any reasonable encyclopedic sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice  A stealth edit has been made to this page with the edit comment "ridiculous", which has removed a comment of mine and restored an edit that I removed as a personal attack.  ANI became involved.  Although I have objected to this page being a WP:BATTLEGROUND, this view has not been sustained.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 22 March 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) buffbills7701 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTE: Top Google results were all either not third-party or not reliable or not significantly covering the topic. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Not sure asserts credible claim to significance. Not notable. Unable to locate sourcing. Dlohcierekim 01:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES, verified degree-granting institution. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd agree with that - if some non-primary verification of its status can be located and added to the article. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be a degree-granting institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 11 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 15 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it is a legitimate degree-granting institution or not, coverage in reliable sources is required, and there is not only none in the article now I could only find an extremely small amount, nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Jinkinson talk to me 01:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verified degree-awarding institutions are almost always considered notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Have any of the editors who were unable to find sources conducted a search in Bengali? That is by far the most likely language to find sources. Deleting this without a Bengali search would be a case of systemic bias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• reply the keep arguments are tenuous and hypothetical-- sourcing should/may exist, so the subject is notable. Institutions like this are notable because they are notable. Unfortunately, just being a "degree-granting institution" does not ensure notability. Without reliable sourcing, we don't know the subject to be notable. Were there actually Bengali language sourcing on the page, then we could evaluate the coverage to determine it's significance. The coverage available just does not meet the need so long as it remains hypothetical. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 22 February 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, -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I closed this as delete on 6 March 2014, which was subsequenetly challenged on my talk page. New sources have come to light, so I'm now relisting. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In practice, consensus here for the last 3 or 4 years at least that all genuine degree-granting institutions are to be considered notable--the only exceptions have been institutions whose nature is dubious or where there are other critical problems. This is one of our best established guidelines, even though not formally adopted as a guideline: it has been followed more consistently than most of the written ones. This is WP, and the rules here are what we choose to have them, and the best proof (possibly the only proof) that we have a rule is that we consistently follow it. So what the delete argument is saying is that it is asking for a change in a very helpful established guideline: helpful because it lets us devote our efforts in this field to finding sources and making other very necessary improvements for the frequently inadequate submitted articles in this field, instead of arguing about them, which accomplishes nothing helpful to the encyclopedia. If one wishes to pretend the the GNG applies in all situations, despite the clear statement in the guideline itself that it does not, one can say that the reason for keeping all colleges whose existence can be verified is that there are always sources, even if they are diffciulty to find. In this case, they were not the least hard to find: I looked for 2 minutes in Google: besides a number of possibly unreliable unofficial directory listings, there's a listing on the official government site, [31] and a decent newspaper story. [32]. I see more further down in the search results also. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears to me that "deshiresult.com" is a personal website, not "the official government site", so can't be considered a WP:RS in its own right. I have replaced it in the article by adding a link to "www.techedu.gov.bd" which is the relevant govt site. That and the Daily Star article confirm that this institution grants diplomas and certificates, but it does not appear to be listed as a degree institution. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The www.techedu.gov.bd listing is sufficient to confirm this as a post-school education institution, along with the Daily Star article reference. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. It appears that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination with their keep !vote below, and no outstanding delete !votes are present. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as unsourced. See talk:

This has hung around since 2009. The "solution" was first to blank the article. It was then "improved" at Wikiversity, although that version is still unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on basis that source included in article (Kerrebrock, Jack L. (1992), Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA. ISBN 0 262 11162 4) appears to be the source for material in the article though there are not inline references and it is perhaps too textbook-y, not encyclopedic in tone. That book appears to be a textbook treatment. If there is this textbook, then there would be others, and textbooks are reliable tertiary/secondary sources. If I am wrong on much here, i'll change my vote, but that's how it looks to me now. --doncram 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From worldcat, another source establishing notability of the topic would be: Aircraft propulsion and gas turbine engines, by Ahmed F El-Sayed, Boca Raton : CRC Press, ©2008. "Summary: 'Aircraft Propulsion and Gas Turbine Engines' covers aircraft engines and engine components in both power generation and marine applications. Offering a historical overview, this textbook contains a unique classification of all types of engine, examining the different performance parameters of each concept."

• keep per WP:IMPERFECT. This is an obviously notable topic and there's a vast amount of source material (just on my own bookshelves) to support it. Blanking the article (as was done) is not the way forward. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am confused, i thought you nominated this for deletion. If this AFD is just to pre-empt someone else from nominating it for real, I am not sure that is helpful. I've objected to "fake" AFDs in some other cases. At the article's Talk page i see old discussion from 2009. And in the edit history of the article, i see a blanking back in 2009. Not sure if there is recent discussion leading to this AFD, though, if so where? Anyhow, could this AFD be closed as there is no one now wanting to see it deleted? Or if there is anyone, please notify them and make the discussion happen. --doncram 18:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC), revised 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alejandro Betancourt is a chairman and CEO of Derwick Associates, but there doesn't seem to be much on him separate to the company. There is one interview, and some passing mentions in other articles used as references, but not enough to show sufficient sources with non-trivial coverage of him, as an individual, so as to pass the notability requirements. It seems to make more sense to cover him within Derwick Associates, as required, than to have a separate article. Bilby (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to look for more information for this article. If you can give me some tips about this issue, i would be grateful. --Majogomezsz (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 14 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per WP:NOTGUIDE. There is already a sizeable Andhra Pradesh for content to be merged into. Otherwise transwiki to Wikivoyage seems appropriate. Lineslarge (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the article would benefit from clean-up and copy editing, this is a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Andhra Pradesh article. Furthermore, the topic easily passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

• Tourist Guide to Andhra Pradesh
• Tourism Development in India: A Case Study
• Tourism In India: An Overview (2 Vols.), Volume 1
• Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories: In 36 ..., Volume 2
• Encyclopaedia of Tourism Resources in India, Volume 2
• Discover Andhra Pradesh, India
• Perspectives of Tourism in Andhra Pradesh
• Tourism Industry in Andhra Pradesh: A Case Study of Chittoor District
• Tourism Industry in Indian Perspective: Tourism Development in Andhra Pradesh
• State Level Public Enterprises in Andhra Pradesh: Prescription for 21st Century

 – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the above comments ***Adam*** (talk)
• Keep per above. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the topic of the article is certainly notable as per above. However, the content of the article is a travel guide. Some sections even read like a copy/paste from a guidebook. Nearly the entire of the article is a list of places to visit. An encyclopaedic article could be written on this topic but it would need to start from scratch, not just an edit of what is here. Lineslarge (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment - I agree with the transfer to Wikivoyage, as long as there are no copyright violations involved and the creator of the article did not copy-paste it from another webpage. If you look at the Andhra Pradesh page on Wikivoyage, there isn't a lot of content, so the transwiki is probably worth doing. TheChampionMan1234 01:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about Wikivoyage, but a quick look at the cited page makes me think you are correct; that project would be a better home for this material, especially in its present form. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible copyvio. Whole paragraphs sentences of this article are word-for-word match with http://miyabhai.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-city-hyderabad.html. Unclear who lifted the text from whom, but if the article is kept, somebody needs to research this and eliminate any possible copyvio problems. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:RoySmith: upon spot checking, only aspects the first paragraph in the Hyderabad section of the article exists verbatim in the external link at [33]. I don't agree of the characterization "Whole paragraphs of this article are word-for-word match", because this simply does not appear to be the case whatsoever. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated my comment to be somewhat less far-reaching. Still, there's enough similiarity that it's clear somebody copied from somebody, and a review for copyvio problems is in order. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Addressed Y. It is unclear at this time if the information at the external link was copied from Wikipedia or vice versa. To be on the safe side, I have edited the article's Hyderabad subsection so that it does not include copying or close paraphrasing of this link. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I actually agree with prior comments that this should go to Wikivoyage. The article simply lists destinations within the Indian state and some information about them, which is already available on the articles for the individual cities. There is no information that addresses tourism as a concept or aspect of the state; it instead is suggesting destinations. As the nom points out, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I would support a similar article on tourism if it addressed tourism as a subject, such as how tourism has grown or expanded in the region or issues it has incurred, but right now it belongs on Wikivoyage. Scarlettail (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have boldly merged most of the content of this article to the Andhra Pradesh entry at Wikivoyage (diff), located at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh. See this link to view the English Wikipedia article prior to it being transwikied. This has stubbified the article. However, the topic remains notable. An article focusing exclusively upon tourism in Andhra Pradesh can be created from this point onward (e.g. sourced aspects of tourism in Andhra Pradesh, tourist industry, locations based upon reliable sources, etc). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikivoyage addition was reverted there by another user (Wikivoyage diff page) due to formatting concerns. So, the transwikied information presently exists at Wikivoyage – User:Northamerica1000/Sandbox, from where information can be added to the Wikivoyage Andhra Pradesh article per Wikivoyage's specific formatting requirements (e.g. Wikivoyage:One-liner listings). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikivoyage's standards, information about each city goes in each respective city article. Only one-liners are allowed for Wikivoyage's city entries in state articles. So, information at my Wikivoyage sandbox page listed above will need to be selectively merged to various Wikivoyage articles per these standards. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  11:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Based on a single RCT that looked at 18 people with "probable AD". And the popular press it generated. Does not look notable yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, even though the test itself may not warrant much faith, does not mean the subject isn't notable enough to be covered encyclopedically. Other layman's tests have been used, or at least tried, so this may be a part of that legacy. And even if the underlying scientific hypothesis is debunked, there might be enough sourcing to explain why it was, thus meeting GNG in the process. Any way I look at it I do think somewhere the story, and it's outcomes, should be acknowledged for people seeking the information, even if it's ultimately disproven altogether. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

  We are not a news source. Everything that is in the news does not get a Wikipedia page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It does if its notable enough, and someone puts in the work. This reminds me of canine cancer detection. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

  Changing to keep, based on ensuing discussion, and sources noted. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep This article may have received coverage for only a few weeks, but so have many other Wikipedia articles. Keeping this article will contribute a net benefit to Wikipedia as a whole, and it satisfies notability requirements. Many other "fad" scientific theories that have been quickly forgotten have been covered on this very encyclopedia! Cold fusion achieved mainstream coverage for a bit, but then was forgotten about. At the very least, merge this into a different article that is broader, but I think this is notable enough to be its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123chess456 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and per WP:NTEMP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I posted this argument at Project Medicine but will repost here (I think it's an interesting dilemma). This story appears to have hit the media as a classic viral story. On Oct 8 the U Florida publishes a press release about the article, which is republished by Futurity.org (a non-profit with many Univeristy "partners") that features the university discoveries. Someone posts a link to the Futurity article on Reddit and it goes viral within the site (2700 upvotes and hundereds of comments). Oct 10/11 (2 and 3 days later) it's picked up by CBS, NPR, FOX, USA Today and gets bigger after that for a very short time. Classic gorilla marketing. They reported only on the publication, not how this techique revolutionized the investigation of Alzheimer's (in fact many sources critized the test). Cold fusion was original research that had the potential to change the world which is why, imo, it was picked up. This was a quirky medical test that happened to go viral. At the end of the day, context matters and this is a scholarly article that should be subject to scholarly standards. As original research it would not warrant an article. Imo, viral spread in the news media, should not in-and-of-itself, define notability although it's something to take into consideration. By letting articles like this stand does Wikipedia become an extension of the gorilla marketing arm? Ian Furst (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the study wasn't published until last October, the idea of a smell test for Alzheimer's predates it by at least a few years: [39] Also, I think the article should be kept per Northamerica1000's arguments above. Jinkinson talk to me 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No arguing that an olfactory test might be a useful diagnostic tool. “Olfactory test cognitive impairment” in pubmed returns many citations. But this article, is about one study not the test. It’s conclusion (as I understand it) is that if you can’t sniff peanut butter beyond 10cm out of your left nostril it’s diagnostically indicative of cognitive impairment (CI). It was a retrospective, case control study. It appears they were already doing the test and decided to case control it retrospectively by getting a normal sample group of similar age and gender. The gold standard appears to be clinical exam and DI to rule-out other causes of CI. They don’t mention the use of LP or biomarkers although it’s possible – my suspicion, given the retrospective nature of the study, was that diagnostic criteria varied by patient. Of the 133 in the “initial cohort” (e.g. those referred to a neurologist for CI) 65 where excluded (49%). No mention of meds that might impact olfactory response. This resulted in 4 groups; 18 with probable Alzheimer’s (AD), 24 amnestic CI, 26 with other causes and 26 in the control group. The mean sniffing distance for all groups and the right nostril of the AD group was (roughly) 17+/-9cm whereas the left nostril of the AD group was 5.1+/-4.9 cm. The study suffers from huge selection bias, observational bias and I question why they didn’t use long-term follow-up as part of the gold standard given the diagnostic challenges of Alzheimer’s. The point of this, is that it’s an interesting study and may lead to something bigger but it’s a far cry from a potential screening tool which is what many of the press reports imply. Why not create a “sniff test” article (generic – to the standards of MEDMOS for tests) rather than this specific peanut butter one? Ian Furst (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is then an entryway to discuss Olfactory test cognitive impairment, and what published papers to date do have to say. In this way we are leveraging the notable interest, which is, for better or worse, the same kind of hook our own DYK articles, and mass media use, to talk about subjects that might otherwise be too boring for people to cake much about. Meanwhile we can also talk about the relative weight of any findings and offer insight what readers should consider with a report like this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete We have about 25 million primary sources on pubmed. Not all of them deserve an article. This study is small and simply not notable. Would not allow any of the refs used here to be used within a medical article per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good reason not to let WP:MEDRS run rampant deleting content and sources. If this were the Olfactory test cognitive impairment article, then arguably fine, hack away, but this is an adjacent article, where not everything has to be governed by a standard that, in my opinion, should not apply to every facet of every article that has some medical content. Ideally WP:MEDRS would be applied to specific medically-focussed sections so that our readers could tell what is being reported from that perspective. I think by forcing an article, specifically one that is not a medical one, to be seen through a WP:MEDRS filter, Wikipedia then violates its own NPOV by presenting only that aspect. I think a reasonable compromise is to find ways to specify what medical science has to say on a subject without overwhelming all other content and sourcing. In the case of Peanut butter test perhaps a section just on "Background on olfactory test cognitive impairment" would meet both concerns and serve our readers, rather than dismiss the entire subject out of hand. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • It is trivia which will likely come to nothing and never be looked at again. It is the type of quirky stuff that makes the news. And is part of the reason why Wikipedia is so unbalanced. Major events like the death of 10s of thousands are occurring due to starvation in Chad, were peanut butter might be of some use. The media more or less ignores this story and instead concentrates on the use of people butter in 15 people with AD which is unconfirmed by any others. We at Wikipedia do not need to follow suit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your take, I just don't agree. I see reporting on this subject NPOVly as being balanced, Wikipedia does not make the news, we follow what is reported, even if we may feel it is trivial, or trivializing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        • With due respect Sportsfan5000, this story and article is exclusively about the report of a single sign in a medical exam. How can it not be subject to MEDMOS? To write this article properly, someone would need to review the study alone then add a blurb at the end about press coverage for a week. Compare it to Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Other "filters" would include press coverage of a topic but I don't think other groups in Wikipedia would find the topic coverage notible either. This doesn't mean that an article can't be created nor the press coverage from this excluded but it should, imo, be based on better research. Ian Furst (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was responding to the all or nothing, black and white approach when I really think there is room for NPOV presentation that doesn't have to be oppressed by the MEDRS reasoning that only MEDRS sourcing is allowed. We report on subjects all the time that are debunked without going to great lengths to dismiss the ideas, or people behind them. There is room to present a good article without compromising NOV and caging this as only quackery. When the good folks behind MEDRS do this they change to level of disrepute of Wikipedia, to, for lack of better term, an ivory-tower elitism. Not all folk remedies are hokum, and we can't pretend the sum of human medical knowledge rests silly with those who are in the pipelines to even get published. Let alone the many compromising forces funding research, and why research does always serve the best interests of humankind. Their are inherent flaws throughout, so let's be mindful of systematic bias, and perhaps think of the best ways to serve our readers. Present the subject as reported, perhaps delve into what were there reasons, funding, etc. Include a section on how the field has evolved, and give any specific medical science to he subject. No reason their study can't be qualified as being limited yet popularly reported. Perhaps there is an opportunity here, if sources make the connection, why society spends too much time reporting on the peanut butter effect, and not feeding peanut butter to the starving masses in Chad. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
• Keep without prejudice to future merge/redirect/rename - lots of mass media attention, linked above, to this particular study. There may be no real association between loss of smell and Alzheimer's, but either way it merits some coverage here. The suggestion to the contrary above alarmed me. Studies which don't end up panning out still should be covered! (E.g., "at one point initial study X hypothesized Y, but this turned out not to be the case as demonstrated in later study Z"). My vote is without prejudice to a future merge/redirect to an article on predicting cognitive impairment more broadly. There is no shortage of science on the topic - one recent study showed some potential for predicting dementia through lipids in blood tests. These studies should be treated together in a unified article, something like predicting amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neutrality^talk 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Northamerica1000 and User:Neutrality. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "they caution they can currently only use the test to confirm already-established diagnoses, but added that...we plan to..."? They "found" a test to confirm an already established diagnoses. Wow. This is not very notable from a scientific point of view. The references are crap from a medical point of view. But the marketing is very good. Ochiwar (talk) 21:28, 20 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear to be a noteworthy internet radio station. No independent, reliable, third party sources are found for this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All information I search for seems like an advertisement, so I cannot find any sources. It does not have anything notable about it, it mostly seems to be an average Internet radio station. We don't have articles on every single Internet radio station, and this one doesn't distinguish itself. --123chess456 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has been on the iTunes radio tuner for over a decade, which makes it one of the longer-term members of the service alongside DI.fm and SomaFM. Also the main streaming outlet for Bubba the Love Sponge, who is definitely notable. Haikupoet (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just reviewed the article myself, and also took a look at all the various articles that they are citing. To suggest that it is not a legitimate or notable internet radio service is baseless. They have been on iTunes for over ten years, are a preset on PS3 & PS4, and are one of the few internet radio stations respected enough to be a preset in GM vehicles. That's notable. They are also the primary in restaurant media for large companies like Subway, also showing they are a notable company. Radioio is also publically held, the home of the #26 talk personality in the US, is now hosted by Triton Digital. Not to mention the fact that there are many other articles, including SEC and Edgar Online articles and filings that make it very clear that this is a notable company and a service in the internet radio space. It seems to me that some part of this request for deletion must be personal, and not based on the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaBella242 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Thagor, did you actually look at the sources that they have cited in this new wiki? Biz.Yahoo.com, Fox News, LA Times, SEC.Gov, Talkers.com, globenewswire, bizjournals, BUSINESS WEEK! Really? "no reliable sources"? What am I missing? I can see an argument for deleting it based on the formatting. Its a mess. But that's not the case you are making. However, RadioIO is a truly legit company with a history that should be acknowledged and These resources do a great job cementing their place in internet radio history. This page just needs a little reformatting to make it easier on the reader to digest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigNoteDoc (talk • contribs) on Mar. 14 2014.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ^Weak keep, I'm a bit dubious of some of the sourcing at first blush, as press releases are generally self-serving, but can support non-contentious claims. Also WP:Primary sources, are also sometimes acceptable, but will also be seen as suspicious. For this willing to invest the time looking, we needs news articles, even television reports that talk about this enterprise. I did see they were public traded so likely there are business news reports. Perhaps searching on the company's former name would help, as well as finding out a bit about the current executives. I think this is mainly a clean-up rather than notability issue, I also note that the name, is somewhat dreadful for pulling up a lot of false positives when searching. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  • Here are some leads, and even possible sources:
    • RadioIO announces integration of Triton Digital services
    • ioWorld Media, Inc. (OTC:IWDM)
    • RadioIO Adds To Cast Of Characters
    • RadioIO Offers Scalable Internet Radio Music Solution With Triton Digital
    • Radioio Inc (RDIO:OTC US)
    • Bubba The Love Sponge Gone From Sirius XM Radio
    • Radioio Credits Bubba The Love Sponge With Fast Growth
    • Radioio Inc (OTCQB: RDIO)
    • ioWorldMedia, Inc. Announces Appointment of Two New Board Members: New CEO and COO Added to the Company's Management Team to Strengthen Continued Expansion Into Internet Radio Market (press release)
    • Radioio, Inc. Common Stock Now Trades on the OTC Markets as "RDIO" (press release)
    • RadioIO Investor Relations
    • RADIOIO, INC.: RAIO (OTC) SEC Filings
  • Etc., this was the first few pages of many thousands. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • Changing to keep per presentation of many sources, thus well meeting GNG. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
• Comment. I have seen other articles where the sources that re press releases note that specifically by adding "Press release," as part of the citation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  • Does it not worry you that no one has found it worthwhile to write about this "company," and that the only publications are press releases (which are self-published and thus do not confer notability) and directory-style stock listings? I invested the time looking for these, and the result was that nothing came up to establish notability or an article that can be built from third-party sources. This is a policy matter of verifiability with reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the finding of reliable sources might be challenging, but i have already unearthed a small trove which leads me to believe there are more. As example, I sometimes will follow the leads presented in press releases to see who is the CEO of the company, for instance, and then look to see if they are reported on without explicit mentions of the current company name. I believe that it's not really easy to find strong sources, but I'm not convinced they don't exist as much as haven't been found yet. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
      • I wouldn't call anything that you've dug up thus far to be a reliable source for anything more than noting that the company exists. You have blogs and press releases. If you're convinced that the sources exist, but haven't been found yet, we should wait to have the article until those sources are located, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BEFORE asks that we do a good search before even nominating an article. And by characterizing all the sources i was able to easily find as press releases - (which I noted and offered how they can be used in a limited fashion as well as for leads to find reliable sources - and "blogs", which sounds like a disparagement when every leading business news company has blogs for most of their reporters and fields, seems needlessly dismissive. Let's see what others have to say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
          • No one is disparaging your efforts, merely pointing out the low quality and unreliability of the sources. If anything, citing WP:BEFORE to someone who has already told you they've invested the time is much more disparaging than questioning the value of possible sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not terribly interested in going another saga round of back and forth, as can be seen here, I think I'll allow others to opine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
• Comment I just looked at the references and agree that they're not particularly strong, but I suspect that it's because much of what was written about Radioio isn't archived and will take some deep searching to find. I'll start looking -- Radioio was one of the first internet radio companies and, at the very least, they have historical significance. JSFarman (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the Edgar's, SEC filings, and the links provided above, there's more than enough independent coverage to justify keeping the article:

• Jacksonville Business Journal
• LA Times
• Florida Times Union
• Radio Ink (13 search results)
• The Infinite Dial (Edison Research)
• CNET
• RAIN (Trade publication)
• PC World: Radioio, and IP delivery services provider Limelight Networks LLC have teamed up with Apple
• Florida Times Union
• Chicago Radio and Media
• Multiple hits at Audio4Cast
• 23 results from All Access
• RBR (Radio Broadcasting)
• Pillsbury Law (re: Radioio role in internet radio royalties)

That said, it needs a serious rewrite. Julie JSFarman (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, certainly significant amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per secondary sources provided above. Note, this is one of several instances of revenge editing by the nominator in the last several weeks. The only reason this article was nominated for deletion is because I added a citation to it on the Abby Martin article. I have brought the nominator to ANI for related disruption on the same set of articles per the examples cited at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS but the community has refused to do anything about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spreading false accusations around is not helping your case one bit. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only "case" at hand here is your case for deletion. There is nothing false about what I said, and you've admitted that you nominated this article for deletion because you saw me add a link to it on Abby Martin. Do you always deny things after you have admitted them? Strange. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I found it at an article" is not the same as "someone added it and I don't like them so I nominated it." Stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice hedge, but no. You did not just find it an article. You found an article on my talk page, as you've previously admitted, and then you nominated this article after you saw me add it as a link to the original article you stalked me from in the first place. And the fact that you followed me to this article not to collaborate but for combat, is clearly the same as "I don't like them so I nominated it". You've already admitted that you believe I deserve to be watched and you are doing the watching. Anything else you need me to clear up about your disruption, or will you just keep telling tall tales? Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to continue responding to paranoid claims in an AfD nomination. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a bad faith AfD nomination made by you, as you were engaging in revenge editing. I don't see how paranoia comes into the picture at all. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, A little bit of digging has now shown that not only does radioio seem to be notable, but there are ample media references to warrant a keep. If there are any doubts at this point, I'll point out two Wikipedia articles about deletions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DOUBT#When_in_doubt.2C_don.27t_delete

If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered. These include:

• Googling the subject to see what sources do exist. A regular web search may not provide as many reliable sources as Google News, Books, or Scholar, so it is preferable to try the latter three. Please be aware that not all deletions are about sources or lack thereof.
• Discussing issues with the article on the talk page. Here, you can wait to get a response from one or more others regarding whether or not it should be deleted. This is also a way to discuss possible changes that can be made in lieu of deletion.
• Having a one-on-one discussion with the page's creator in order to learn his/her point-of-view, knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, what s/he was thinking when s/he created it, and his/her plans for that page's future.
• Placing templates on top of the page informing others who read or edit the page of the issues so they can be improved. Template:Article issues lists most of the possible templates that can be placed on top of a page.
• Suggesting the page be merged or boldly merging the page oneself. Merging can be done and undone without a discussion and without administrative intervention.

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BATHWATER#Don.27t_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater.21

So, an article is not perfect. It is tagged for multiple issues. Its notability is in question. It has few if any references. It has some inaccurate or questionable information. It had loads of original research. But still, it has just the little spark of hope of being a viable article.

Well, if this is the case, the deletion process is not the route to take to solve the problems. That's what the talk page is for. Deletion of an article is damaging to Wikipedia and should only be used as a last resort. Content removal can be used to weed out problematic areas. Other adjustments can be made, which may include the addition of information and sources. It may take a lot of work. But it is well worth it!

On the other hand, there must actually be a baby in the bathwater. An article shouldn't be kept on the hopes that sources may be written about the topic one day; we all know that babies don't come from spontaneous generation in a dirty tub. They are brought by storks.

Keep. StellaBella24220:32, 17 March 2014 (EST)

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide the coverage that would be necessary to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker^talk 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No substantial coverage in WP:RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 22 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence the notability of this voice actor under WP:BASIC. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker^talk 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Written like an advertisement. Only one secondary source, however the reliability of the source is in question (referring to "The Linguist" issue 48.2). ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 00:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This sounds similar to English as a lingua franca, but I gather the movements are distinct. I'm not convinced this satisfies WP:GNG on its own, as it appears that most of the work is attributable to Joachim Grzega. A selective merge to International English might be warranted, though. Cnilep (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 14 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This film doesn't seem to meet the film notability guidelines. (No reliable independent sources.) Previously proposed for deletion; page creator contested. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per failing WP:NF. The actors seem to exist, but I have been unable to find any verifiability for this film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets notability guidelines, thanks. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is very likely a hoax (See User:Khursheed Khan Pictures). Khursheed Khan (not sure if that is his real name) photoshops himself into copyrighted photos of famous people to fake fame. Jespinos (talk) 16:39, 17 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP article about a rapper who is popular in his local area but unknown outside, suggesting that this article exists for publicity. The article was already deleted twice in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. This version has an additional citation or two, but nothing that I'd consider significant, seem to be all small niche publications. Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some coverage in reliable sources including [40], but not enough to meet WP:GNG and fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in the process of adding more information to the biography with more citations. I do believe this artist has enough popularity to be included in Wikipedia and the information I add will show this. I ask that you do not delete this page and allow me to edit it further to meet the guidelines. ~Hizeak (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you have a week. Go for it. I'm all for keeping articles that can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any coverage and the existing refs are not substantial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 22 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per This wired article and This Belarusian TV report I have been persuaded that this article has a better chance of meeting the GNG then was evidenced during the AFD. I am therefore undeleting the article. Further discussion at AFD is at editorial discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY, the subject's own online profiles, or the non-notable results of various high school competitions. Googling turned up nothing. Additionally, though not a reason to delete, I note that virtual all the content has been contributed by a series of WP:SPAs, suggesting the article is an WP:Autobiography. Finally, I note that's been tagged as needing better sources for almost 2 years. Msnicki (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are mainly results of competitions. No significant coverage (he's not even mentioned in all of them) and there's no indication that any of these events are important.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BIO. Sources confirming awards are all primary. Needs some mainstream press to meet WP:BIO which is non evident. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 24 March 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Essentially unsourced BLP (IMDB is not considered reliable), nor was I able to find any coverage that I can find that would meet WP:GNG, nor establish the significance of his roles to reach WP:ENT #1. There is a mention of him here in the comments, but not in the article itself: http://www.backstage.com/interview/matthew-mcconaughey-jennifer-garner-and-jared-leto-had-make-fast-choices-dallas-buyers-club/ -- that's the *most* si

Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker^talk 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]