< 7 October	9 October >

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Lozada[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails Wikipedia's Notability criteria. Mercy11 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, the subject fails WP:GNG. I can't find significant coverages from reliable sources to establish her notability. Its WP:TOOSOON if ever. Wikicology (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional page for an aspiring model. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMS (Clothing)[edit]

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

Despite the grandiose claims this company does not seem to be notable. The best source I found is this passing mention which provides no significant details. Huon (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suppose it is possible for the company to be notable and the relationships with various groups and organisations mean that it may well be one day. But I don't think we're there now and the current article is a horribly-written advertisement. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see current evidence of notability -- and as noted, the article is just a few steps away from being a candidate for WP:TNT. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible CSD G11+A7: An article making grandiose claims (along with some sentences which are incoherent) but without evidence that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be notable in the future but not now. Delete as inherently self-promotional. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe it is notable as it manufactures the kit for two senior national teams. IJA (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. Noteswork (talk) 21:05, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Harutyunyan[edit]

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

Non notable person. Google news search returns no hits [1], and Google books search returns one hit [2] without significant coverage. All the sources cited in the article are written by the subject (not reliable). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe rather too quick to start an AfD, was done only a few hours after the article was created. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Harutyunyan was born in the Soviet Union, which was the reason his works have not been published in any languages other than Armenian and Russian. However, his work has left a tremendous impact on the development of Armenian science, and if he had been born in another country he would have been much more notable in the international scientific community. Besides, he is the founder of the Armenia's largest private University, for which reaason I think he deserves a page in Wikipedia. I will be improving the article and adding more references and pictures which will hopefully make his work and personality look more relevant. Diana Balasanyan (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The claim that Harutyunyan founded Haybusak University seems to be confirmed by this (unfortunately leading to a dead link, hopefully better sources can be found). GS doesn't come up with much either, but perhaps his name was transcribed differently. Given his birth date, I would expect that the bulk of his publications were not only in Armenian/Russian, but also pre-Internet, so that the absence of GNews hits and such is to be expected. Some independent RS would be nice, though... --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (To) Diana Welcome Diana. 'Pictures' will not add much to the notability of the professor. Please try hard to find 'multiple independent reliable sources' instead. These may well be in Russian and Armenian or in any other language, as long as we can trust them and they prove notability. You have -at least- one week of discussion period. Try 'Harutyunian' also. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A scholar that has founded a university seems pretty notable to me. This is confirmed on the official website of the University. And the fact that he is an author of 400 research papers and about 400 essays appears to be confirmed by several reliable sources as well. And being awarded for this by the President of Armenia is no small feat. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have updated the article to Wikipedia standards. The user who created it appears to be fairly new and that may be one of the reasons why this AfD occurred. I will continue to expand the article and add necessary sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to above promise. The recent sources added seem not to be sufficient enough. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject of the article meet WP:GNG as founder of a university. This source support the claim that he was the founder of Haybusak University of Yerevan. The fact that sources are difficult to verify has not make a subject non-notable. It is very likely that the sources are not in english perhaps, pre-internet. Wikicology (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability established by his founding of an important educational institute, his list of publications, as well as his academic status. Article is also in a much better state now than when AfD was initiated. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 - very similar to previous and G5 - creation by blocked user Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connswater Shopping Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

advertising and WP:ORThe Banner talk 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would like to keep this page and build upon it further. I don't get why you would try to fix things then just nominate it, we should be helping improve. This isn't here for advertising, it's here to state this is a place of Northern Ireland, this is a Shopping Centre. Sources present in this state facts and is research into the centre. There is more stuff I can include, which I will over the next few days, but nominating it right away won't allow me to develop further. CDRL98 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EastBelfastBoy The Banner talk 22:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why this should be deleted, it's an interesting piece the author has not even been given sufficient time to create the article. Plus, you can see the nominator was actually deleting parts of the article whilst the editor was creating it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC) And claims of advertising seem spurious at most, it reads more like a history of a notable building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC) As an aside, I also found this which seems enlightening - nominator has a habit of maverickly nominating articles for deletion maybe? User_talk:The_Banner#Bad_faith[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically an advertisement and centre directory. There's a handful of local press coverage but nothing in the way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources outside of the immediate vicinity of the centre. Attacks on the nominator, claims it is interesting, and attempts to plead for mercy are not reasons for keeping this. And the sock-puppetry here seems blindingly obvious. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hope the fact I am EBB is "blindingly obvious" as I do say that's who I am, but take time to read the actual investigation and understand what i'm saying. If you don't get it query me. CDRL98 (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harem Scarem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen (Harem Scarem album)[edit]

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

No indication that the album is notable yet - not released yet, not reviewed, no significant pre-release buzz beyond the band's own announcements. Huon (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huon is incorrect, plenty of posts on google to support a page as well as the history of the band. No reason at all to delete this page.(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harem_Scarem#Discography. The problem here is that WP:GHITS doesn't actually mean anything when it comes to something's notability. Something could come up with thousands of hits in a search, yet if none of those are considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines then they cannot show notability regardless of the number brought up. Heck, I've seen instances where something has come up with millions of search results, but almost none of them were usable as RS that could show notability. In contrast, I've seen instances where a topic had less than a handful of result pages, yet they had enough coverage to merit a keep. As far as Thirteen goes, there just isn't any coverage out there. So far the coverage has all been WP:PRIMARY or in places that would be seen as otherwise unusable as a reliable source. Nobody is doubting that the album has been announced or that the band has every intention of releasing this once it's all done, but right now it is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. The only reasonably useful source I found was this link. Perhaps this will change once the campaign is over, but until we have that coverage there's really nothing we can do about it unless one of us happens to have an "in" with several news corporations and can get them to run stories on the album. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harem Scarem#Rejuvenation where it is already mentioned. Until the album is at least recorded it doesn't merit an article and shouldn't be included in a discography until it's certain that it's going to be released. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 9 October 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. Non of the keeps gave any policy based reasoning, delete rationales indicates this fails WP:V and WP:GNG Secret ^account 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Institute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was kept at AfD in 2005, but notability standards on Wikipedia were far less developed at that time. Article has been tagged for notability since 2010. Article was improperly PRODed, which I declined procedurally, but it probably needs to be discussed again, particularly after being tagged for notability for four years now. Safiel (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no clear reason for deletion has been given, merely quoting notability standards is not a reason of itself. On the other hand the previous Afd has given abundant reasons why it should be kept, all of which still apply. It is still true that " the institute offers professional qualifications in psychotherapy accredited by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (which is one of two independent national accreditation bodies recognised for psychotherapists used by the UK National Health Service) and masters degrees accredited by Middlesex University". ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SqueakBox (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Comment The fact that the article has been tagged for four years for notability and nobody has felt confident enough to remove the tag is prima facie indication that there is at least a valid assertion of lack of notability. The institute may or may not be notable, however, from what I can discern from the article at the moment does not appear to establish notability. It is ALWAYS the 100% burden of those creating or adding to content to establish that such content is notable. Those impeaching notability carry no such burden. Right now, I am merely impeaching notability. If you can add reliable sources that indicate that the content clearly meets the notability criteria, I will be happy to withdraw this AfD. However, until that happens, at the very least, this AfD should run its course. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, Safiel , we now have five reliable sources and no tags. Are you willing to fulfil your word and withdraw the afd or at least change your view on it being worthy of deletion? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SqueakBox: unless I'm missing something, the page has zero sources that help to establish notability. Primary sources, written by people affiliated with the organization, are automatically disqualified, as are brief mentions -- the sources have to be about the subject. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary comment Regarding the first AfD nomination in 2005. While on the face it appeared to be a snow keep, very few actual arguments where made. Most of the keeps made no arguments at all. As such, I don't feel the first AfD should at all be influential in determining the current AfD. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It STILL is non-notable, I'm not even sure why the first AfD was "keep". Nine years later and the page remains non-notable and still is uncited. "This article does not cite any references or sources. (May 2010) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (May 2010)" Those tags remain totally unaddressed. Ogress _smash! 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was kept cos that is what every editor who contributed wanted, or are you suggesting the closer should have deleted anyway? The tag issues are now being addressed and I trust that you will thus contemplate changing your mind. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have long kept tertiary education institutions, and this one awards Master's degrees, because of their important status in society and the education system. The best way forward is to expand and add sources not to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Just Chilling: see comment below on this. It doesn't award master's degrees; Middlesex does. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Adequate notability established. Needs expansion, but that is not grounds for AfD. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH.Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Montanabw: - It hasn't, which is why this discussion exists. There are currently zero of the kind of independent, reliable sources required to pass [WP:GNG|notability criteria]]. Can you elaborate? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In your opinion, not mine. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We typically keep independently accredited degree-granting institutions of higher education, but I don't know that this qualifies. If you look at the fine print, it's accredited by a psychotherapy group, yes, but that doesn't let them grant degrees as far as I know -- it's their connection to Middlesex University that does so. In fact, if you look at their admissions application, you actually send it to Middlesex. Individual institutions under the umbrella or affiliated with a university do not themselves have any sort of sources-indifferent inclusion precedent. Indeed, it's not part of Middlesex University proper, but has to stand on its own with independent reliable sources to establish notability -- and I'm not seeing those. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the current references are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I looked through all the Google searches in the Find sources links above without finding any either, and also searched on NewsBank#Access World News, which gave 9 hits, but none to significant coverage: I initially thought this article in The Times (via Internet Archive) might qualify, but soon realised it concerns the Karuna Institute of Buddhist Studies in Taiwan, which is not connected to this institute in Devon. The other hits were mere mentions, most saying no more than that someone trained there. Qwfp (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Steenkamp[edit]

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

Am not convinces that the subject of this article meet WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR Wikicology (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would convince you? BoonDock (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage to reliable sources that establish his notability as an author as well as meeting the required criteria to merit a page per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Also H-index of his books is important as well. Wikicology (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that Willem Steenkamp is widely quoted and cited in his field, that of Military History of South Africa. His books served for many years as the ONLY publically available information on the Border War and almost any research subsequently includes at least one of his books in its bibliography. On the other hand, he is not an academic. The article makes no claim that he is and I don't see why that is hauled out as a requirement? BoonDock (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many scientists, historians, researchers, writers, philosophers and other scholars are collectively referred to as "academics". Not until the word ACADEMIC reflect on the body of an article. Wikicology (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even in a quick Google search, it is obvious that this person is notable in South Africa as a journalist, a writer, an organiser of events, a speaker, a media personality, and he is widely quoted in theses, journals, and other publications for his first hand knowledge of the war in Angola and the history of southern Africa in general. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. There's much more but I limited myself to what I could find within a few minutes.
Withdraw Nomination: per the above findings. Wikicology (talk) 05:49, 9 October 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. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 18:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of George W. Bush[edit]

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

It should be deleted. We all want to forget these dark years of Republican rule.--User Userz (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep joke nomination at best, disruptive at worst. Jinkinson talk to me 18:13, 8 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Rose[edit]

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

A singer with just one album so far. I say redirect to his old band or delete for now. Wgolf (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that this article seems to be here purely to promote a recent album. There are a couple of reviews online but they do not appear to be jounrnalistic sources ([3] [4]). The band doesn't seem to be notable either! Sionk (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG; only one album! Quis separabit? 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sionk. I agree that the band article needs review as well. Dennis 2¢ 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have nominated the Band for Deletion as well it fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 14 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saber Houshmand[edit]

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

Had it as a prod (like I do for tons of these volleyball players), but it seems that it is more of a unotable thing then anything Wgolf (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Gholipouri[edit]

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

Unotable, long dead link Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming for the moment that the dead link supports the facts as stated in the article -- it still doesn't matter. It doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panupong Toyam[edit]

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

another one of these volleyball players who is unotable and has a long dead link Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google reveals lots of passing mentions, mostly news articles reporting on competitions. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah I wish I just put a prod on some of these instead ha ha. But yeah it is a bit too much on how many there are. Wgolf (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. More pictures than average for this minor player, but still no evidence of notability: no Olympics, no medals in other major tournaments. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:27, 15 October 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. Deor (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven von Niederhausern[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable (GNG); also blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Definitely promotionalism Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP, fails BIO --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 16 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Sumner[edit]

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

Claim to fame is that Sting is his dad. Now maybe someday he can get his own page-but not yet. I say for now redirect to Sting. Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wgolf and WP:NOTINHERITED. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Sting. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - leaving the redirect to Dad. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 17:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Ochoa[edit]

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

Yet another LDS general authority article that has no sources except from LDS websites. As there is no policy stating that LDS general authorities are inherently notable, we default to GNG, which is clearly not met with this article. p b p 03:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been capably argued with other articles about general authorities, just because they fail GNG doesn't automatically make them unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I still believe that Vojen's excellent argument on this matter cannot be overlooked. The main argument against it? That it ignores GNG, which Vojen freely admits. As previously noted, there have been other articles that are more poorly sourced than this one, or not sourced at all, which remain untouched. I don't like the double standard here. Either all of these articles should be kept or none of them should be. I see a dangerous precedent being set. If we allow poorly sourced or non-sourced articles to remain while informational articles such as this, even if the sources tend to come from one particular organization and thus "violate" GNG, we are sending a clear message that we don't want to risk anyone being enlightened about such subjects. And I'm not sure that's a message we want to be sending. What about those users who come here for information on general authorities and can't find them? If you are going to argue that Second Quorum members fail GNG, then surely dead prophets and apostles do too, since their legacy has no further impact. I believe everyone would agree it would be foolhardy to suggest that any of those articles be deleted. So I have to ask why Second Quorum members are being unfairly singled out, simply because their service is not considered lifelong? As with other deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I will be monitoring this page to see how this discussion turns out. And, as with previous deletion discussions, I urge civility and good faith in all discourses related to this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, would you rather I started 10-15 separate AfDs all at once? The way I'm doing it (stringing the AfDs out over 3 months and counting) allows you that much more time to try to source the articles. And, yes, Vojen's argument can be overlooked, because he, and you, are ignoring the primary guideline that determines whether articles stay or go. The only message we are sending by enforcing GNG is that articles require reliable sources to be articles. You don't seem to understand that that is a must for any Wikipedia article, and it's even more of a must for somebody like Ochoa who is still living. Comparing living dead general authorities to dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve is apples and oranges. Dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve are not only exempt from BLP, they may have more information written about them. "Impact of legacy" is not a determiner for keeping articles, sourcing is. Claiming that this article should be allowed to exist while other articles that are seemingly worse are allowed to remain is generally considered an invalid argument. From your responses in this and other AfDs, it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand GNG. I suggest you read it, as Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, before participating in more AfDs or creating more LDS authority articles. p b p 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to begin with the discussion on Randy Funk provided strong arguments on why these articles should be kept. Additionally, Ochoa has served both as a counselor in the general presidency of the Young Men and as a general authority. This gives more points of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:, there's no such thing as points of notability. You're either notable or not. Notability is determined by reliable independent sources. This article has none. As for claiming the Randy Funk case sets a precedent for keeping these, setting aside any issue of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Jgstokes tried to apply the consensus at Funk to other articles in a DRV. The deletion of those articles was endorsed, and it's likely that Funk himself would also be deleted if nominated a second time. p b p 06:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89:, if you're going to argue that Funk would likely be deleted if nominated a second time, then how do you explain the fact that, using the same argument that saved the Funk article, the deletion discussion about Wilford W. Andersen was voted first as no consensus, then as keep? Just curious to understand your reasoning. And I know what I said about the previous comment likely being my only one, but when I saw your latest reply, I just had to ask. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, you do realize the reason the Funk and Anderson articles were saved wasn't because you had a good argument (you don't), but was because you, Vojen, and JPL were the only people who voted, don't you? The Anderson article was closed as no consensus the first time because it was a mass nomination, and the community requested it be split into individual, and the second time because of low participation. Remember what happened when you tried to extrapolate the Anderson and Funk closes into restoring deleted LDS authority articles? In a discussion where there was much more community participation, the community said keep them deleted, and other editors expressed surprised that the Anderson and Funk articles were kept. Likewise, you can't extrapolate you getting lucky a couple of times to keeping this article. As I noted on your talk page, there are only two ways to stop most of the LDS general authority articles from being deleted: 1) adequately source them, or 2) try to get a consensus at the Village Pump that all General authority articles are notable. p b p 11:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About the wikilawyering concerning some "automatic notability" for Mormon authorities, there is an established consensus at AfDs and DRV that being a Mormon authority is not a "free pass" for having an article on Wikipedia. The problem here is that have no neutral or independent source about Ochoa, just some routinely Church News coverage. No apparent chance of passing WP:GNG or any other SNG. Cavarrone 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At this point, I don't see sufficient coverage in reliable sources. If you can find independent reliable sources, then fine -- but until then, the article should not exist. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient non-primary or secondary sources that provide the subject significant coverage that suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. Alternatively, the article can be changed to a redirect to the article about General authority, such as this article List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however until the subject can meet WP:GNG from non-secondary and non-primary sources, I believe this article falls under too soon, and I wouldn't be opposed to the the creators incubating the article until the time arises when there are sufficient tertiary sources to show independent notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 16 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Migyanka[edit]

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

Scarcely source biography (more ((cn)) than sources). And even if everything was true, it still does not meet notability in my eyes. bender235 (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he is quoted a couple of times, but the only reference I can find about him as a person is a self-penned "about the author" in a book for which he wrote the forward. He is a managing partner in a firm with 10 employees (the businessweek reference.) Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines, including GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no more than WP:TRIVIAL mentions, certainly not meeting WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shipan Mitra[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. PROD and maintenance tags were removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:38, 23 September 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 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 8 October 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. Secret ^account 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scheiner Law Group[edit]

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

This article is nothing more than an advertisement/directory listing. There is no evidence of in-depth significant coverage of this firm in reliable independent sources. The references are simply various certifications and ratings and "find-a-lawyer" services which contain material supplied by the subject. I can find nothing better. That the senior partner is a "Texas Super Lawyer" according to the website Super Lawyers appears to be the firm's greatest claim to fame. The criteria for that is based on the site's evaluation of a lawyer as being in the top 5% in a particular US State. Texas has 95,000 active members of the State Bar, i.e. the senior partner of this firm is is one of 5000 lawyers. This is not sufficient to warrant an article about him, let alone his firm. Note that this article was originally deleted as unambiguous advertising and recreated. The only difference between the two versions was the removal of the advertorial section on their staff members [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not mentioned in any newspapers or books. External websites cannot be a reliable source. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course websites can be reliable sources (snopes? fact checkers? etc. etc.), but they have to be secondary and independent and provide significant coverage as well. (The Super Lawyers website is a primary source for the fact that Scheiner is a Texas Super Lawyer.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete*: I couldn't find any significant coverage of the firm in independent secondary sources. However, I'm open to a possible redirect to Grant Scheiner as the guy is frequently quoted in prominent cases. This Hindu source is a good example because he's quoted extensively throughout the article, but there are many more (e.g. [6][7][8][9]). My inclination is that these aren't "significant coverage" about Mr. Scheiner, and therefore he doesn't meet WP:BIO, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just now restored the entire article history, upon request. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect as needed. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 11 October 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. Secret ^account 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sawiq[edit]

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

Sawiq is evidently Arabic for "flour" or some sort of cereal product - not a "type of flower" as the article states. The first cited source, The Life of Teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, says it means flour, as does this source, and this source says barley mush. It's not a separate species, article creator messed up. Seems an unlikely search term, or I'd just redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong but its too late. I dont know if this can be withdrawn now "Sawiq, a food of the common people, was a kind of dried barley meal mixed with water, butter, or aliva". I also tought that it might have been quite evident that a misspelled "flour" as "flower" in this article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete & Merge the contents to an already existing article, related to culture of ancient Arabs.-Vatsan34 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article about ancient arabs. there is an article on pre islamic arabia. but this Sawiq is soemthing from muhammad's era (7th century forward). It would not be suitable at all to merge this with Arab article or any arabic food article. This is 7th century food which is virtually extinct--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic word for flour is tahine not sawiq, why cite one source wrongly claiming sawiq means "flour" when a million others clearly say the arabic word for flour is tahine?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just googled the term and came up with this. It's an interesting piece of trivia but I'm not convinced it's notable enough for it's own article. Based on the ingredients listed, pop the content in Porridge or perhaps Gruel and add a note in Arab cuisine? Dolescum (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Prophethood (Ahmadiyya). Whether or not "Ahmadiyyah is a fringe Islamic sect" is irrelevant here, we are only concerned with notability and fringe subjects (whether in science or religion) can certainly be notable. The current article is rather badly written and another, somewhat better one, on almost the same subject is available. Therefore I am redirecting this to Prophethood (Ahmadiyya). Any content worth merging there is still available in the history of the redirect. Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria of True Prophet[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Article is entirely based on primary sources (Quranic verses) and partisan secondary sources (Ahmadi literature arguing for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim to prophethood). This is evident in the very first citation, which states, "The Ahmadiyya Missionary at Canada has written a treatise on the subject. The proofs from the Quran have been summarised in it. The article is based on Ansar Raza's treatise." Not a single third-party source is cited to show notability of the topic or to support any part of the article. Article has been tagged for months with regards to POV, notability, original research, etc., yet no improvements have been made. Axiom292 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentMy recommendation for this article is that non-islamic sources are added like books from religious writers with an academic title. The current content indeed only applies to a certain belief system which is too specific to have for a new article. I think though that the subject of the criteria of a true prophet are an important subject in islam and there should be information about it on wikipedia. It could be possibly included in an article about islamic laws. Bokareis (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ahmadiyyah is a fringe Islamic sect. Their views are given undue weight in this article. Muslims consider Muhammad the last prophet. Ahmadiyyah do not, just having this article is the same as promoting a fringe view over a mainstream view. Ahmadiyyah's make up about 3 million out of the 1.6 billion muslims, thats how fringe it is. Its in the same level as Nation of Islam--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Misconceptions2: Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think we use WP:FRINGE for minor religious movements, and one with 3 million adherents is not that small. Perhaps the appropriate thing to do would be to rename the article to something like "Ahmadiyyah Criteria for a True Prophet" and change the language of the article to say "Ahmadiyyah believe that..." and so forth. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your solution violates WP:POVFORK. Regardless, as far as I can tell the topic fails WP:GNG, so there is no basis for the article to exist in the first place.--Axiom292 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a POV fork, it's an article about what is arguably the defining belief of a cult with over three million adherents (and the notion that it fails WP:GNG is a little silly, frankly.) We mustn't treat articles about religious topics as if they were about statements of fact - if we did, we would have to note in every article on an Islamic subject that essentially every statement is a minority view, simply because most people are not Muslims. Since that would be absurd, we instead write "Scientologists believe this," "Mormons believe that" and so forth. If the subject is relevant to several religions, we try to include all views, so the Jesus article contains information about both Muslim and Christian beliefs as well as the beliefs of smaller religious movements. In this case, though, other Islamic sects lack criteria for prophethood, and therefore have nothing to say about this topic except that they don't believe in it. The overwhelming majority of people on Earth are non-Scientologists like myself who dispute the existence of Xenu, but that doesn't stop us from having an article on him, because he is relevant as part of Scientologists' beliefs. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it would not be considered a POV fork. But regarding notability - I am not denying the importance of prophethood in the Ahmadi faith, which your Google Books search ([10]) shows. In fact there is already an article, Prophethood (Ahmadiyya). However can you find any third-party sources discussing the Ahmadi religion's "criteria of a true prophet"? The original editor of the article has explicitly stated that the article is a summary of one polemical booklet by an Ahmadi missionary, Ansar Raza. Yet the article currently is nothing more than a hodgepodge of direct quotes to primary sources along with many unreferenced interpretations - not even Ahmadi sources are cited. I could not even find some of the article's points in Raza's booklet. Apart from even a mention in third-party sources, is there even a standard list of these "criteria of a true prophet" across different Ahmadi sources? Even if there was, neutral third-party sources would still be necessary. Otherwise if the article is renamed and rewritten anyway, then in the absence of third-party sources another new article titled "Islamic view of Ahmadiyyah Criteria for a True Prophet" seems just as notable, because just like Raza's booklet, there are plenty of anti-Ahmadi works giving an alternate interpretation of the sources presented by Ahmadis.--Axiom292 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above, and because this is sadly not the first time I have seen minority Islamic religious views come under attack on Wikipedia. I would like to see better and more neutral (secular) references provided, which should be easy in light of the enormous number of sources available: [11]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:10, 7 October 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, Sandstein 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with Prophethood (Ahmadiyya). That would keep whatever information is in the article and address the "attack" mentioned above by Sammy1339. (As an aside, if you see these enormous number of available resources, then feel free to boldly add them to the article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can add the criteria of prophet specified in various other religious texts. Just because Ahmadiyya forms smaller group doesn't make their contribution invalid. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 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) 00:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Basumatary[edit]

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

~~Falls under too soon, if ever. (unotable actor who has only done really small films) Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)~~Withdrawn[reply]

'Keep' : Four of reliable sources (cited in References) carry article centered on him. Have developed the article to lesser extant. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —innotata 16:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —innotata 16:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-withdrawing. Sorry it just poorly written I think to where when I was reading it, it made it sound like he was VERY unotable (low budget and just a few films) Wgolf (talk) 17:59, 8 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic state (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Dab with 1 valid item Islamic state. The second item listed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not valid because:

we have a WP:DABCONCEPT Islamic state
- any dab page entries that are examples included in the DABCONCEPT should not be listed in the dab (per DABCONCEPT)
- I've removed/moved all the previous entries which were examples of the DABCONCEPT (but the last remaining one has not been removed yet)
- That leaves a dab with 1 valid item to the dab. Incoming (hatnotes, interdab) links already removed. (Full details of justification are at Talk:Islamic_state_(disambiguation)#DABCONCEPT)
WP:TWODABS is a red herring, this last item (just like all the others) are examples included in the DABCONCEPT Islamic state, so should not be listed in the dab as well as the DABCONCEPT per DABCONCEPT Widefox; talk 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC) (updated Widefox; talk 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. I'm not quite sure what the nominator's reason means, but WP:TWODABS provides that hatnotes are the correct option to distinguish between Islamic state (governance based on sharia) and Islamic State (the internationally unrecognized country "established" by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). If this AFD concludes with this outcome, an additional hatnote will be needed at the latter article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) TWODABS says we can have it (or just use a hatnote instead) if ISIL is a valid entry. DABCONCEPT says ISIL isn't a valid entry. It is a dab with 0 1 valid entries. "The latter article" (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is unchanged, as are redirects, so needs no hatnote because of this change. I've retargetted Islamic State to Islamic state, and removed all hatnotes to the dab. Widefox; talk 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that this isn't really the situation DABCONCEPT embodies, and that a hatnote from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Islamic state is necessary. But that has very little to do with the outcome of this AFD, yes? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Islamic State --redirects--> Islamic state (a DABCONCEPT). Readers typing either will navigate that way via the hatnote at Islamic state to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They never see this dab, and so deleting it doesn't change any hatnotes (apart from the Islamic State one which I've already retargeted to the DABCONCEPT). The issue of where "Islamic State" should target is a completely separate issue unrelated to this (and there was a recent (now old) RfD which covers it.) Widefox; talk 07:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 1 October 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, Sandstein 16:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After much contemplation, I conclude that all of the other meanings previously on the page are only partial title matches, and were properly removed from the page, leaving a WP:TWODABS situation for which the primary topic has already been determined. bd2412 T 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a delete based on TWODABS is optional. My reasoning was: as it is a primary DABCONCEPT with all items in the dab covered as examples the primary DABCONCEPT, it's not even TWODABS. The challenge is that the primary is not WP:RECENTLY based on usage due to the ISIL example. Widefox; talk 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Islamic State should go to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Islamic state should go to Islamic state. See, nothing to disambiguate. Claimsworth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Roco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was going to remove the bad sources, but then I realized that if I removed the agenda-based sources that lack editorial oversight/fact-checking, the sources affiliated with the subject, etc., there just wasn't anything left, basically. Dude isn't notable, never even got out of his party's primary. Not a GNG/BIO pass. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable BLP. being cousin of a "the late Philippine Senator" is not notable. running for US senate and not-winning your own party's primary vote is not notable. being a hots/producer on public access tv is not notable.Cramyourspam (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Strong Delete since this article was already deleted once AND in that debate, there was an AUTOBIOGRAPHY confession "I ...typed the entry, John Roco ....I made it. I tried remove all unbiased parts, but is hard when you are actually John Roco so please jury", said User:John Roco. Elsewhere appears this: " I am John Roco and was recently deleted.... yes, I did the 'John Roco' article" said User:John Roco. since the User:John Roco account has been inactive since 2010, i believe the new article is the work of a WP:SOCK.Cramyourspam (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems probable since the creator's only contributions are making this article and linking/talking about Roco in other articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here. The advocacy organization he founded has already been deleted as non-notable, and his political endeavors fell far short of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The revelations provided by Cram clearly point to a conflict of interest issue to the point that the references given must be highly suspect in their reliability and independence of the subject. BritainD (talk) 00:15, 15 October 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. Secret ^account 17:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Jama[edit]

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

No RS that can pass WP:ACTOR Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure there is. She's also been nominated for several awards. Middayexpress (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ says the original writer of the article. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, WP:NOTE. co-starring in a tv show that ran in part of canada for half a season (just six episides, acording to IMDB) is acting, but is not notable enough for listing as an actor. being nominated for award/s from various membership organizations is not notable.Cramyourspam (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's actually been acting since 2006 and has starred in both feature films and series. She is also not a member of either award organization. Middayexpress (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ thanks again, the original writer of the article. apparently she was not listed on any film cast on IMDB before 2010 ("2013-2014 Go Fish (TV Series), Naomee /6 episodes; 2011 Devil's Candy (Short), Saleisha; 2010 Body Language (TV Series), Lisa / 1 episode"). and the IMDB is a really low hurdle to jump. maybe dig up some NEUTRAL and reliable references --not ones with user-supplied content-- and add them to the article to establish WP:NOTE. so far, not there.Cramyourspam (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No prob (and yes, as noted above, I am indeed the original writer). That said, although not exhaustive, IMDBPro (which isn't used as a reference) actually contains many other film productions of hers. This includes her first independent feature in 2006 and first TV show [12]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick pass of Canadian sources didn't find much, nor did I find much in US news media, nothing in selected African news media, nor in entertainment press, so unless sources can be found, article doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 16 October 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. Secret ^account 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shhuddhi[edit]

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

From the same person who made the page for Sultan (2016 film), I think these are possible hoaxes and should probably be speedied as these Wgolf (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also as a note yes films are announced far in advance, but this film still falls under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: Shhuddhi Karan Malhotra Salman Khan

Delete for a short time per TOO SOON. And please Wgolf... even for poorly sourced articles, we need be careful about assumptions, as due diligence finds the topic of this planned film to be NOT A HOAX.India Times IndiCine IBTimes Hinustan Times, etc. As this production IS getting some coverage even now, we can allow undeletion or recreation under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) just as soon as filming commences. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- First of all there is spelling error in the title, it has to be Shuddhi instead of Shhuddhi. And @Wgolf:, I agree with @MichaelQSchmidt: as even poorly sourced article can be notable and same thing goes with this article. It can be moved to draft or delete it as per WP:TOOSOON. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.P. I've taken to heart the explanations at WP:INDAFD about how Englifications of other-language titles give us problems... which is why my expanded search results looked at different spellings. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a hoax but per TOO SOON .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:36, 15 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan (2016 film)[edit]

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

Way too soon (Possible hoax?) Wgolf (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-And yes I'm well aware of how films are announced in advanced (Such as how Marvel has films till 2019), but this is insane. Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: Salman Khan Shimit Amin Deepika Padukone Yash Raj Films

Delete for simply being TOO SOON. As the topic of this film is being spoken of, it's not a hoax... it's simply premature for an article. We can allow recreation or undeletion once sources confirm filming and only it it gets enough production coverage to meet WP:NF. In the meantime, this can be redirected to and spoken of and sourced in the director's article as one of his planned projects until ready for one of its own. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, it is not a hoax, but it is created way too soon. Almost no reliable ref is available at this moment. --Tito☸Dutta 22:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Titodutta... casting issues spoken of in IBTimes, Times of India, and others... but none speak toward actual filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get notification. Most probably shooting o the film has not started yet. --Tito☸Dutta 15:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not hoax but per TOO SOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:00, 14 October 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. Wizardman 11:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball hitters with six runs in one game[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Other than the Baseball Almanac source that only lumps it into a general list of runs scored records, I don't find any other sources that establish notability. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clearly non-notable trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another source appears to be the 2008 version of The Sporting News Complete Baseball Record Book. I'd say that's reliable. Please see Template:Did you know nominations/List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game for a related ongoing discussion on whether this source is reliable. It is no longer available for download from the internet. - Hoops gza (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need a lot more than just two sources (one that's offline; the other that doesn't even mention the milestone) to establish notability. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "a lot more than just two sources"? WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." "Multiple" is not necessarily "a lot more than just two." I would say that if the quality of the sources is high enough, three may be fine. And I am not sure why you are raising an issue about one of the sources being offline. How is that relevant? Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important part of major league baseball record keeping like other lists at Template:Major League Baseball records like List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game, List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game, List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 lists you mentioned have their own (multiple) sources confirming their importance. That means refs that directly say those are single-game milestones. I'm not seeing any sources here establishing that kind of notability. Would you mind providing some? —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a problem, as the record is seven, according to the article. Maybe rename List of Major League Baseball hitters with the most runs in one game and include that amazing pitcher? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. Regardless of the name, that amazing pitcher needs to be added to the list. After all, you can't score 7 runs in a game without having scored 6. Rlendog (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is talking about the most runs scored in a MLB game. The topic is notable, as runs are a standard baseball statistic. The way it's titled: "List of Major League Baseball hitters with six runs in one game" is a bit strange at first glance since 6 seems a random number. I'd be OK with renaming it as Clarityf stated above. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but possibly rename per Clarityfiend. The Baseball Almanac and The Sporting News are certainly reliable sources. And the New York Times has seen fit to remark on the feat as being noteworthy mutilple times, e.g., [13] [14] Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both New York Times mentions are one sentence mentions of a specific player who has accomplished the feat - it is by no means extensive coverage of the phenomenon. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has the same level of relevance as most MLB lists of this nature which tend to conflate one parameter with one other parameter. It's alien to most of the rest of the known universe but this article is no more guilty than any of the others, and while that's an easy otherstuffexists argument, I'm tending to agree that a stat most can understand (i.e. most goals in a game) is notable enough if it's happened only a few times. Like a double hat-trick in "soccer". Rare as. (Oh, and claiming "offline" sources to be any less reliable than online sources is just wrong, plainly incorrect, and should be dismissed out of hand. You can't get to a library? Unlucky.) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFSPLEASE to where I said "offline" sources to be less reliable than online ones. Can't find the diff – thought so, because I didn't say that. Shove it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I attributed anything to you, although right now you seem to have developed a real "me me me" complex! Take a break from the yelling and swearing and screeching. Although before that, you may wish to respond to Rlendog's question above, I'd be fascinated by the answer myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So who are you attributing the claim to then? I don't see anyone else making such a statement, so your demand that this non-existent claim "should be dismissed out of hand" is simply baffling. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a general statement, it could be argued that your somewhat bizarre note that an offline source isn't sufficient to source an article formed part of the thinking there. Anyway, looking forward to your answers. As long as they don't contain the usual amount of profanity. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your demand to anyone who opposes your viewpoint to "take a break" or "remove yourself for a while" is getting really old. In fact, it seems that you're the one who needs to take a break. You talk about "yelling … and screeching" from me. Are you hearing voices in your head? You better get that checked up. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again (unsurprisingly) you've missed the point. I said "just two sources" alone won't establish notability. Describing what those two sources entail doesn't "form part of the thinking there" – just makes it clear for everyone else. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, look closer to home ;)! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename per Clarityfiend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per the above keeps. Any discussion as to renaming the article can appropriately take place after the close, on the article's talk page. Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will certainly not be necessary. Consensus here is keep and rename. Having to discuss it again on the article's talk page is simply redundant, goes against the consensus established here, and is merely a weak attempt to keep the inferior status quo. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletion reviews are different from rename proposals. As Epeefleche states, we can discuss name changes after this snow close has closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the third sentence of the WP:AFD page clearly states that "the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." As an admin I thought you'd know this, but unfortunately you're allowing our current discussion at WT:DYK to cloud your judgment elsewhere on unrelated matters. What a shame. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is unreasonable to use the choices of a few people who only were making opinions based on delete or keep to make a move decision. The move decision should be a standalone discussion to involve everyone interested, not just a handful of people who made suggestions at this flawed snow close AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, you're really getting desperate now that I've disproven your lie above. Only one user said this is a snow close AFD, yet when four different users vote to rename you dismiss it as merely "the choices of a few people". If we need a "standalone discussion" as you falsely claim, why does the AFD page even bother mentioning it as an option? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Anyway, we'll leave it to the closing admin to decide, shall we? Cheers now! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems kind of trivial and overly specific, and it's not like it involves one of the 'big three' offensive stats (HR, BA, RBI), but I'm swayed by the above keep votes and at this point voting delete seems futile anyway. Alex (talk) 21:27, 13 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Khan[edit]

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

non notable and the sources provided are not RS Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NYA. No evidence of notability. Subject fails WP:GNG Wikicology (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NYA and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 12 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Zerin[edit]

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

No RS that could pass WP:Notability Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. Subject obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Infact it is WP:TOOSOON for a page on Wikipedia. Wikicology (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom Wgolf (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limping duck[edit]

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

In the absence of references I have a hard time believing the existence much less notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kung Pow Chicken is real but it does seem that this one is a hoax. Andrew (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:33, 9 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Society of Bangladesh[edit]

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

Group of orchid lovers with allegedly just 44 members. They organised one (or more?) orchid shows and got some local coverage. Does not leet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seemingly promotional. Not notable enough. – nafSadh did say 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a former orchid fanatic, even I can't justify this article. There isn't sufficient evidence of notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:05, 12 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. This game's sole claim to fame is that it was the first Big 12 Conference sports event ever staged, not anything that actually occurred during the game. It's trivia, and to the extent it's worthy content for Wikipedia, it should be included where our readers are likely to find it -- the parent articles about the conference and the seasons of the individual teams (see Big 12 Conference, 1996 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team and 1996 Kansas State Wildcats football team). For these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted, after including a one-sentence mention in the foregoing articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I have added mentions of this game as the first-ever Big 12 game played to the Big 12 Conference and 1996 Texas Tech season articles. The 1996 Kansas State season article already included a mention of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these so-called "established precedents" and "consensus" go against previous history and are nothing more than the opinions of a few editors. To that, the game clearly passes WP:GNG and the coverage is far beyond the WP:ROUTINE guideline as coverage is more than just sports scores and announcements of the game but provides the detail demanded (see essay WP:NOTROUTINE). As to the "Trivia" argument, that is not a reason to delete see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and WP:TRIVIAL specifically. The article is well sourced in reliable sources, it is more than just routine box scores, has widespread coverage, and by any measure available passes the general notability guideline. Nominator has a recent pattern of bias against articles about regular season games.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I am not suggesting that the "first-ever Big 12 game" information be deleted from Wikipedia; I am suggesting that the information be included in articles where our readers will actually find it, read it and appreciate it. WP:CFB has had these debates many times before. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. As for the "opinions of a few editors," it's a widely held consensus opinion that until very recently you shared. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there have been other single-game articles that have been deleted that passed WP:GNG because of this clear over-reaching of WP:ROUTINE? Where? They should be restored immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you cite an essay, WP:NOTROUTINE (not policy, not a guideline) written by yourself, and then you disparage the consensus interpretation of the actual guideline. Is it or is not the established consensus to discourage stand-alone articles about regular season games, and to incorporate that game content into season articles and rivalry articles? Please state your position.

I have a suggested reading assignment of the notability guidelines for you:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)

Bottom line: there is an existing consensus that stand-alone articles should only be created for exceptional regular season games, that should content should usually be incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles, and that regular season games should be of some greater significance if they are to have stand-alone articles rather than being incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles. This consensus is borne out by the very limited number of stand-alone article for regular season games (about 98 in 145 years) that presently exist. And many regular editors want this material reincorporated into their rivalry articles (see 2001 Florida vs Tennessee football game) -- it's an entirely reasonable position. It's perfectly clear from other references in WP:NSPORTS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS that regular season sports events are held to a different standard, that the definition of "routine" goes beyond "sports scores," and from WP:GNG that significant coverage is no guaranty of inclusion as a stand-alone article.

I don't believe you have that consensus as you claim. If you do, the proper procedure would be to go to WP:ROUTINE with that consensus and modify the definition to be more than "sports scores" for routine reporting. Then you can have that more broadly defined definition and can roll it out into AFD. AFD is not the place to build consensus, AFD is the place to take consensus once it has been clearly and fully established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors have already pointed out to you in other pending AfD discussions, what constitutes "routine coverage" of CFB games when the ESPN and AP recaps of virtually every Division I FBS game equal or exceed the coverage of the subject of this particular AfD, it's apparent to most folks that that becomes the standard of ROUTINE coverage for CFB games. Otherwise, every regular season game is notable, every regular season game is suitable for a stand-alone article, and we have a real problem with the notability standards that needs to be addressed. I don't believe that's what it says, and I don't believe that's what was intended, and if we need to clarify this at the talk pages for GNG, NSPORTS and ROUTINE, I am confident that a strong majority of !voters will agree. That probably needs to happen in any event to put a stop to the argument.

But what matters is how WP:ROUTINE defines itself, not how other people choose to apply it. If that application is well beyond the reach of its self-definition, then it is a mis-application. That's what is happening here. The Routine guideline specifically states that routine articles for sporting events are "sports scores" and not "unique feature articles about a sporting event" -- and that's the failure of the application. If you really have consensus that "unique feature articles about a sporting event" are routine, then you should go to the Routine guideline, build consensus there, and modify the written guideline. Then come back here and delete single game articles to your heart's content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if the nominator has a "bias against articles about regular season games," then it is a "bias" that is shared by a majority of our fellow WP:CFB editors. I suggest you drop that line of attack, and not make further comments that might be characterized as personalizing these AfD discussions. Attacking the messenger is not going to win the argument, especially when the messenger is a prolific creator of CFB content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not observed any other editors express a bias. However, I have observed some on your part such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles where you posted "bundling AfDs is always a high-risk proposition" or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles where you posted "we do not permit stand-alone articles for regular season single games" - you did later strike out "do not permit" and replaced with "discourage" after I suggested "we do not encourage" -- these two show a bias towards the idea of deleting single game articles rather than being open to other ideas. I don't think it's "mean" or anything, but it speaks to the idea that your mind is already made up. Also, because you haven't responded to my repeatedly pointing out that WP:ROUTINE specifically limits itself to "sports scores" for routine coverage leads me to believe that you are ignoring relevant issues in this discussion to be partial to your own opinion. That's a "bias" I'm sad to say.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh a reading assignment! (Oh, and I pointed out tat WP: NOTROUTINE is an essay, and yeah I wrote it, and I point out WP:QUOTEYOURSELF which I also wrote).

GNG is not a guarantee. Agreed. But it's also not a disqualification.
WP:SPORTSEVENT -- a guideline, with a lot of discussion and dissention even on its history. It's interesting and worth a look! But it also speaks to sources "outside routine coverage" and remember routine is specifically defined as "sports scores" so this actually is passed by the feature articles.
Routine only applies to listings of sports scores. WP:WABBITSEASON.
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE probably the "meatiest" argument presented. However, it doesn't define what a "short news cycle" is and it can reasonably be presumed that most if not all of the games are also mentioned through the remainder of the season, in season summaries, and in future year's lookbacks. Plus, it says "likely not suitable" and states further "that an event occured recently does not in itself make it non-notable"

--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the nominator, I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable regular season college football game. Article does not say why game is notable and I only see WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response/article does not say why notable That would be the phrase "The game marks the first athletic competition of any type for the Big 12 Conference."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Treat the game, a sporting event, like any other WP:NEWSEVENT. Fails WP:INDEPTH, which advises "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."—Bagumba (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ordinary college football game, reckoned as the "first" in the history of the Big 12 by a fluke of scheduling. This makes it a trivia answer, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 10 October 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. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Bing[edit]

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

Not notable. Not sure if there's a precise criteria but can't see how a 'top 8' talent show contestant is notable, as that seems to be her main claim to prominence. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until this singer has a significant hit in music charts, she fails WP:ARTIST. - Takeaway (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see a purpose for this page. StandNThrow (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment zh:陳冰 (歌手)'s main claim of significance is rumors of being born to a wealthy father (CEO of a Chinese corporation), and gossip-y media coverage that surrounds the rumor. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note The article creator has replied to the deletion notice seeming to accept the deletion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable does fail WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:38, 15 October 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. Secret ^account 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOWSOME[edit]

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

Non-notable software. A few brief newspaper blurbs, probably based on press releases, which introduce the old version of the software under a previous name - nothing at all about the current name of the software. I looked for sources per WP:BEFORE but "wowsome" is a popular term, and the only Ghits I could find that referred to this product were press releases and adverts. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional point: the product has no significant coverage under its previous name (RevEye) either. The article has been edited quite a bit since the opening of this AfD, but no additional third-party sources have been added. --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RevEye to WOWSOME[edit]

I agree with the notable issues and please understood that our product name that there has no relevancy with other brands and it's complete capitals "WOWSOME" even the page name is in "WOWSOME", soon it's going for register also. The other thing is, I agree with there has no reference information at news, media, or at any where else other than at Google play page about the name change of RevEye to WOWSOME.--Sinaamasa (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following are the references (other than news papers) to say that WOWSOME (Previously RevEye) is a notable app:

http://www.augmentedrealitytrends.com/ar-app/rev-eye-motion-print.html- Article published in April 2014
http://www.desicreative.com/loreal-augmented-reality-wowsome/ - Article published in Oct 2014--Sinaamasa (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real sources exist to prove this exists. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To its credit, the article seems to have found the best available sources. Unfortunately, that's still not enough to show notability. Some of the sources may not even qualify as WP:RS. One source [15] asks developers to submit their apps for review; one must pay to get a review that's more than 20 words long. Another source [16] is "an Indian Advertising Creative blog and magazine"; this hardly sounds like a publication known for its fact checking. It may just be a matter of WP:TOOSOON, but for now the app isn't notable. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Message[edit]

Thanks for your suggestionsLarry/Traveling_Man and let me know the notable things for an App (for information). Does it notability can be guided by the measurement of downloads or efficiency of app or user engagement!--Sinaamasa (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, then the short answer is no. Neither the number of downloads, nor efficiency, nor quality of the app, determine notability. For a quick summary of what's required of Wikipedia articles, see WP:42. That page has links to some pages worth reading. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:58, 16 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Taekwondo Association[edit]

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

Unreferenced subgroup of a group. Not-notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom says it all. No refs Szzuk (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and notability is not inherited from any organizations it may be connected with.Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable article without a source. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:59, 14 October 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Genius[edit]

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

Rottentomatoes shows zero published reviews for this film. It appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). It has been listed as unsourced for nearly 2 years and no reliable in-depth sources seem to exist. (Note that WP:NF explicitly disallows comprehensive database listings such as IMDB or Rottentomatoes as counting towards notability). I previously tried prodding this, but that was removed without improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: I just began work on this and find it a bit difficult to believe that a film with so many notables is completely unsourcable. Someone somewhere must have written of it. I'll continue and report back. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but I didn't come up with much. Other than bare directory listings: A three-sentence review in VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever [17]. A brief mention in a widely republished AP article about Wendy Malick. [18] A paragraph in an about.com interview with Danica McKellar. [19]. A passing mention that Shirley Jones is in the film, in a Variety column. [20] Perhaps you'll have better results. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per meeting WP:NF#Other evidence of notability and having commercial airing more than five years after first screening. See: TV Weekly - August 21, 2011. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just a little more coverage of it under its pre-release title: Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 8 October 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Misdaq[edit]

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

Not a notable author. Writing a book on Afghan jokes translated into English will hardly bring notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several pieces of information in the article that I would regard as more serious assertions of notability than the one mentioned by the nominator. Having said that, they don't exactly give strong grounds for keeping the article - but there's always the possibility of systemic bias when considering articles like these and, while I can't read it at all, the (presumably) Pashto Wikipedia article looks rather more substantial. Can anyone around look at it and report back? PWilkinson (talk) 12:36, 27 September 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 10:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 8 October 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adlabs Imagica Wrath of the Gods[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual amusement rides/shows that fail WP:GNG. With such names I don't even see why those would be searchable items on WP to keep as redirects. Also nominating Mr India - The Ride. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adlabs Imagica, or better yet, create an article on rides and attractions at Imagica. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 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 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 8 October 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Vs Guwop[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS for a standalone article. It is just one of the about ten "albums" that the artist has released in the last year. It did not chart at all, even on the genre charts and I cannot find any reviews for it either. It does not help that the article is the definition of a stub and the only ref is a link to buy the album. STATic message me! 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It his third album released this year not ten. It would be around 10 if you counted the mixtapes and collaborative releases but this is just albums. The reason he released so many ahead of schedule is because the first album of 2014 "Trap House 4" was one of his best charting releases since he returned to rap from acting, so he tried to do two follow-up albums to capitalize on his return to popularity. The reason there is only one source is because there wasn't any information released through news outlets, (you know, because he's in PRISON) and every time I try and source something with Twitter it gets deleted even though it's ran by one of his managers.

All in all, you can't just choose to delete a page just because you don't support his marketing scheme for releasing music, which happens to be rapid releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think he's a terrible artist, but to delete this page for no reason other than thinking his releases are irrelevant is wrong. Give it time for someone to clean it up and include more links. BlaccCrab (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the users address the fact that the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. I care nothing of his marketing scheme or do I think his releases are irrelevant. Do not try to put words in my mouth. If the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS, it is as simple as that. If there was no coverage, there was no coverage, and it should not have a Wikipedia article. STATic message me! 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage, I guess it could pass GNG. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] 2Flows (talk) 23:01, 16 September 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, Sandstein 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not significant independent coverage, it is routine trivial coverage. All the sources are nearly the same thing, just a few sentences and a posting of the album's stream. STATic message me! 20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per coverage above. Koala15 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. --Bejnar (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More information has been added, including links. I spent hours searching for content, and am in the process of adding even more, I'm not sure if this was settled before now but it most definitely is now. Meets the standards link to above, thankfully we can all move on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkatastic (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not substantial coverage, i'm afraid. Youtube and interviews and mere mentions don't make it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 29 September 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 10:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 8 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Honai[edit]

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

Too soon? The only refs are just about how it will be made and nothing about if it is being made yet or not. Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and WP:INDAFD: John Honai

Delete...for now. The film's Pooja (IE: offical blessing and announcement) was held last month, and the topic of its production is getting a lot of media attention but. as filming has not yet commenced, we have a current failure of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion or recreation as soon as filming is confirmed. If author Sanatan2014 wishes it userfied, I'd say most definitely yes. This one will be back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:20, 24 September 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 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film's principal photography hasn't begun and hence the article fails WP:NFF. Though the article states that "Shoot is said to begin by third week of September" there is no reliable source supporting this. September has passed.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regin Le Faye[edit]

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter. Can't find any independent sources. —teb728 t c 10:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:NOTE. yet another non-notable musician spam originally written by a 1-topic account (this topic), indicating likely COI or AUTO. orphan BLP article with zero RS establishing notability. (neither being a hotel lounge singer nor singing at a city's olympics-related "after party" are notable enough to appear in the encyclopedia.) Cramyourspam (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apparently this article has been nominated various times for deletion, but the original writer keeps reverting those.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had tagged it for speedy deletion but was told on the article talk page that it was not finished, so I removed it and put up the maint. tags that are there now. This person was described by the poster as an "emerging artist" which pretty much means they aren't notable yet. As such, this should be deleted(either through this process or through a speedy tag). 331dot (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 124th Infantry Regiment (United States). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company D, 2-124 Infantry[edit]

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

I don't believe that this company merits its own article and propose deletion or redirecting to 124th Infantry Regiment (United States) Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep delete the "dogs"? current military history. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an organic company of a larger unit. We do not generally consider these to be independently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I see in the article is a lot of mundane assignment details. The Presidential Unit Citation gave me pause, but I don't see the company listed in the linked document and there are a lot of units there anyway, so it doesn't appear to be as exclusive as I thought. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 124th Infantry Regiment (United States). Does not appear to be worth a separate article, but battalion would be. —innotata 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment (actually a question) Is there a purpose to preserving the article title as a redirect? If there's no content on the subject at the target then the redirect delivers nothing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent organization 124th Infantry Regiment (United States). Subject itself has received passing mention in at least one reliable source, however it does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Therefore, as per WP:BRANCH, this article should be changed into a redirect to the parent organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent regiment, per RCLC. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RCLC --Molestash (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A redirect is only valuable if someone is likely to search for or link from a term. Is this really likely here? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 9 October 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. Secret ^account 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Ruin[edit]

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

a music group with nothing about it at all, and not a lot of info. Might be too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTO, WP:NOTE, WP:COI. non-notable band-spam ADVERT. clearly-self promotional. note that the original writer, a 1-topic (this band) account, is called Voodoorock and the 2-sentence article's opening line is, "The Blue Ruin are an alternative voodoo-rock band" --a strong indicator to me of COI / self-promotion. the self-complimentary, "their first studio album, was released on April 11, 2013, worldwide and have garnered much critical praise" is not backed-up by any actual sources or specimens of this "much critical praise." Cramyourspam (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment Now I can just imagine everyone reading this going "what the heck is a voodoo rock band???" LOL Wgolf (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 15 October 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pal-Kshatriya[edit]

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

This article is badly written pseudohistory, based on the attempts by some caste organizations (e.g. [28][29]) to revise history for glorification of their community (a sort of Sanskritization). No reliable historian links the Pala and Pallava dynasties to the "Pal" shepherds. Things like Holkar/Vijayanagar empire connection are also complete nonsense.

Note: The article has 17 references, but all of these fake. Not a single reference mentions the term "Pal Kshatriya". Only one reference (The World of Nomads) mentions both the words "Pal" and "Kshatriya", and that too, separately. This book says that the nomadic shepherds are known by different names in India: in Uttar Pradesh, they call themselves Pal and claim Kshatriya descent (not to be confused with Pal (surname) and Pal clan). utcursch | talk 07:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 07:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 07:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spot checked a few of the cited references, and the article so mixes and matches sources (and, outright misrepresents them) that it is closer to pseudohistories than a simple case of a false but self-consistent pseudohistory. In addition to the problems Utcursch mentions, most of the article content is copyright-violation having been cut-n-pasted from non-RS websites such as [30] and [31]) (In fact, if you search the page, you can even find the "Copyright© Christopher Buyers" tag that has conveniently been copied too.) The copyvio issue traces back to the earliest version of the page as created by User:Lakhmi in 2009. There may well be an article to be written about "Pal" ethnic group, but this is not it at all. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After going through the article one can easily find out that how the historical events are misused to confuse the readers. --Mahensingha 18:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Moomins_on_the_Riviera#English_Cast. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Winiecki[edit]

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

Too soon for sure, though I can see her having a page someday, just not today! Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor-spam. voiced one animated character in a not-yet-released dvd. no other known credits. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moomins_on_the_Riviera#English_Cast. It seems that this is her only notable role to date, so redirecting the article to the film's cast page would be a reasonable outcome. If/when she ever performs more roles that could be seen as notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, then we can always unredirect or recreate the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Redirecting will allow the recreation of the subject's article in the event that she achieves notability, and may be helpful for anyone who types in Winiecki's name. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 15 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moosa Saleem[edit]

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

Too soon article, now to the page creator-thanks for your first article, but it falls under too soon, but don't worry there are more articles you can make! Wgolf (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a BLP article without reliable sources, could have been prodded.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 15 October 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shroff (surname)[edit]

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

I was unsure of what to put-I thought about putting a duplicate article but it isn't, there is a page for Shroff though which this could basically go under. Though I'm not sure where this is going to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its many claims are totally unreferenced, and I couldn't find anything to substantiate them. There's already a page listing people with the name at Shroff. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of THIS. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - nn-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric eman adger[edit]

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

Okay was not sure if to put this a prod or a AFD but went witha AFD. This seems to be a over long bio Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I didn't even notice until AFTER I put up the AFD-but the name of the person who started this. Wgolf (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search and I can't really find anything that mentions him by name. The only thing he's ever really been semi-frequently cited for was his guest appearance on the Royal Highness album and even then, he's never really highlighted as an artist: it's always as part of a database entry on the album as a whole. The only person who really seems to be talking about Adger is Adger himself, as there isn't an overly huge amount of fan chatter for him. As far as his association with notable persons goes, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It only makes it more likely that someone would gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee and Adger's contributions to various albums and whatnot isn't enough to where it gained him enough (or really any) coverage to where he'd pass WP:ARTIST. It also doesn't help that this entire article is written in a very, very promotional style and could likely be speedied as spam. I'd say that we should let it run through a full AfD just in case there are other sources (doubtful) and so if it gets re-created before these issues are dealt with, we can always G4 it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Yeah I think this might of been better then the prod as sometimes they find a way to sneak around it. Wgolf (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A7, no sources, autobio, questionable accomplishments. What else do you need? So tagged. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:25, 8 October 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. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Unemployment[edit]

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

Article has no sources and is not really even about unemployment in Australia. Even if the article is not deleted, it will almost certainly end up being merged. Besides all this, the article is very confusing. Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 01:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - unsourced and incoherent. Any actual article under this title (which should probably be at Unemployment in Australia anyway) would simply duplicate various articles we already have including White Paper on Full Employment in Australia, Economy of Australia and various others. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant original research. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion for lack of context. Alexius08 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 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.