< 10 September	12 September >

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

352 Inc.[edit]

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

Promotional, and probably not notable. As for promotionalism, thevute stories of how the company started in thedorm room is a staple of promotional writing: it flatters the developer and provides something to say. The awards are not significant. Fastest growing = not yet notable. Designing two ads the customers liked is not notability. I do not think the seo listing reliable. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -nothing more than an WP:ADMASQ. ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 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 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no there there. Bunch of links to promos in college newspapers, but nothing reliable. Blows holes through the GNG. Nha Trang 20:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the substantial coverage independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 05:17, 18 September 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. A9 Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and Live[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The band itself were found non-notable at WP:Articles for deletion/Altered Sky. I did make it a redirect, but it was removed by creator, and there is no longer a valid redirect title. Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ((db-a9)) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 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 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Place Chambers[edit]

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete fails WP:CORP. Probable advert, the article creator us a single purpose editor also created Peter Tomasetti which I have just nominated for deletion. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 6 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 00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a plausible redirect to Martin Place, Sydney. It comes up immediately in GMaps, produces this in GBooks and seems obvious. James500 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support redirect, otherwise we will start redirecting every non notable business in Martin place there. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps identify which criteria of WP:R you are referring to, if any? I think your argument is doomed to failure because this is a generic expression that could potentially refer to any chambers in Martin Place. The fact it appears in presumably independent sources doesn't hurt either. It is not obvious to me that this is an organisation rather than a place. In England, a "chambers" is a set of rooms. It isn't obvious to me that the arguments I am advancing are applicable to "every non notable business in Martin place". James500 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

57 page views in January. James500 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many, many similar offices in Sydney's legal district Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. It isn't obvious that "there are many, many similar ones" is a problem. Why do you think it is it a problem? James500 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent reliable sources showing how this firm is significant.-- danntm ^T _C 23:58, 15 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp 30[edit]

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

I created this page when I was a newbie. Turns out, it seems to violate the guideline at WP:BKCRIT ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 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 00:04, 12 September 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 Eric Walters. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Your Ground (novel)[edit]

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

I created this page when I was a newbie. Turns out, it seems to violate the guideline at WP:BKCRIT ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 6 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 00:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some evidence that it's used in classrooms per this link, so I'm hopeful that there may be enough sourcing out there to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Walters. I can see where you'd have created this, to be honest. This book is very frequently mentioned in various interviews and articles about him. It's also frequently mentioned in various reviews for his other works, so I can't help but feel that there is likely coverage out there that was never put on the Internet. However I can't prove that there is, so at this point in time the only thing we can do is redirect to the author's page and if/when these sources become available, add them and restore the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 12 September 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. Speedily deleted (CSD#G11). Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Baudot[edit]

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

Doesn't meet a single one of the WP:ARTIST criteria. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article exists on the Dutch wiki, but has no sources there either. Both were written by the same person within a day of one another. Additionally one of the editors to the Mia Baudot page on the english wiki is none other than miabaudot. Snood1205 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per G S Palmer's analysis of the notability criteria. CaptRik (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have removed the example artwork from the article per the image use policy (watermarked). SpinningSpark 09:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - neither evidence nor assertion of notability. I think I smell snow coming. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7 and OM. ukexpat (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Page[edit]

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

Candidate for U.S. Senate who has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few independent sources that do cover the subject do not cover him in-depth or outside of the context of a single event (the 2014 election). Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that the candidate has not received significant coverage in "reliable, independent sources". However, he has been discussed in the Tennessean and the Chattanooga Times Free Press, both of which are statewide-circulated newspapers, and both of which were cited on the page. His media coverage is similar to that of candidate George Flinn who was deemed to have enough credible sources to justify a Wikipedia article. It also contains more information and cites more sources than that of State Representative Susan Lynn. Composedinsantiy ( talk) 18:44, 11 September 2014 (CDT)

Note - Another Danny Page article was previously deleted, however, that article was about a different subject. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flinn's article isn't relevant to whether or not this one should be deleted. However, Flinn has served as a County Commissioner and Lynn is a State Representative. Page has never held office and has not received substantial coverage of his campaign for the Senate from reliable sources. Thus he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet criteria for notability. ALPolitico (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2014
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, candidates for office are covered in the articles about the campaign. And as Mr. Page is not otherwise notable, as evidenced by the lack of coverage about him from independent reliable sources, there is no need for an freestanding article.-- danntm ^T _C 05:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Delete"" Page does not qualify per WP:POLITICIAN nor does he seem to have any other merits for judgement. Any information which is relevant to the election should be moved to the appropriate page. (Downix (talk) 06:25, 18 September 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) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Woman Who Died a Lot[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No refs in article. Doesn't appear to have charted. Doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any of the usual places. Other books in this series have certainly charted, but not this one. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Withdraw per User:Tokyogirl79's work. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find some reviews for the book, so it should pass notability guidelines now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. TG is modest, she found seven reviews. Can the proposer withdraw his request? As it is, looking in the usual place was by itself more than sufficient to prove this book is notable. Over at amazon.com, there are 8 snippets of reviews for this book, including ones from Publishers Weekly, Booklist (starred review), and Library Journal (starred review). Choor monster (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some good work by Tokyogirl79.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul International Music Festival[edit]

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

No indication of notability, borderline A7 speedy deletion candidate. No independent coverage, content not verifiable, somewhat spammy. Nothing helpful found via Google. While many notable artists played at the festival, notability is not inherited. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is for verification. It is not a serious attitude trying to delete the article of a decades old, very known and sufficiently notable international festival. This is why I am not going to write anything else for now; will wait for others. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but Strong Clean Up Doing a google search sees reference to this festival event in a number of sites, for example here or here or here just from the first page or two of links. So it's likely the festival exists and even has some attention in Turkey. The problem of course is that this article is TERRIBLE and needs to be seriously cleaned up (e.g. the format for the inline citations should be brought into line with wikipedia's standards). It would also be wise to add links to english language secondary sources (if any) to avoid any confusion in the future. For all I know the four inline citations are to very significant coverage, but sadly I do not personally know the Turkish language. -Markeer 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Markeer all four citations are in English. (Maybe you were confused with the surrounding texts due to the use of Google.tr. :-) They are the ones I found in the first 5 minutes of the AfD. The festival is more known and international than you imagine. I know personally the case of a Central European classical ensemble that is waiting for being included to the festival for many years. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, founded in 1973, member of EFA, seems clearly notable, - improve article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough independent sources to justify this. Some of them are in Turkish, but if we let that affect us, we get systemic bias at a stroke. The sources are there and accessible. Yes, puffy language like "World famous violinist, director and musicologist Fabio Biondi brought this lengthy opera to a powerful two and a half hour performance" needs to be dealt with, but the notability is obvious. --Stfg (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists, and is fairly well known in a local context. Article is very badly written, but that is not a reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:31, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Bhabha[edit]

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

NN - Autobiography. Advertisement for his books and website. GHits on the name are to his own website, Facebook and LinkedIn. Subject removed PROD tag here we are. Alexf^(talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sources provided to sustain an article at this time. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Winkelmann[edit]

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

Not notable. Person of minor repute in tiny community also dead so not going to get more notable. Demonachizer (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no reliable sources. Even if reliably sourced I don't his bike jump record is enough to make him notable and his accident would be WP:BLP1E.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 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) --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air: The Musical[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did manage to find a few other articles than the one paper that was on there (an article from an Indian news source and a review), so this might barely squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was the cover story for the film magazine, Indie Slate (issue #58).[1] Doubleup549 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NF through coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only barely so. Coverage in the reception section seems to confer notability, albeit I would strongly recommend that it be established more firmly in the article. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:38, 19 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Charles Denomy[edit]

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

Biography fails WP:SOLDIER, while heroic the subject only appears to be notable for a single award of the DSO. Nthep (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Ernest Hornell received a VC for that action and therefore merits an article. A DSO isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with a second-level decoration. Not enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability.-- danntm ^T _C 05:28, 18 September 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 Early close - this is in the wrong place. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:USA Network logo 1999.png[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/(({1))}|edit]] | [[Talk:(({1))}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/(({1))}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/(({1))}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/(({1))}|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/(({1))}|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:(({1))}|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD · [2])

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place, you silly bot. WP:FFD is the proper venue. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was made by AdamDeanHall (talk · contribs), who failed to give any rationale for deletion. The bot only completed some syntax errors and added the page to a daily log. This should be closed as malformed. For the record, there is an FFD section at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 11#File:USA Network logo 1999.png, and the nominator failed to provide a rationale there too. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 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 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane O'Donoghue[edit]

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

This is an article about a journalist. He (according to the source) hosted a CNN show called Living Golf. I don't think he is notable. There is a source from a newspaper. NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 10:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Improve and then keep he was described in 2007 as a "Well-known broadcaster and journalist" in the review of his book.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:41, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kisthardt[edit]

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

I don't believe this person has notability. Yes there are news reports about him - he is an investigator after all. But what is in this article is just information about him doing his job. Nothing indicates lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been no significant changes since the creation of the article in 2008, only bots and general cleanup. Many links are broken. None attest to notability. LaMona (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually, I believe that she is notable based solely on her position, purported accomplishments and curriculum vitae. Reflinks provided; dead ones pruned. Article is now a stub, of course, but can be expanded. Quis separabit? 13:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:43, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple of sources via HighBeam for an investigation she led in 2006. She looks to be a fairly high-profile investigator over time and in a number of sources, so I think WP:BASIC applies. I am One of Many (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the improvement effort is appreciated, this subject fails GNG for failure to have been covered significantly in multiple independent sources. What we have here are incidental mentions related to job role. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Quis Separabit's excellent pruning and as per I am One of Manys addition of sources, plus added some more. The WP:BASIC rule says we can If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and there are numerous sources, plus her position is important, so in my view she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomwsulcer. James500 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okta (company)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of the company provided. ~~Despite the formatting issues (which are fixable)~~. This is just a promotional article about the company. CaptRik (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forbes, Allidm.com, gartner, Tech News World, network world, Baseline Magazine,info world are WP:RS Wikicology (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

completely rewrite and keep - there seems to be the requisite "more than passing coverage by reliable sources" underneath the layers of unadulterated advertisement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:ADMASQ; best to blow it up and start again. ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forbes articles alone establish notability. Also, the reference to wp:TNT above is a pretty reliable signal, in my experience from other AFDs, of inappropriate zeal. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an essay, not policy. References to it are generally acknowledging that a topic is wikipedia-notable but suggesting that material contributed by editors be deleted, and the article be re-started. This ensures that valid contributions are NOT acknowledged, violating core Wikipedia principle that contributions are recognized. Specifically if a Wikipedia article is copied to somewhere else, users are required to give acknowledgement to authors. This breaks connection to authors who did identify a valid topic and probably provided valid material that was re-created in a new article, violating trust. So, definitely keep. --do ncr am 21:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable sources for notability and the article has been cleaned up so no need for wp:TNT.I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 10 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article passes the test for me. It has produced evidence of notability, though I would like to see the referencing improve since a goodly number are PR style. There are sufficient solid, RS references for it to be acceptable here and the remainder need tidying up and replacing. There is an ANI discussion at present about the editor who accepted this through WP:AFC, arguably too early, where this has been mentioned, and that may lead to a reasonable number of opinions being placed in this discussion now. We must judge the article as it is today, not as it was once. Fiddle Faddle 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I didn't think about this when I mentioned it at ANI - but all the editors who have reworked the article from the state it was in when I nominated it have done a great job, the article is much better balanced now. CaptRik (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptRik: You have the option to withdraw your nomination if you find, as you seem to be considering, the article meets your interpretation of the criteria. I'm sure you already know that, so please treat this as a suggestion to invoke that option. It is unlikely to affect the duration of the discussion, but will affect the outcome. 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that - however I don't feel whether it should be kept or not should be decided based on a procedural call. I'll be happy with the consensus of this regardless of the outcome. CaptRik (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are primarily promotional, either press releases or mere notices, despite a few of them being published in sources which are generally reliable. Even the Forbes article just repeats what the ceo told the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of discussion in sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, I am not impressed by the sources; there is little or nothing from what we would term Reliable Sources. True, there are two items from Forbes (a Reliable Source) but they are just funding announcements; and there is one from TechCrunch (arguably a Reliable Source) but it's just basically repeating what Horowitz said on his blog. The rest of the sources are trade journals and such, not known for their editorial oversight. I don't find significant enough Reliable Source coverage to meet WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam Multani[edit]

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

Well the only source was on Facebook. This also looks like a too soon case as she is a model who JUST started this year (excluding ads) Wgolf (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD Sonam Multani

Comment - I added a link above which can be use to find some references but still it appears the case of WP:TOOSOON. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:59, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A new model starting out, no evidence of the notability requirements for inclusion, general or otherwise. I can find no significant independent coverage that can be added to the article to support keeping it. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Interrogation of Cheryl Cooper[edit]

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

As Readyforanderson (talk · contribs) says on the talk page: “another of Albert Pyun's advertisements for himself. No credible source that film ever played in Los Angeles on May 2, 2014. Cited source is simply a Dread Central press-release like article dated 4/7/14 that says the film will premier in Los Angeles on May 2. Albert Pyun has a long history of spamming Wikipedia with promotional fluff about himself or his movies.” — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only found 50 Ghits and nothing that helped it meet our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per just meeting WP:NF. Sorry Dougweller, among those "50" were Dread Central and Twitch Film... reliable sources for films. The article should (and will) be expanded, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of those is a brief announcement that the film it to be made, the other could be a press release -- it's basically just a description, not a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 9 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film has never played anywhere. The two cited sources read like identical press releases from Albert Pyun. Readyforanderson (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the independent significant coverage about this film necessary to satisfy WP:NF.-- danntm ^T _C 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Home screen[edit]

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

No indication that this term has both the meaning and the scope that the author claims. Possibly fails WP:NOR. Ringbang (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I'm assuming notability is the issue. There is a lot more out there; the cites below come from a handful of google searches.

Ritchie, Rene (May 1, 2012). "iOS 6: Is it time for Apple to revamp the Home screen?". iMore.
Webster, Scott (June 4, 2013). "Customize your Android home screen experience". CNet.
Henry, Alan (March 30, 2014). "Five Best Android Home Screen Replacements". Lifehacker.
Fingas, Jon (August 2014). "Aviate's ever-changing Android home screen is now available to everyone". Engadget.
Verge Staff (September 16, 2013). "iOS: A visual history". The Verge.
Ruddock, David (October 21, 2011). "3 Years Of Android: A Look At Android's Home Screens - From Cupcake To Ice Cream Sandwich". AndroidPolice.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although notability is not a problem in this case, thanks for taking the time to compile a list of articles and blog entries. (I moved your signature to make it clear where your post ends and my reply begins.) I looked through all the pages linked. This seems like a good time to mention WP:NEO:

"An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."

A future article that defines the necessary and sufficient conditions of a home screen (with references to good sources) would enable the reader to answer these questions:

Which UI elements constitute a home screen? Is the notification bar part of it, or just adjacent to it? Is that a platform-specific distinction?
What is the relationship to, or difference between, a home screen and an application launcher? (Cf. List of Android launchers)
Is the term home screen specific to certain UIs or computing platforms?
1. Is the GUI of a J2ME-based feature phone a "home screen"? Why or why not?
2. Is Microsoft's start screen an example of a home screen, or is it a different UI that is only similar to a home screen? The start screen in Windows Phone and Windows 8 function differently, and Windows 8 has a distinct shell. Is it still a "home screen" in Windows 8?

Ringbang (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of the topic are not difficult to come by. They are not precise (and they need not be), but they are easily found and sufficient to the purpose. Here is a selection from google books, limiting myself to those that have preview available. I have intentionally restricted myself to the first few years after each OS was introduced, as that's when the newbie books will be printed; those will have a higher likelihood of containing basic descriptions and definitions. For iOS:

Everything starts on the home screen. As you can see in Figure 3.2, the home screen provides access to major functions via the buttons along the bottom of the screen—Phone, Mail, Web, and iPod. Subsidiary functions are accessed via buttons in the middle of the screen—Text, Calendar, Photos, Camera and the like. Miller, Michael (2007). iPodpedia: The Ultimate iPod and iTunes Resource. QUE. ISBN 978-0-7897-3674-1.
The iPhone's Home screen allows you to launch any applications with a single tap. The Home screen, whose unofficial name is SpringBoard, provides application-launching abilities. Sadun, Erica (2008). Taking Your iPhone to the Max. Apress. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-59059-926-6.
On the Home screen, you find all your Touchable icons, divided into two distinct groups. On the top part of the screen, you have all your Internet and personal-information applications, including the Safari Web browser, the Mail program, a shortcut to YouTube, a calendar program, an address book, clock, calculator and the App Store. Biersdorfer, J. D.; Pogue, David (2009). iPod: The Missing Manual. O'Reilly. ISBN 978-0-596-52212-4.
The iPhone's home screen runs as an application, called Springboard, which is similar to the Finder on a Mac desktop. Zdziarski, Jonathan. iPhone SDK Application Development: Building Applications for the AppStore. O'Reilly. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-596-15405-9.

And here's a similar list for android.

The Android home screen (Figure 2.14) is like your desk: It's where you use and organize your applications in a way that's most effective for you. O'Grady, Jason D. (2009). The Google Phone Pocket Guide. Peachpit Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-321-62059-0.
Figure 2-3 shows the default Home screen for Android 2.1. This is where you can store your favorite apps or display your favorite wallpaper. Your phone actually has between three and seven pages of Home screen. Karch, Marziah. Android for Work: Productivity for Professionals. Apress. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-4302-3000-7.

The meat of the article, following what we have available in WP:RS, will be what is done with the home screen: the modifications, the design controversies, history, reviews, etc. While a definition is important, I don't think it will take up more than a couple of sentences. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creator comment - I created this article with the intention to spin it off from home page, which is now an article about the home page of a website. I should have sandboxed it, but thought I'd get round to it in a few days if nobody else did. James^x12345 21:52, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lesser Cartographies' source finds. The topic is clearly notable (sometimes spelled homescreen in the sources) and there is plenty of information in secondary sources like LC found to describe the concept, its importance in GUI design, and the differing approaches to home screens in different OSes and OS versions. While the article is the barest stub, there is potential for expansion and good sourcing. A notable topic and an article with WP:POTENTIAL suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the sources are added to the stub, Keep per Lesser and Mark viking. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Behemoth . Independent notability not established, COMMONOUTCOMES j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Muraszko[edit]

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

Not notable outside Behemoth other than contributing to two unknown and non-notable projects. SilentDan (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N and WP:GNG just for starters. Quis separabit? 18:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep member of well-known band and on 4 other wikipedias.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 other articles? If you mean he's been merely mentioned I don't think that qualifies for notability, please elaborate. If you mean he is a member of other notable bands (meaning they too have their own articles) then please link them. SilentDan (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per our most common outcome for lesser-known band members. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 10 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO 3 as "a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles": Behemoth (drums), Damnation^(plwiki) (vocals), Hell-Born^(plwiki) (vocals, bass, drums). --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behemoth is the only notable band listed, the rest are not since they do not warrant their own articles on the English wiki, therefore it fails to meet this criteria. SilentDan (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't they warrant their own articles? How can you prove it? (Simply because there are no articles yet?) I haven't researched the matter thoroughly, but I can immediately see that Hell-Born is wikinotable cause several of their albums were reviewed by Teraz Rock. (The reviews aren't available online anymore, but they were.) There has also been a news article on Onet.pl and many reviews on smaller music websites (e.g. I'm not sure if The Metal Observer is reliable, but it's being used as a source on the English Wikipedia too). --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG for starters as User:Rms125a@hotmail.com pointed out before. SilentDan (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Gracie[edit]

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

Only claims to notability appear to be that he's part of the Gracie family and has a high rank, but neither of these are enough to show notability. The article's only sources just give passing mentions of him. Mdtemp (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I would contend that this particular rank does lend credence to his notability; he is one of only 5 individuals who have - and can ever have - the 10th degree red belt, the highest rank in BJJ. While most of the records do seem rather sparse from that time period the article does seem to suggest he was as accomplished at professional fighting as his brother Hélio. Finally, while the main citiation only contains about a paragraphs worth of content about Jorge, it contains a similar amount of content for much more well-known figures, such as Carlos and Hélio, suggesting more that the author was seeking overall brevity rather than creating section length as any particular reflection of the importance of those being referenced. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additionally, this bio from BJJHeroes could be used to add much more substantive and detailed content to this currently stubby article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced by the belt argument--the early Gracies gave themselves 10th degrees and declared no one else can ever attain that ranking. That sounds more like protecting a family business than a comment on notability. As for BJJHeroes, I am not sure that is either reliable or independent as a source. Even that source lists nothing for Jorge Gracie under "Accomplishments". BJJHeroes also avoids mentioning his loss to Euclydes Hatem, which is the only thing I can find Jorge mentioned for in independent sources (except for passing mentions in Gracie family histories, which don't show notability). Papaursa (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would have been a more heartwarming story if Jorge and the other Gracies had been awarded red belts through crowd sourcing or some similarly free and democratic process, but it still doesn't change the fact that the man is officially recognized by the overwhelmingly predominant BJJ regulatory agency in North America as the co-highest ranking jiu-jitsoka in the entire world. And while you're certainly right that BJJheroes is no Encyclopedia Britannica, it still remains one of the few highly-detailed founts of BJJ biographical info to be found online, even if it's more about breadth than depth. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a bio article on a notable jiu-jitsoka here (on the wiki) that doesn't use it as a source. Good find on the match against Euclydes Hatem - seems like yet another fact supporting notability and inclusion! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The father gives himself and his four sons a rank and declares no one else can ever have those ranks. That's not an indication of notability, it's an indication of nepotism. I wouldn't claim losing his only sourced fight boosts his notability. I haven't voted in the hope that you (or someone else) can provide some good independent reliable sources to support his claim. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In due respect Papaursa, you seem to have somewhat mistaken understanding of the particular history here. The red and similarly fancy belts are a relatively recent creation and have nothing to do with the Gracie brothers' father, Gastão Sr. Up through the 1950's and 60's they only had a system of three belts - white, light blue, and dark blue. The implementation of the current system appears to have been put into place sometime in the later 20th century, though I'll be damned if I can find the exact date. Also, contrary to what you've been alleging, I had read somewhere that Helio himself was somewhat upset with having to start wearing a red belt, giving the impression it was more a forced organizational change and not a personal one. Be that as it may (or not), it still doesn't change the widespread recognition of Jorge Gracie as a notable fighter of his day and one of the early pioneers of BJJ, regardless of what color or other specialness his belt is. Buddy23Lee (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Gracies have always controlled BJJ the belts are still about family and notability is not inherited. I'd rather focus on the notability of Jorge. If he's that significant to BJJ it shouldn't be hard to find some independent reliable coverage of him--some documentation to support the claims he traveled all over Brazil defeating everyone (besides Gracie proclamations). This would be the "widespread recognition" you describe. Papaursa (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all get behind that idea. The one final caveat I'd caution is to rely entirely upon that fighting career for notabily, as if he were a proto-MMA fighter from a bygone time before fantastic record keeping. I still submit the given rank really is important - Not in and of itself. Not by how he may have or may not have received it - But as a reflection of his perceived contribution to what would later be formalized as modern Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Perhaps it is and was nepotistic, ethnocentric, xenophobic and every other bad thing you might allege that Carlos chose his brothers as his early instructors and partners in establishing his academy and spreading the good word (of BJJ). But I have little doubt that were someone else to have filled Jorge's shoes, so to speak, and helped to spread early BJJ as he did, he would have been awarded similarly high honors as well. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:37, 2 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 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To his credit, Buddy23Lee has added some sources to this article. However, I'm still having some problems seeing the coverage required to meet WP:GNG because there's a lack of significant coverage reliable independent sources. Let's look at the 10 sources: Number 1 is from a Gracie school, 2 is the IBJJF listing showing Jorge's rank, 3 is a black belt article on the Gracie family history where he merits a paragraph and is the 19th Gracie listed, 4 is the BJJ Heroes biography listing his achievements as "N/A", 5 appears to be a passing mention, 6 mentions him solely in the context of refusing a prearranged fight, 7 is a self-published book, 8 is a fight announcement, 9 is for an MMA Hall of Fame where anyone can nominate and people are welcome to vote on Facebook and Twitter (martial arts HOFs are not considered indicators of notability), and 10 is a passing mention from a non-independent source on Helio's 100th birthday. I'm sorry but I don't consider this enough to show he meets GNG. I haven't voted to delete the article because, despite what I feel is a lack of sources, the Gracie mystique/record makes it difficult to vote to remove the article. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, in due respect; you're a tough crowd, and I love you for that. :) We both agree that finding rigorous online citations (or even book sourced ones) that approximate something akin to a Washington Post feature on this long dead fighter or memoir that at one time approached the best sellers list would and should be the aspiration here. Evidently however, no superlative sources are likely to be found at this jucture - I simply added what I could, in the time that I could - to lend more credence to the idea that the article's subject is indeed notable. Since our inclusionist/deletionist philosophies always seem as intractable as the current Isreali/Palistine conflict, let us now leave this matter to the ostensibly forthcoming other AfD editors to decide this article's fate. I believe wikipedia can and should be a proper respository for those seeking information regarding the original Gracie brothers and you, alternatively, do not think this article meets or exceeds our robust standards. Fair enough; surely consensus will prevail, whatever consensus that might be... Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:41, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete You'd think there'd be plenty of coverage of him, but I don't see it. Lacks reliable independent and significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No changes have been made to the article since September 2, so I am going to vote in accordance with my comments above. I do not believe it's been shown that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, our inclusionist/deletionist philosophies will likely never come to an accord on this issue, but please, let's be reasonable here; its more than clear he meets or exceeds a simple WP:BASIC. The man has an independent and, insofar as I can tell, highly rated book significantly featuring his deeds (as one reviewer put it "In Choque, it is evident by the sheer number of fights (fixed or otherwise) that George Gracie seemed to have an illustrious career as a ring fighter.") on top of the BJJ heroes bio and the distinctly reputable Black Belt Magazine article. Yes, it was but a paragraph, but that still holds quite a bit of significance of weight toward notability in totality with the panoply of other citations. Again, as I mentioned before, no citation sort of a major expose in a major publication is like to dissuade you of your stance and I can respect that. My greater fear is that any legitimate nobility of this bygone prize fighter will suffer discrimination due to the time period of his accomplishments (well, WELL before systematic MMA/BJJ record keeping) and the anglocentric nature of this wiki in general as it hobbles a man who lived his entire life in Brazil speaking only português. Had he been born post-1980 and won a handful of gold medals at some IBJJF sanctioned tournament all this time and effort would have clearly been spared. Finally, the only reason this article has yet to have been updated since the September 2 was that I assumed it was becoming redundantly evident this man met the basic criteria. If you truly believe this to not be the case, perhaps then you and the (also my friend) Mdtemp should adhere to your principles and list Carlos Gracie, the official founder of modern BJJ up for deletion, now that Jorge literally possesses twice the citations, rivaling in quality as well as that quantity. I've always believed that this wiki should be a place for those seeking knowledge to come, if only to find a stubby article on a bygone fighter with always improvable sources, as opposed to the alternative of sheer nothingness. I mean Christ, by your own rigorous standards, perhaps you should nominate Christ himself to be deleted. He seems just as liable to exaggeration in his familial claims and the sources coming from his time period our often dubious at best! (you know I love you Paparusa :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in many sources is considered by some to be the founder of BJJ. I could understand deleting this article Kyra Gracie but he was the only fighter.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/2/2675608/mma-origins-carlson-gracie-adapts-jiu-jitsu-to-vale-tudo

http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/george-gracie-facts-and-bio

http://www.bjjee.com/articles/top-10-most-controversial-team-switchers-in-jiu-jitsu-history/

http://www.cagepotato.com/the-top-10-gracies-of-all-time/

http://www.virginiatkd.com/wp-content/uploads/History-of-BJJ1.pdf

http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/the_grumpy_grappler/2014/06/deconstructing-the-gracie-mythology-part-2.html

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/1/10/710938/mma-history-xviii-the-loss

http://www.thearenamma.com/red-belt-earned-honor/

CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would help if some of these sources could make their way into the article especially the non-primary ones. One of the big issues is that every Gracie and his dog has an article and not necessarily because they are notable. The term walled garden comes to mind and no - just being a Gracie does not confer notability. I am still holding off my opinion on Jorge - but I do understand both the need for clear references and the difficulty in finding them from an era that was pre-internet. It has to be demonstrated that Jorge was key to the development of BJJ.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jorge participated in the first organized BJJ event. He had the first undefeated run. He was for a period the only fighter in the Gracie clan. He set up a number of schools in different areas of Brazil. All of this should show that he was key in the development of BJJ. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think (in at least in Jorge's case) it would end up a walled garden anymore than any other notable fighter. He can be written into the historical aspects of the main BJJ article and linked to any and all notable fighters he fought. Honestly, I'd be more than willing to expand the article and add those above sources and more but I've been waiting to see if the article would be deleted or not. Nothing sucks more than trying to put in all the time and effort only to have the article relegated to the trashbin. :\ Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:30, 19 September 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. Technical SNG pass trumpted by obvious failure to pass gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Ogawa[edit]

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

I believe this subject fails WP:NOTABLE. Tina Gasturich (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If he played association football in a fully professional league, he is notable. see WP:NFOOTY. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Machida Zelvia was only in a fully professional league (J. League Division 2) for one of the years that Ogawa was on the team: 2012. And for most of 2012 Ogawa was on loan to a team in a non-professional league (in the Japan Football League). But he did play one match for Machida while it was in J2: as a substitute on March 11, 2012, entering in the 37th minute [3]. That is sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY. Michitaro (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of what Michitaro has posted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearance a few years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. Giant Snowman 08:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a Fully Professional League (J. League Division 2). IJA (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSPORT in its lede says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept (emphasis theirs). Given that this article only barely meets WP:NSPORT and very clearly fails WP:GNG, this article falls under that section of WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with J2 appearance [4]. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Keep: meets NSPORT" 1votes overlook the key aspect of the relevant notability guidelines pointed out by Sir Sputnik above. I completely agree with Sir Sputnik that in a case where the subject barely meets NSPORT and resoundingly fails to meet the GNG, the outcome should be deletion. Now, of cowhat urse, I can't be sure that the subject fails to meet the GNG as I can't search Japanese sources. But none have been presented. And we can't keep an article on an off-chance that the subject might meet the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in J. League Division 2 which is a Fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all we have as claim of notability is a few minutes in the Japanese second division... in addition of what Sir Sputnik said, WP:NSPORT also says: "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." I don't think a low-profile footballer as this one has some chances to meet GNG, my searches returned just websites of stats, unreliable sources and some false positives. Not enough. Cavarrone 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes this player passes WP:NFOOTY, but only barely. Consensus is for young players that they are given a grace period once they make their fully professional / senior international debut to become more established, but this player has clearly retired and so GNG is the only concern here. There is no indication in his brief career that any achievements were ever made that garnered sufficient significant reliable non-routine coverage to establish such notability. GS has shown clear consensus above for similar such careers. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 27 August 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, (t) Josve05a (c) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the long-standing consensus that subjects only just technically meeting WP:NFOOTY but comprehensively failing WP:GNG can be (and often are) deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:51, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Android media players[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Seemingly WP:SYNTH. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nom Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help me (so that I can improve upon the article) if editors would give reasons why they think that it should be deleted. Isn't it a rule that at least one WP policy should be mentioned? Aside from a policy, a reason based on substance seems required, even if only out of basic politeness. My reasons for keeping this article are that the reasons given for deletion do not apply.

1. WP:GNG does not apply because:

a. Android media players are notable, because stark majorities of smart phone users use them. Every smartphone has a default player.

b. Considering that even wp:otherstuffexists is not a hard and fast reason for deletion, then this case of other stuff exists that is far less notable most certainly does not a reason for deletion make. See my examples. Why keep those, and delete this? (please don't repeat the htmleditor thing, it's a bit selfserving)

2. WP:SYNTH does not apply because SYNTH_isnot. This seemed obvious to me, but perhaps I'm alone in that. There's no conclusion drawn, even though information from various sources is combined. I'm curious, has WP:SYNTH ever been successfully used as a reason for deletion for a comparison table? Comparisons do not constitute Original Research.CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't agree with WP:GNG WP:SYNTH assessment. I do however have some reservations that the article will be useful in the long term: it will need maintenance. --Cornellier (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful" is a bad argument. NickCT (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK we get it NickCT. Please permit me to elaborate on what I meant by "It's useful": unlike the yellow pages, this is not meant to be a simple dumb list of items but rather a harvesting of information that exists in no other place and provides an objective overview of a collection of information. I say give the article a chance to take root and if it doesn't flower ... kill it. --Cornellier (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornellier: - Look, I'm not going to argue with you about whether it's useful or not. Maybe it is. But that's not the point. Articles have to be useful and encyclopedic. There are lot of potentially useful articles we could make that wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. NickCT (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Fair enough. Not to be pedantic, but what's the official definition of "encyclopedic"? I know there's a ton of WP:NOT but where's the WP:IS?

@Cornellier: - There are probably a couple ways to look at that question. I think the simplest is to point to notability. A subject deserves an article in an encyclopedia if it is notable (i.e. it has been written about in independent secondary sources). NickCT (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Dear Nick, so far, you've used two invalid arguments against this article, which you've immediately abandoned when objections were made, SYNTH and "useful". So, your logic is weak, to the detriment of your other arguments. Merely citing a bunch of Wikipedia policies without bothering to actually defend and/or explain them properly is not gonna cut it, and frankly, diminishes your standing. Pruning is okay, but mindless pruning while rulethumping is decidedly NOT okay. You didn't even bother to address my points properly! So, you're not taking this seriously (enough). All the rules/policies you've cited also say that they're not set in stone. And encyclopedic, aside from it being subjective (what YOU like) you've failed STILL to show why the other comparison tables on more obscure subjects are encyclopedic while this is not. Are media players too low-brow for you, beneath you?

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP is not a shopping guide. This article falls foul of WP:SYNTH because it combines different sources to arrive at conclusions that none of the individual sources mention. I also believe that "Comparison of products X" are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a comparison site or shopping guide.-- danntm ^T _C 05:45, 18 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht delivery[edit]

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

Large sections of the article are copied from other web pages, the two of the three sources are linking to for-profit organizations (one referencing a cost estimate page by a specific company), 2/3rds of the article has no sources at all (specifically Licensing and Incidents), only one link to this page is not in regards to warnings for malicious editing (largely self-promoting edits). There is no indication that this topic is notable Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence is provided to support the allegations above. In any case, such problems are best dealt with by ordinary editing per our editing policy. The topic is certainly notable as we have significant coverage in good works such as The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments or The Adlard Coles Book of Mediterranean Cruising. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening segment is directly copied from here. Ref 1 is to an organization that runs training centers, the wiki for which is also dubious (there are no sources given for the article itself, references are just given for regional branches, and I don't see any google hits that show more than it exists). Ref 2 is decidedly just "a company who does this". These are the only sources used outside of the intro; the rest of the article has no references and there is very much original research. There is a total of one link from another wiki page, (almost) all other links involve malicious editing or this AfD. And frankly, neither of those books constitute "significant coverage" as they are both a few paragraphs that pretty much say "there are companies who do this".Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website page that you link to as the putative copyright owner is dated 2013 but the corresponding text in this article was created in 2009 - over five years ago. This indicates that the website got their text from us rather than vice versa - a case of backwards copying.

As for the training organisation, are you talking about the RYA - the Royal Yachting Association? They are a reputable and reliable source on the topic, being the main source of expertise and accreditation in this field. They seem comparable to a university or professional institution for this topic.

As for the other sources, as they provide paragraphs of information then this is adequate content per WP:SIGCOV.

Andrew (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of backwards copying should be noted and listed, but this is not an unsourced BLP and is capable of plenty of improvement. It appears that WP:BEFORE wasn't done and the issue was more that some site copied from Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could I get some commentary on the general lack of sources (keeping in mind that as of this edit, which is relatively unchanged from the current, there were no valid sources). Between RYA and the two books mentioned, even with creative sourcing 95% of it is on the chopping board.Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pile of incoherent unnotable rubbish. Op47 (talk) 21:15, 1 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 01:42, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmich[edit]

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

Singer with only one album, looks like a too soon issue. Wgolf (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch Lions[edit]

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

Clearly fails the test imposed at WP:CORP for organizations. No depth of coverage in reliable sources and no citations in article Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Robot[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage about this robot kit that would establish notability. The article itself is unreferenced. Whpq (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamika Miller[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Jazz Alliance[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco D'Agostino[edit]

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

Francisco D’Agostino is a businessman with nothing about his life and work which appears notable. There is no information that I could find about this man, other than his being accused of racketeering. In addition, the sources which discuss the charges only mention him in passing, as he is only one of three people accused along with their company. All three sources only mention D’Agostino one time. I would say that even if the charges of racketeering had been upheld and the suit was indeed going to court, it would still be a very weak reason for this man to have a wiki page. Now that the charges against him have been dropped, http://online.wsj.com/articles/judge-dismisses-racketeering-claims-against-venezuelan-businessmen-1408489055?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj I would say that there is nothing at all wiki-worthy about him, and this wiki article should be deleted. Secretsources (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Godoy[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. No independent sources to prove notability present in the article. Google hits are mainly related websites or social media. The Banner talk 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some sources - some from around the time of the Miss Universe pageant and some from later. There are more, but I think this should do it as far as notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 07:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, if you can find me a sport-related source about her volleyball career, I will withdraw the nomination. Because than I am convinced that she is not an one-event-notability person. Unfortunately, up to now I failed to find one. The Banner talk 11:19, 10 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. Furthermore, this contestant won Miss Congeniality All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. Trackinfo (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact the bad faith is entirely yours, Trackinfo. I am still convinced that the 73,400 Google hits (that boils down to just 181 unique hits) and the failure to prove her volleyball career, is not enough to prove her notability. The Banner talk 09:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't read well do you? Maybe that's your problem. Where did I mention volleyball? She is notable for THREE accomplishments, all very sourceable: 1) She won her national pageant, 2) she participated in Miss Universe (and got a lot of coverage just for doing that 3) she WON Miss Congeniality out of all of those contestants. Your repeated and aggressive defense of your move to delete all of these articles is reprehensible. Where does 73,400 or even 181 unique seem like a small number of hits? Each and every one of these contestants got a ton of coverage during the pageant and were on worldwide television. You are on an aggressive and misguided mission to delete appropriate content from wikipedia and fail to retract from that stance now that you have had time to think. I do not understand your motives. You are seriously wasting my time to try to figure out what damage you are trying to do to the wikipedia project. Trackinfo (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing in article already confirms she meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CssQuery[edit]

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

Notability has been doubtful since 2009; nothing has been done to establish it since then. Article was deprodded with the reason "7 pages of results in GBooks" — there are actually only five hits, three of which are bogus and completely unrelated, and the other two are passing mentions. — Keφr 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Very few functions calls warrant their own article, and right now we don't even have an article for the much-discussed (and much maligned) strcpy(). I'm sure many passing references can be found, but I'm not seeing any discussion of why this particular function is significant or worthy of note. Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Article now rewritten to focus on the library, not the function. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My idea of a passing mention is an entry in a phonebook or a cite or perhaps a single sentence. It certainly does not include a passage that continues for nearly a page: [5]. Nor does it include this. And there seems to be something on 7 pages of this. This topic does seem to me to satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James500, I appreciate the legwork, but the first two links you've given refer to the CssQuery library, not the function call (I can't tell what the third link refers to). The library may well be notable, and I'd have no objection to deleting this article and creating an article based on the library. If you're up for skipping that process and rewriting the article now, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably lack the expertise to rewrite this article. I think I've just demonstrated that. James500 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, the library cssQuery appears to have exactly one public function, called cssQuery(). So you're within your rights to call me pedantic. And.... the article is a WP:COPYVIO of [6]. Eh, l'll see if I can figure out how to rewrite this. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC copyvios should be expunged from history, so we might as well WP:BLOWUP this article. But for me, this function barely deserves a footnote in the article about Cascading Style Sheets. — Keφr 20:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keφr, I agree with you that the function is non-notable, but I think the notability of the library is at least arguable. I reread WP:COPYVIO and didn't see anything about copyright violations having to be expunged from the history, but this isn't my area of expertise. Can you point me to the page you were thinking about? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that the "library" is notable but the "function" is not? They are one and the same thing! How much are you going to write based on the sources that exist? Three sentences? It barely deserves a redirect. Together with querySelector this function/library can be just as well covered in [[Cascading Style Sheets]]. — Keφr 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keφr: My Ph.D. is in computer science, so from where I'm sitting libraries and functions are chalk and cheese. Functions tend not to be notable because they (should) do exactly one thing, and beyond a bare description of how to do that one thing there isn't much to be said. Libraries are collections of functions, and are much closer to the level of abstraction used in thinking about the actual problem we're trying to solve. It's not a great analogy, but while we don't have many articles on sentences, we do have a lot of articles on books (even though they're just collections of sentences, they manage to be more than the sum of their parts). I count 62 functions in the current version, not one of which is notable on its own. Taken as a collection, I see a historically-significant library that had a strong influence on jQuery. If you'd like to expand the article, we could really stand a background section on the problem the library is trying to solve (and why the problem wasn't initially addressed in the design of CSS) as well as a mention of what other solutions are available. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know what a library is. This library consists of a single (user-visible) function, which makes distinguishing the two silly. If this library had an influence on jQuery, this only shows it deserves a mention at [[jQuery]]. Which can be put there without keeping apparently copyright-infringing revisions around. — Keφr 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, this topic clearly satisfies GNG. The sources contain a lot more than three sentences, and the article can be expanded. James500 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC) And there are 49 pages of results in Google. How many of those have you looked at? James500 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC) At the top of this page you appear to assert that the library and function are not the same thing. You are not being consistent. James500 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was any infringing material in the earlier revisions of this page. As regards the removal of material from page histories copyright infringement is criteria 1 of WP:REVDEL. I am not sure what would happen in this case. James500 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say it with me: de-le-tion. — Keφr 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of comment isn't likely to convince anyone that you are right. James500 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per James500 and a refocusing of the article from the function call to the library proper. And cleaning up the copyvio. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck my "keep" !vote above on the assumption that the copyright issues do not require the deletion of the article. James500 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 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, Ged UK 13:14, 2 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, Lesser Cartographies and James500 have refocused the the article on the library. The three books now referenced in the article show multiple in-depth coverage sufficient for notability per WP:GNG. In my opinion, that this is the first public lib to support CSS1, 2, and 3 also contributes to notability. The article itself has been purged of copyvio and while but a stub, is well formed and referenced. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 17 September 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. SK #1 j⚛e decker ^talk 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashu Sharma[edit]

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

The person with very small roles in few movies Fails WP:NACTOR. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "Ashu Sharma".

Keep. Through available sources it appears to have this actor as meeting WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I am unable to find significant coverage in the link that you have mentioned above. Please help me with direct link. I tried all the search results generated at "Ashu Sharma" but it is only content the result with a name. CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: Well... while "significant" does not mean the same as "substantial", it does mean that the topic be spoken of in a more-than-trivial manner to confirm information within Wikipedia, and the topic being spoken of within Wikipedia need not be the sole subject discussed within any confirming source... very cogent here because actors are usually spoken of in context to what they do

. Perhaps someone could open a "how to" school to instruct just how patience is used to weed out false positives about same-named persons. For instance, a very brief search finds actor Ashu Sharma's background spoken of here. His work on the major film Teen Patti is spoken of in more-than-trivial fashion here. His earlier theater work is spoken of in a more-than-trivial manner here. Someone who does not have Wikipedia notability rarely has their works spoken of in reliable sources. And out of India's billions, this kinda means something. Is he the "most notable ever"... no. Is he notable enough... yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~ - No indication of importance. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Pardon Cutest Penguin but YOU nominated this on September 2. There is no need to include an !vote two weeks later. With respects, I have struck your second "delete" vote. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, your delete is obvious through your bringing this to AFD. You have no need to vote a second time simply to underscore your opinion. And please, no article is going to say "this topic is notable because". Topic notability is found through available sources speaking toward the topic... sources that show editors that WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:ACTOR are met, even if they are not in the article. The "indication of importance" is found through diligent WP:BEFORE and application of policy and guideline... not WP:PPOV. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: OOps! That I wrote by mistake

I am aware of Afd guidelines. thanks! — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As per WP:AfD and reviewing appreciable work by @MichaelQSchmidt: I would like to withdraw the nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Federation[edit]

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

Non notable boxing organization. Article has no sources and the only link is to the organization's home page. It's been tagged for 2 years as needing sources and my search found no significant coverage of the organization itself, just a lot of routine sports reporting on bouts it sanctioned. It exists, but isn't notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is a copyvio from http://www.worldboxingfederation.net/wbfabout.htm and probably should have been speedied.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable boxing organization. Deletion is not cleanup. NickSt (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about cleanup, it's about notability. Please list (and add to the article) significant and independent coverage of the organization itself.Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the copyvio - which is grounds for deletion.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There's a lot of passing mentions because of the bouts they've sanctioned, but that's not enough to show notability. As far as the copyright violation goes, if this organization isn't notable it's a moot point, and if it is notable then there should be good sources from which an article can be written. Papaursa (talk) 18:40, 7 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG with no independent sources and my own search found nothing to support notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has a number of issues and needs clean up. We may all agree that professional boxing has a ridiculous number of sanctioning bodies, however, that makes it even more interesting for Wikipedia to have unbiased information on the different organisations. The WBF has been around for more than 25 years and has been sanctioning body of numerous title bouts involving notable fighters like Darrin Morris, Greg Haugen and Jeff Malcolm. Evander Holyfield has held the WBF heavywieght title. Indeed, the article should be improved, but the notability should not be questioned IMO. Pugilist (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-written the History section that was a simple copy of the organisation's web page and have added a few references. More to come when a get a bit more time. Pugilist (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems with your edits and claims of notability. First, the sources you added are not enough to meet GNG--one is a fight listing for a boxer who once fought for an old WBF title in 1990 and the other is about the old WBF going bankrupt. Second, boxing organizations are notorious for using the same name as defunct organizations but that doesn't make them notable or tie their notability to the original organization's. For a similar discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Boxing Union. There's nothing to show these organizations are connected or that this recent version (created in 2009) has received any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursaltalk: Thanks for your input. In relation to your first comment, please note that my primary purpose was to have the original copyvio deleted. I hope that you do not have a problem with that. In relation to each of the title fights sanctioned by WBF, fighter records can be included in references, but that seems to be a bit of an overkill. I have not (yet) counted the number of sanctioned title bouts, but assume it is somewhere between 100-200. Each title fight is normally witnessed by a crowd of 1,000+ with addition of television exposure. Media coverage prior to each title fight is normal, thus giving exposure to the sanctioning body. Obviously, additional sources can be listed. In relation to your second observation I agree that boxing organisation may be notorious, but I am not certain that I agree that being notorious is a result of taking other organisations' names. Delta Airlines, Kmart and Chicago Cubs have all taken names of former companies or organisations that once were, but no longer are. Having taken the name of a bankrupt company/organisation does not exclude the new business from being somehow related to the business run by the previous legal entity, especially when former management is still related to the new legal entity. In any event the bankruptcy and related circumstances did create sufficient media coverage of the organisation. When I find the necessary time, additional sources can be added. -Pugilist (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that "former management is still related to the new"? I don't see anything that connects an organization founded in Tennessee by an American to an organization headquartered in Luxembourg and run by a South African--especially when there's a 6 year gap between the two. Otherwise, it looks more like a name grab in an attempt to gain notoriety by reusing a previous organization's name. I, and others, have said the new organization has gotten passing mentions for sanctioning a number of fights, but that's what boxing organizations do and doing one's job does not grant automatic notability. There's still no significant independent coverage of the new organization. The bankruptcy of a previous organization with the same name has nothing to do with showing this new organization is notable--unless you can conclusively link the two as being the same. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far no one has provided any significant coverage of this relatively new (2009) organization. Right now it's just another of the many, many minor boxing organizations. Yes, it exists but that doesn't automatically make it notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 16 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Charles[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Found nothing other than Facebook, IMDB and an irrelevant hair salon, Fails WP:NACTOR –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR --Jersey92 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searched, didn't find much, agree with above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't pass WP:GNG given lack of reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 05:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Pump Court Chambers[edit]

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Per nom. Its the members that are notable not the chambers. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTINHERITED is only an essay, and I doubt that its logic can be applied here. Places (and this is a building) typically acquire notability for their inhabitants and the events that happen there. James500 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Move to Pump Court and rework to include the entire street, which appears to be notable from sources in GBooks such as this. James500 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources dealing directly with this building, such as this. Another person who had chambers there was Thomas Artemus Jones. James500 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to effect the move and rewrite. James500 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Further expansion is required but this should be immune from deletion in its present form. James500 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing my vote to keep, this is a valid way of dealing with the matter of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:36, 11 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Pump Court obviously satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per James500,It passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:22, 16 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Patel[edit]

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

An entrepreneur with nothing about why they are famous and no refs/links (also the dates don't match on the categories and the page) Wgolf (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next to It[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The only references are to the iTunes posting and to cite the chart position, not indicating significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources. Only reached the bubbling under portion of a genre chart even though it has been released for over two months, so notability cannot be based off of just charting. STATic message me! 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 3 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Starr (artist)[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Links/references seem weak —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Walsh Jr.[edit]

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

Delete, non-notable attorney whose only apparent claim to fame is something he denies and which has since been retracted. A eugenicist organization called the Pioneer Fund previously listed him as a former president, while Walsh has said he'd never even heard of the group (see footnote 3 in article). Even if true, it wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but particularly given the controversial nature of this organization (which now lists on its website that someone else was president during that time), a disputed and likely mistaken claim is no basis for an article on a living person. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that being listed as something is rarely a claim to notability, especially (as Postdlf points out) when they deny it anyway. Sionk (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable independent sources indicating Mr. Walsh's notability.-- danntm ^T _C 00:16, 18 September 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 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Thielen[edit]

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

I believe this bio fails WP:NOTABLE. Tina Gasturich (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand: notability is not the problem, the selection of sources is. According to the Dutch business tabloid Quote, this man is or was one of the 100 richest people in the Netherlands, and they have an extensive file on him and his businesses. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:02, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G. N. R. Kumaravelan[edit]

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

Assistant Director by his own admission and new director on Ninaithale Inikkum 2009 (New Jobs). Simply not notable. scope_creep talk 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the director has directed three notable projects in Tamil films and has also been in the news for other potential projects. His work has also received widespread critical acclaim and has been nominated for notable awards - as stressed in the article. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:29, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editor 2050 shouldn't vote as page creator, but I agree with his assessment. Earflaps (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily. He has three notable films, and what perhaps is the most prestigious award in Tamil cinema, to his credit. —innotata 05:17, 17 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirhuseyn Seyidov[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:GNG as he has played in the 2012–13 UEFA Europa League group stage which makes him notable as he will have had lots of significant international coverage in the world media. IJA (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NFOOTBALL players who have played in a fully professional league are notable. Seyidov played in Neftchi Baku which is a clup of Azerbaijan professional leage. The list of fully professional leagues in WikiProject Football is not completed (It's mentioned there). Azerbaijani football clubs (including Neftchi) play in UEFA European League (even in group stage), which says that Azerbaijan football league is fully professional. --Interfase (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no evidence to suggest that the Azerbaijan football league is fully professional, if you have some evidence, I'll be willing to change my vote. IJA (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is evidence. Evidence is that Azerbaijani clubs are able to play in UEFA European League and UEFA Champions League. By the way Neftchi, where Seyidov is played, was the first Azerbaijani club, which played in group stage of UEFA European League 2012/2013 season. Or maybe you think that clubs of non-professional leagues also can play in UEFA European League. of UEFA Champions League? --Interfase (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Of course clubs from non-FULLY-professional leagues can, look at the clubs that take part in the qualifying rounds and compare their nationalities to the list at WP:FPL. Are you saying the San Marino league is fully professional? If you can provide a source stating that all clubs who enter European comptetition must come from FULLY professional leagues, please supply it. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - San Marino clubs didn't played in group stage of any UEFA tournament. --Interfase (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Be that as it may, assuming full professionalism of a league based only on the success of its clubs in other competitions is original research. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of whether the Az PL is fully professional or not, let's get back to the topic on hand. Is Mirhuseyn Seyidov deemed notable or not? I'd defiantly say he is due to his appearances in the 2012–13 UEFA Europa League group stage where he has received significant global coverage in the world media. The Az PL may not be fully professional but playing is such a senior stage of the Europa League will give him significant coverage and make him notable per WP:GNG. Discussing whether or not the Az PL is fully pro or not is a discussion for another day. I also may add that WP:NFOOTBALL should be revised to include appearances in the later stages of notable continental competitions. IJA (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. I'm aware that playing in the qualifying rounds of continental competitions doesn't confer presumption of notability, but as far as I remember, past consensus has been that playing in the tournament proper does. UEFA confirms subject's five appearances in the group stages of the 2012–13 Europa League.
As to GNG, I agree it hasn't been demonstrated, and I don't have the language skills or access to Azerbaijani media to do it myself. But I'd be genuinely surprised if someone with suitable skills, access and interest couldn't find GNG-meeting coverage of a footballer who's played since the age of 16, and played regularly for the past four years, for the first team of the club that's won the Azerbaijani top league three times and its national cup twice in those last four years, plus multiple U21 international appearances.
The subject has a page on three other Wikipedias: the Russian one seems to be the best of the three, and contains at least one source that isn't just a stats page or match report. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:GNG and league is truly part of EPFL, so it does meet fully-pro.--Nicat49 (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed at WT:FPL numerous times, being a member of EPFL is no evidence that the league is fully-professional. Try again. Is the league listed at WP:FPL? No, with good reason - because it's not. Giant Snowman 11:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is bad. This list is incomplete. It is written there. I added Azerbaijan. Because there are two professional football divisions in Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan Premier League and the Azerbaijan First Division[7] --Interfase (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat - there is consensus at the talk page at WT:FPL that EPFL is not a reliable source for including leagues. Giant Snowman 15:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd. For Austria EPFL is a reliable source, for some countries even their own national associations are reliable (e.g. For Albania), but for Azerbaijan not? I consider your arguments as very weak. According to the existing league Azerbaijan Premier Le

ague is fully professional. --Interfase (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and played in the 2012–13 UEFA Europa League group stage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 14 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Deligiannidis[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Youth footballer who has yet to make his debut in a fully professional league and has received minimal media coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:15, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lycee Amchit[edit]

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

nn private secondary school. -No.Altenmann >t 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as copyvio from http://www.lyceeamchit.edu.lb/ .and tagged as such. There is no sourced version that can be reverted to. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have declined your speedy deletion request because I think the text at http://www.lyceeamchit.edu.lb/ is rather using a backcopy of the 2007 Wikipedia article than the other way round. Anyhow, I agree that there is nothing notable about this school, so the article should be deleted. De728631 (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My deletion suggestion was based solely on what seemed to be a copyright infringement. If this is not considered to be the case then the article should be kept. We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Lebanon. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and per The Whispering Wind and copyright concerns have been overcome.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per long standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Aoyama[edit]

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

No independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE B6 ja:蒼山日菜. The one reference link in jawp is a summary of a NHK show about her broadcasted April 5, 2009. jawp mentions inclusion in Japanese Newsweek's (bad translation) "100 Japanese praised by the world" (世界が尊敬する100人の日本人) list (the July/August 2009 issue Amazon (cover for ease of locating, itself not RS)). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:50, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC) Confirms Keep !vote at 15:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, there are more than sufficient sources providing evidence that this is a notable artist whose workhas featured at multiple exhibitions. See for example [8], [9], [10], [11] and many others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EchoMail[edit]

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

No real third party coverage. The company receives passing mention in a long interview with the founder and in a boston magazine article on the controversy over him "inventing email" (link is dead in the article, here it is). The CSMonitor source doesn't talk about the company at all. The remainder of the sources linked in the article are on tangential topics or cover the technologies which echomail used (not their use by EchoMail). Protonk (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"invented email" is a joke. echomail=email - got it? -No.Altenmann >t 15:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company of unclear notability; per nom, mentions of the company are passing and not significant coverage, and several sources do not even mention the company. The extant Shiva Ayyadurai article covers the controversy over the invention claim, and notability is not inherited.Dialectric (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Barte (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carbuncle Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Award is more tongue in cheek than a serious award The Banner talk 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete the 'Golden Raspberry Awards' and the 'Carbuncle Cup' for starters. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be serious. Mmberney (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. Beside that, a quick look revealed that the Carbuncle Cup has about 267,000 Google hits. The Carbuncle Prize 7450. The Banner talk 14:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Tongue in cheek" is not a reason for deletion. This is covered extensively in the media. Examples easily seen in Google searches, such as [12][13][14][15][16], etc., etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It covered so extensive in the media that Google only comes to 190 unique hits. Brilliant, but not really convincing. The Banner talk 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Carbuncle Awards' has 110,000 Google hits in the UK and as Arxiloxos says they are covered by different media outlets. Perhaps if these were also included as references then the article would be considered more 'credible'? Mmberney (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps when you search on "Carbuncle" and "Awards". But "Carbuncle Awards" gives far less. The Banner talk 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further references have been added to the article, from sources such as the BBC and The Guardian Mmberney (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - "Tongue in cheek" is not a reason for deletion. This article meets basic guidelines. Bdboyc (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it fails WP:GNG. The comment "Tongue in cheek" refers to the fact that this is not a serious award for a serious achievement. The Banner talk 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - the first sentence of WP:GNG. Moreover, the Carbuncle Awards started six years before, and inspired, the Carbuncle Cup in the UK, an equally "tongue in cheek" award which also garners significant coverage in the media. Would WP suffer any detriment for including the former? I was surprised it didn't have an article when searching for the Carbuncle Cup, hence its addition Mmberney (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. I happen to be adding a reference from The Scotsman. --do ncr am 21:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just created redirects to Carbuncle Awards from each of its three award types: Plook on the Plinth Award, Pock Mark Award, and Zit Building Award. Any coverage of each of these is relevant to the notability. So, please also consider:
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
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

as relevant for coverage supporting the Carbuncle Awards article. --do ncr am 22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this fails GNG. It meets all the points. I'm not sure it needs the exhaustive listing of nominations, but that's another issue. Dalliance (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Beatrice Jefferson-Brown[edit]

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

I don't believe that this person is notable. She is simply one of many nuns. Fails GNG, a simple Google search returns nothing Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, undoubtedly a good person who did good works, but there isn't the third party coverage required to meet WP:BIO here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Ray[edit]

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

Fails notability. Received one NYT mention in 1998. Blackguard 17:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several more sources added. Shall the dozens of interviews and guest appearances on podcasts be added? Newwikiguy00 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He got some coverage during the 1990s as an exemplar of a day trader, but otherwise not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 25 August 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 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 11 September 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. Gave it a relist, but realised that taking the first AfD into account, this has effectively been listed for over a month with three delete votes and no keeps. No point letting this hang around for another week. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VNIIS Exemption Letter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Incomprehensible, and probably not notable. No comments at the first afd probably because nobody could understand it DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article may or may not be notable, but it is so completely incomprehensible that it would be simpler to rewrite it from scratch than improve it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 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. Withdrawing -- will fix DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American College Personnel Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Probably notable, but promotional beyond the point of fixability, especially because almost everything is a copyvio or very close paraphrasefrom various portions of their website. I made a try at it, but it would take doing over from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and AfD is not cleanup. Can be reduced to a stub easily enough if necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I see how to do it--and even add a reference. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 18 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega Man Battle Network characters[edit]

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

Fancruft. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mega Man Battle Network and trim heavily - Some information about the characters can and should be found in the franchise article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and trim) - per Salvidrim. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The merge target Mega Man Battle Network is also fully un-sourced and likely fails WP:GNG. I do not see any notability in the sources used in the characters article and so what is there to merge? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're just looking at a poorly written "series" page, Knowledgekid87 - The individual games are definitely notable. The first game in the series is a 60 source GA, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think information like that should be sourced as well then, the information can be merged over while the AfD is in process btw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it should be sourced, not arguing with you on that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's highly unlikely that there are not enough sources to establish the notability of the Battle Network series since it is a spinoff of the well known Megaman series. I am not saying that notability is guaranteed though I think it's far more likely that the article is simply badly written and it should not be too hard to fix up.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are six notable games, plus an anime and manga and a board game, that use these characters. Even ones also found in the main series, are notably different here in this alternate series. They need their own list article, it too much to shove in each of the existing articles for the series. Dream Focus 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the more important characters (based on their coverage in reliable sources, not anyone's personal opinion) to Mega Man Battle Network. Reads as endless (unencyclopedic and unsourced) video game trivia right now. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The vast majority of the terms in the article had no or next to no coverage in a WP:VG/RS search and are therefore best elaborated in a place outside Wikipedia (i.e., megaman.wikia.com). czar ♔ 16:45, 6 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Baseball Association[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008, lets make a decision either way. I don't believe that this Association is notable. Their one team, the Marlins, might be as it played in the Major league. Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this article does not even really explain what the Association is or why it should be considered notable. It seems to be an amateur league. It is unclear even what the status of the NSW Major League is as it doesnt seem to be professional either, though since the link for it doesnt seem to work i cant check. In any event, this league doesnt belong.Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete not an actual team but seems to represent only amateur teams. No third party sources. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Australian amateur baseball league. Insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:17, 13 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamas Nadas[edit]

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

Notability in question. Articles original claims to World and European championships in Karate did not hold up until after a bit of searching they were for a particular style of Karate - I am unsure if that could be considered notable or not. I did fix up the links but my inclination is not. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. The USKA "world championship" is not really a world event and its members only status makes it even less significant (as does dividing black belts into multiple divisions based on their dan). The coverage amounts to a USKA result listing, a local feature (which is normally determined to not show notability), appearing in an article by his employer featuring his help feeding some hungry people (a good deed, but not WP notable), and his own web page. There's no mention of him at the European Gojo-Ryu Federation website (http://www.egkf.net/) and I think it's strange that the article says his European titles were won in 1998 when the EGKF holds their championships in odd numbered years. Unless he wasn't competing as an adult, because youth events are held in even numbered years--in which case that doesn't show notability since youth events fail WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The U.S. Karate Alliance championship is not enough to show notability on its own and there's nothing else to show he meets WP:MANOTE. The coverage is nowhere near enough to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. Couldn't find a way to fit him in under WP:ATHLETE. WP:MANOTE is just an essay but if we I use it as a guideline, I come up short again. Great person, but the subject matter just doesn't meet current community standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Neil916 (Talk) 08:29, 15 September 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. GB fan 12:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhana Yaneva[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP. Strange enough do external links count as sources when you use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, but usually not in a normal AfD-procedure. Subject also fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE - she appears to be a notable model. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple Google Test gave less than 8000 hits, that is not very convincing. The Banner talk 21:35, 10 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. I added just a few more sources, there are plenty more to choose from. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. Trackinfo (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another obvious keep. Banner, the problem with your Google search prior to nomination (and 8,000 hits is not enough to think she may be notable?), is that you aren't searching under the native names of these contestants. This one's name was a little tricky to find because Miss Bulgaria and Miss Universe Bulgaria split up this year, not to mention that her first name can be translated different ways into English. But a little knowledge of Cyrillic goes a long way. Her name is Жана Янева; with that knowledge I was easily able to find sources and leave many more untouched. I will request that you withdraw this nomination. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:15, 13 September 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 - five attempts and still no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suiside inferno[edit]

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

A singer with no info at all-the website just goes toa music site and not about the singer. Also on another note-looks like Suiside Inferno has been deleted a lot. (I couldn't put a prod on it since the website would still count as a ref) Wgolf (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page has been moved to Suiside Inferno (apparently the correct captialization). Ansh666 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy close: G5 deletion, added to the SNOW delete below the panda ₯’ 10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlind Nuriu[edit]

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

Keeps on getting the prod removed by potential sock puppets-and player has not played full yet. Wgolf (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. WP:G5 may also still apply as there is an ongoing SPI into the article's creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not played in a WP:FPL. I can't see significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Btw Sir Sputnik and Wgolf, per WP:PROD you should have directly taken it here instead of tagging prod for a second time. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: You may want read up on your policies before suggesting that other users have done something wrong. WP:PROD specifically says that it "may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed." Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik No no.. you haven't done anything wrong but I can see one inline and another source in the article so per WP:BLPPROD adding Blpprod when the article have sources (doesn't matter if unreliable) is not a good idea. But maybe it is possible that after adding Prod someone has added sources. So, no worries. Thanks for your reply. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: You're point is well taken, but my basic point still stands as well. Please get your facts straight when offering criticism. When Wgolf tagged the article for BLPPROD, it was unsourced, and the subsequent PROD was completely in line with policy as I've already explained. However well intentioned your comment may be, I resent having to defend a deletion process that was done entirely by the book. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Nichols[edit]

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

A director with just one film. He worked on the Blair Witch Project but just as a audition assistant. His film he directed is unotable. And this article is over 10 years old and nothing has happened. Wgolf (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One obscure film isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Days of The Klondike[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I have failed to identify substantial secondary, reliable sources to support notability. Cult of Green (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Lehar[edit]

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

Subject not notable, self promotion Daniel.mcconnell (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I wrote when seconding a prod on this article a year ago by Rschwieb (talk · contribs), "Per WP:FRINGE, fringe subjects need reliable mainstream sources allowing us to describe their ideas from a neutral point of view. No such sources are evident in this case." —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The page continues to fly in the face of our content guidelines, virtually without change since the last PROD. It is essentially a mirror of the subject's personal website and personal views. Rschwieb (talk) 15:19, 11 September 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) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem[edit]

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

Essentially an essay on an "obscure" (per article creator[17]) theory. Secret Mark is notable. The Synoptic problem is notable. This shotgun wedding of the two, however, does not produce a legitimately notable topic. Of the sources in the article, only Koester (the theory's originator) directly addresses the topic. SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given that Morton Smith's hoax is covered already in a separate article there is no need for a fork. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis, original research, a combined topic that isn't uniquely notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fork, any useful contents can be merged. "This article will analyse" = original research. JMK (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Too little notability to merit its own article. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. (A9) (non-admin closure) — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaendaam Madhu Vaendaam[edit]

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

A song that was just released and only link goes to Youtube. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-let me add this was just as a prod but the person who made the page deleted that. Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short article showing now significance while failing WP:N and WP:V. CutestPenguin^Hangout 02:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A9. Artist page has been deleted. —teb728 t c 06:00, 11 September 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.