The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced, orphaned and non-notable concert tour that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT. The article has been tagged as only using primary sources for over seven years, but it actually has no sources. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Technically unsourced biography of a living person, because most of the external links are dead. Those that work, are either self-published by the subject, or do not mention the subject at all. I do not see notability established. bender235 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article written like a self-promoting resume. Not notable enough as a photographer. No non-trivial coverage on news and media found. There are many photographers of similar profile in Bangladesh; we are not gonna make a directory of all of them on Wikipedia. nafSadhdidsay20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis Akash has won a number of significant awards, as proven by the UK news articles. He seems to be a widely exhibited international photographer. The excessive tag-bombing last month was not entirely justified. Of course, I'm not convinced everything on that list is actually an award and the article could do with better secondary sourcing. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Represented by Panos Pictures. (Which is currently a red link, which just goes to show that Wikipedia is a bit ... challenged.) Poor article, dismally sourced, on somebody who is clearly noteworthy. If there are indeed many photographers of similar profile in Bangladesh, I hope we are gonna make a directory of all of them on Wikipedia. (Though of course reliably sourced.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to be a non notable "award mill". Some mentions online, but those are mostly blogs and industry publications, not mainstream reliable sources. Wikipedia really doesn't need an article on every award mill in existence. Additionally, I am nominating:
Individual awards by years, by categories, related template and related category. Please review before commenting/voting. Collapsing for brevity, due to extreme length. Safiel (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 1997
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 1998
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 1999
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2000
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2001
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2002
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2003
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2004
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2005
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2006
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2007
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2008
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2009
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2010
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2011
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2012
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2013
Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards 2014
Category:Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards
Note While technically categories aren't considered under the AfD process, if these articles fall at this AfD, obviously the category would fall as well. Safiel (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them for reasons above, and for parity with other non-notable regional film-critic groups that have been deleted for lack of secondary sourcing for notability and whose greatest exposure comes from Wikipedia itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment 1st entry does meet MOS:DABMENTION and there is a very similar see also I've added. I think it is borderline whether this should be a requested move Bombay Time to Bombay Time (disambiguation), and the time zone put at the primary, or just establish time zone as primary with hatnote(s). Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No need for a dab page: add both hatnote links to the time zone article and move it to the base name (ie Boleyn's 2nd option). Needs to be a formal WP:RM of the time zone article, I suppose. PamD09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the hatnotes to Bombay Time (time zone). @Wgolf: would you like to withdraw the nomination so we can put this up at WP:RM? (I'd have done it myself but I think it probably gets complicated to have an AfD and a RM going on simlutaneously) PamD09:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment: "Keep" doesn't seem quite accurate as a description of the outcome here. As I understand it, the outcome is to move the discussion to Talk:Bombay Time (time zone), where an RM request has been opened. The outcome of that RM might confirm the suggestion to delete the dab page that was the topic of this AfD. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Obscure band with no refs at all and can't find any notability.
As a side note I also just prodded a article under The Johns (Chicago band) (which the only reason why I found this was because I was wondering what the johns would link to-trying to avoid making a toilet joke lol) Wgolf (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - clearly WP:PROMO. looked for sources, found none, although the creator's edit note reads "(Established page for The johns, a top performiung act out of NYC with international name recognition)" I think that says it all. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actress with little notability who basically is just a guest star on tv shows (if you can consider her a guest star since she wouldn't be notable enough to be one). Outside of Boston Public all of her guest appearances are basically 1 or 2 episodes a show. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I'm just reflecting the consensus I noticed earlier this year here regarding another user redirecting asteroids <= 2000, which were eventually unredirected. As long as the relevant projects are notified, I don't care.
It might be more appropriate for you to do the notification, however, since the number of users watching these pages is probably low. I'm glad 65.94.43.89 happened on these.
AFAIR, the idea was that for asteroids <2000 that each be evaluated independently and individually, and not end up in bundle nominations or bot-assisted-redirection or mass redirects (such as AWB) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Short lived tv show with only 4 episodes (even though oddly it says 29 on the side bar) that has no refs at all and can't find info (but to be fair-with a title like O-ha it be kind of hard to find the exact title) Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW-the creator of the article was blocked for creating hoaxes it seems. I have tagged a few of his articles recently for being unreferenced and possibly non notable(surprised none of them had these tags!) Only about 2 or 3 of the shows I have found he created articles for actually had either a IMDB page or a wiki page in another language even! Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The second AFD from Template:Unidentified decedent after fellow non-notable not-news subject Lyle Stevik. The most notable thing about this article is that it hosts the authors own original illustration of the subject.
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no historical significance to this death. Aside from the local news sources, the subject has been the subject of a single CNN article in their cold cases column, and an appearance in a forensics trade publication. This is not significant coverage, every national newspaper covers more notable topics on every single page, every single day. - hahnchen19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again, subject is notable per WP:Victim and WP:ONEEVENT. CNN is still a nationwide publication, yes? Still a reasonable amount of recognition if the topic makes national news. See related discussion at this link which adequately applies to this nomination. As mentioned in the AFD for Pemiscot County Does, the fact that this article contains "amateur self-illustrated portraits" has absolutely no relevance to indicate if the cases are notable but simply reduces the amount of non-free images to be uploaded --GouramiWatcher(?)19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is difficult, because I don't speak Bulgarian. I couldn't establish that this street meets WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged as such for over 3 years (tagged by MilkStraw532. It has mentions online/in the news, but not enough that I am convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG explicitly permits the use of non-English sources as evidence of notability. Just a few seconds of searching yields plenty of coverage from the likes of Bulgaria Dnes, bTV (Bulgaria) and TV7 (Bulgaria). [2][3][4] That's probably why Andreas Philopater de-prodded the nom's prod. English language editors not speaking a foreign language or not bothering to do a translate of web-available foreign language work is not a reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOakshade, there is no need to be rude. From reading my nomination, you can see that I have written that it has mentions online and in the news. My concern is whether they meet the criteria of being significant mentions and whether the mentions add up to WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By reding your nomination you indicate that you didn't know if it was notable because you "don't speak Bulgarian." Not being being able to determine the significance of coverage in non-English sources, or not even trying to (see WP:BEFORE), is not a reason to AfD an article. AfD is used when we truly believe a topic doesn't merit an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's your total misreading. I stated that 'this is difficult, because I don't speak Bulgarian.' That is a little different from 'This should be deleted, because I don't speak Bulgarian.' The rest of my discussion - ' It has mentions online/in the news, but not enough that I am convinced it is notable' shows clear WP:BEFORE. Please don't assume bad faith and bite people's heads off based on your misreading. Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This road seems to be on a par with roads such as Norodom Boulevard, which is notable. If sufficient sources can be found, as users above have indicated they can, then there is no reason this article cannot be kept and expanded. Rcsprinter123(relate) @ 09:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Rcsprinter123 - Nominating because "you don't speak Bulgarian" is pretty much disruptive - I don't speak German so should we get rid of every German-related article on here?, Anyway even I have found sources [5][6], Think I might go and nominate Hohenzollern Castle on the basis that I can't read German... –Davey2010Talk17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, you've completely misread my words, which I have also clarified above. I in no way said that I nominated this because I don't speak Bulgarian. Happy to withdraw nomination accepting the assessments above. Thanks to everyone who commented on the notability of this article. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn - It too me honestly reads like "I don't know the language so I'll nominate it", I sincerely apologize If I'm wrong but that's how I perceived it to be, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete - This article contains content that is written totally like an advertisement. Even though Gopinath is not at all a significant entrepreneur to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for people who have just received some awards, even though the awards are also not significant. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In support to Keep the article I would like to share these independent links to enhance the credibility of the article and even Jimmy Wales has supported against the vandalism on this article two times. None of the News Agencies have used this article as the source of reference. Even the press about Suhas Gopinath by The Economist is also a validation. I am surprised that this article that has been there for so many years is flagged for deletion, request to independently verify the news sources below:
Note to Closing Admin - I wouldn't be surprised to recognize the above 'Keep' vote by Suhas Gopinath himself in order to defend his article from getting deleted. Moreover as per the archives the claim made above that "Jimmy Wales has supported against Vandalism for this article is rather a false claim and should be simply ignored. Dormantos (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored) Very Strong Delete - I have made a research on this article. Let's begin from the very beginning.
The article was published on 31 August 2006 called "World's Youngest CEO" and not "Suhas Gopinath" by VisionIndia who hasn't edited any other article on Wikipedia. Article was published on basis of 2 references of [[14]], [[15]] out of which the first one is non-notable as per Wikipedia:BLP. Surprisingly, even BBC does not certifies him to be the "World's Youngest CEO" at a time when this article was created by VisionIndia with a title of World's Youngest CEO which is quite surprising.
Current Status: It's not surprising to see many sources blooming up as a result of getting this article live on Wikipedia. Maybe this article is a source for many news sources to write upon.
Dead Links: References 6, 7, 8, 10 which are [[16]], [[17]], [[18]] and [[19]] are completely dead are invalid sources are should be removed immediately.
Personal Sources: Reference #4 which is [[20]] is a personal blog and not a independent news agency and hence stands non-reliable source. Reference #2 which is [[21]] a Crunchbase profile. Seriously, how do profile certify the notability.
As has been discussed previous at WP:RSN local city supplements of Times of India (and other Indian newspapers) are not reliable sources. The two main sources cited in the article are the Nagpur-city sections of [22] and city section of [23] and also [[24]] and it is clear from reading those pieces too that they are essentially a write-up of the subject's biography as related by him and his family (this is typical for the metro sections). Lacking any independent reliable sources the subject fails to meet WP:GNG.Dormantos (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored) Comment | Note to closing admin As per the article's history and edit records, there is been immense attempts in blanking, unnecessary moving, and repeated vandalism over this article. By vandalism, I want to mean that article was stuffed up with all non-sense stuff such as interviews, personal views etc. and that too by editors who no more have accounts on Wikipedia. Seems quite strange. They can be called sock-puppets as per Wikipedia:SPI: Nasib, 203.153.40.156, 203.200.213.98, 59.160.198.146, 122.167.2.211, Naveenk1, 125.18.168.157, Naveenkumar india, Chandanrkumar, Naveenkk2000, 121.243.255.78, 99.231.244.199, Globals media (Globals Inc. itself?), and 72.95.208.164. Out of 14, 8 are IP which have worked to promote the article and not expanding. Moreover account of Globals Media is sufficient to prove the account is of his company Globals Inc. The account has been already blocked indefinitely as per record [[25]]. It is no surprise that the IP addresses are sock-puppets of Globals Media working only for promoting this article. Dormantos (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject passes the GNG as indicated by the many reliable sources already in the article and others found in a quick news search. Past promotional editing (even if it occurred) is never a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay thanks ThaddeusB for your explanation. So shall I take it as you oppose my one point and accept my rest of the points mentioned above. I believe Wikipedia accept articles that have coverage in regular media and not creating sources based on claims made primarily on Wikipedia. I will surely respond if you have any queries regarding my research over the article. Dormantos (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis subject meets WP:GNG with online and (now) offline news coverage from 2003 to date. The sourcing could certainly do with tightening-up and improving, but that's not a reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I refactored this AFD. The nominator's statement had been pushed down out of order and the comments by Dormantos and others were nearly unreadable due to the mass bolding and prose/paragraph styles. The links were in long form as well. The discussion before the refactoring can be found here. Considering the edit patterns and format style of both the nominator and Dormantos, I have concerns about socking on both sides of this discussion. Mkdwtalk19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Delete / Keep - OK everyone! If Wikipedia is now accepting the articles of these type of entrepreneurs by there publicity only and without knowing there financial details such as turnover etc. even the company is not also on Wikipedia then, I must say I have 100+ names of more popular entrepreneurs to write about. Shall I start writing about them? or This article is old, so that we have to give any kind of privileges. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Preeti Sharma's Knowledge, notability is not determined by things like financial detail and turnover. If enough reliable and independent sources have written about an individual, they are considered notable. Notability and success are two different things. Moreover, we treat companies very differently than how we treat articles about people. If you have 100+ other individuals, whom meet our WP:GNG policy, then I would say go ahead. However, you need a clear understanding of how GNG works to do so first. Mkdwtalk19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw, Thanks for your deep explanation. I am reading Wikipedia from years and thought that the Wikipedia platform is for the people who are extremely popular in there work industry and have extreme Media Coverage. THE REASON OF NOMINATION - Because for example if industry icon such as - Manu Agarwal, Founder of Naaptol & others are not on Wikipedia then, a entrepreneur like Suhas Gopinath without having much popularity or financial releases in Media should not be on Wikipedia by my point of view. Else I am an Editor and the decision is in your hands as a Administrator there is no reason to debate further. Thanks Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators have no more authority in AFD discussions than any other editor aside from closings. Your opinion and comments are equally valued to mine and it is the merits of our talking points against current policies and guidelines that should decide the outcome. The issue of what constitutes notability is a hotly debated topic and you are not alone in thinking that the current inclusion criteria is too relaxed. I would encourage you to continue to participate as notability can change as determined through consensus by the community. WP:NMUSIC is a good example where the criteria changed a considerable amount in the last few years. Mkdwtalk20:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw, Thanks for your explanation. I have created an basic article of Manu Agarwal, Founder of Naaptol. I am still in the process of editing and making article good, hope for your best support. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Referring to the List of Indian entrepreneurs, Kochuousep Chittilapilly, Anand Deshpande, Byrraju Ramialinga Raju, Dr. G. Surender Rao do not have their article even though their companies have a Wikipedia article. Also refer that Varun Agarwal has got a Wikipedia article even though his company Alma Mater Store hasn't got one. This was in reply to @Preeti Sharma's Knowledge. Commenting on accusing me of sock-puppetry by @Mkdw, it's quite surprising to see that anyone who opposes you are considered as sock puppets by you in your Wikipedia. Even I know that the consensus for this article is obviously keep and neither I have forced anyone to vote in my favour. I have listed the dead links and links to personal blogs in the article of Suhas Gopinath that needs to be rectified with more valid sources. I am new to Wikipedia and I need time to familiarise with it's policies. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Dormantos (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the SPI tag to the top of this AFD because you raised concerns about sock puppetry in the discussion and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Globals_media. You also listed several IPs in this discussion in a note to the closing admin. It was then I noticed that other editors had filed an SPI against you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64. I find it quite surprising that you'd come to the conclusion that "anyone who opposes [me] are considered sock puppets". I rarely participate at SPI nor did I file anything against you. It's rather ironic because I added the top template in support of comments you made. I think WP:BITE is a great policy, and aside from the SPI, which you shouldn't take personally, because if no wrongdoing has been done then it will settle the issue. I don't think anyone has mistreated you and plenty of people have taken the time to explain their positions despite this being a fairly clear cut case of meeting our main policy on notability. Likewise, if you expect others to be nice to you, then I suggest you carefully measure your words and avoid strong accusations like the broad statement you made about me in what I can assume good faith was a misunderstanding. Mkdwtalk17:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mkdw. I apologize for being harsh to you. I really don't know why I was under constant attack when I joined Wiki and posted on this Afd. Yes I do accept that I did vote numerous Afd seeing the content only and not going by the policies. But now I have gone through complete policies of WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:AFD, WP:AUTHOR as well. I am sorry for using hard words at you. Regret for that. I would expect this Afd to go in a healthy manner. Thanks for your polite correspondence. Dormantos (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Fails GNG. Shaking my head that this made it through the speedy process (unsourced BLP of a clearly non-notable minor child of a politician). Carrite (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not 100% convinced on this, but as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years now, I felt that if I couldn't establish notability, it should be taken to AfD. Pinging Rbifan and Orangemike. The info in the article suggested notability, especially the CWC week and the connection to Jack London. However, London's group doesn't seem to be really connected with the organisation today. Essentially, although it looks notable, I wasn't able to verify it. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The fact that Jack London was connected to this club is what actually made me not want to put this on a afd to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please take a look again. Cited sources were on the page, just not incorporated as inline cites. I don't think this is a WP:GNG issue, this looks like a cleanup issue. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: I have added a first source, found easily from a Google Books search. Was a WP:BEFORE check done for this nomination? Lack of references is a matter for article improvement (which can be prompted by adding an Unreferenced tag) rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article gives asource. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind it. The first step should ahve been to tag as unreferneced, not for AFD. However, it is only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ballads sing of the martyrdom of Tanaji Malusare, the use of a ghorpad (lizard) in this battle. The fort was called Kondana at the time of the battle and renamed Sinhagad, in honour of Tanaji after the battle. --RedtigerxyzTalk09:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: No Checkable / Verifiable sources. This makes edit warring to easy between contesting editors, therefore expending editors time when IP editors oppose each others interpretations. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article gives SIX sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. They may not be Internet-accessible, but that does not mean they are not WP:RS. I know that they are not in-line referneces, but that is nmot a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- This is very Important Article and give very important information with numbers. This article must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra.Kadam20 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails notability for living persons. Quick gBooks and gNews search reveal no references mentioning the article's subject. Possible unsourced BLP, as the sources cited lead to dead links. GeoffWho, me? 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was prodded. I removed it preferring to bring it here for discussion. Things I have seen on other pages have led me to believe schools have more leeway when it comes to notability. I would rather it be discussed here and left to the community to decide if the article should be kept or deleted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The school is not really notable because the school is not in the news at all, the only page sources are the school website, and the most one can write about Pimley school would still be a stub. Since it could only be a stub, why not just create a page about Ermine (organization), which owns the school, and then put the date on Pimley school and the other Ermine schools there? Kges1901 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does something need to be in the news to be notable? The media does not cover every story out there for a variety of editorial reasons. On top of that, IMHO, schools are extremely important because your future as well as mine depends on an educating today's children. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with stubs, and in some cases there turns out to be sufficient content for a high school article to go beyond that. It might indeed be reasonable to write an article on the company that owns it. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their website indicates ages 4-15, which isn't a secondary school so far as I am aware. Redirect if possible. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite. Whether or not the school is a secondary school or not is irrelevant (BTW, it sounds like it is a combined elementary and secondary school since secondary schools include junior highs) since the text can always be edited to reflect that. What matters is whether or not the school itself is wiki worthy, regardless of the ages of the students. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They educate to O level, which is the school leaving qualification under the British system. It is therefore very definitely a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Satisifies WP:MUSICBIO #2, he have been active in music industry for at least a decade with multiple albums recorded and sold in Asian region. His list of albums can be found in the chinese version of this page - zh:李健 (歌手) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.182.78 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No argument for deletion was made by the nominator (just an expression of confusion that would have been better made on the talk page, if at all), so no point to relisting for further discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - GNG is satisfied and the BLP-1E objection overcome by the fact that she has received coverage for her "Global Hope" NGO. See, for example, THIS in Christianity Today.Carrite (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG, it has some basic Ghits but not much. As for WP:NPLACE, it depends if this is considered a 'larger neighbourhood' or 'smaller suburb' and I couldn't be sure that this falls into the former. As this has been tagged for notability for 7 years and I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY, I've taken it to AfD. If found non-notable, could be worth a redirect to Livingston. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Could find no signs of notability for this movie in Malayalam. Be advised that I have removed the Plot Section as it was a copyright infringement. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being TOO SOON. I found it on IMDB and found its official website and so gave the article a minor face liftbut, as we do not have evidence of release and lack reliable sources, we have a failure of WP:NFF. Undeletion can be considered if or when inclusion guidelines are met. 08:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Totally non notable "instant live" recording. Fails all notability guidelines. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation, no statements or votes were given in support of keep. Safiel (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Pinging the person who applied the notability tag Nancy and the person who nominated it for speedy deletion, WWGB. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Paucity of sourcing showing, fails GNG. I would do more digging, but if my inclusionist friend Billy Hathorn says it isn't there, that's good enough for me. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Satirical candidates are frequent in elections, especially in constituencies with well-known figures running. Unlike The Pub Landlord (who is known for his routine more than political activity) and the Monster Raving Loonies (a regular and widespread party), this is a one-off. Non-elected candidates are rarely notable, and this seems to be a one-man act, i.e. an Independent candidate with an eccentric routine '''tAD''' (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No lasting significance. Generated acres of newsprint and sensational coverage while it lasted, but Wikipedia is not news. Although not titled as a BLP it sails on the cusp of BLP1E. The case resulted in no changes to UK legislation and the individual is likely to return to being a low-profile individual. Keri (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator New information emerging that proton beam therapy centres are opening in the UK for NHS patients. As this may be as a result of the King case, I'm withdrawing the nom at this stage. Keri (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has beent agged for notability for 7 years (by TenPoundHammer) so time it was resolved. Possibly worth a redirect to member who later became notable elsewhere, or the film soundtrack they wwere featured on. Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, even though your linked source is in fact written by the creators - it's the paper they published describing the method. The paper has been cited 140 times, and the method was still producing reasonably competitive performance as recently as 2013-2014 benchmarks (described here and here). When other scientists discuss the method and compare it to their own work, that's perfectly good "secondary coverage". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument advanced of separate notability. Merge is counter-indicated for copyvio'd material. Closure is without prejudice to a redirect. j⚛e deckertalk14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious article about a prelude to The Canterbury Tales. I guess it would be notable if we could demonstrate that it exists, but the text here is copyvio from another non-free site and a dump of -- well, it's not a table of context, but there's no context given to describe what the list means. Almost speedy because of the copyvio, but not quite, so we're here at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does exist, insofar as the material being covered here is the introduction to Oswald the Reeve from the General Prologue, lines 589–624. However, I can't see any basis for dealing with the General Prologue in this manner. What is sometimes called the "Reeve's Prologue" is his sermonizing at the start of The Reeve's Tale. Add in the potential copyright issues with the prose here, and I don't see anything worth retaining. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Plenty of press releases and primary sources, but only one arguably third-party independent reliable source, a small piece from the Orange County Register, a local paper where the subjects live. Articles (especially biographies) require multiple third-party reliable sources, and this subject has only one. The subject has been tagged since July, and has had these issues since 2012. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; an article needs more than press releases being churned out to make it a notable subject. Aoidh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. All that hype and 29 Twitter followers. Seriously, I can find nothing beyond a couple of articles in the local Orange Country Register.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - including searches for Uley graphite project and Strategic Energy Resources Limited turns up enough. Given the time frame involved (well over 100 years), a search of paper based sources should turn up more. At worst, can be merged with the Uley graphite project article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. A historic operation, an industry leader in its country, etc. = worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Not an entirely terrible piece either, as business articles go — for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon05:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Building that has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Being the tallest building in a mid-size city does not make it inherently notable. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable musician. Areticle is of questionable truthfulness. Claims to have charted but that can not be verified at either billboard and allmusic. Akademia Music Award is not a major award, it is a pay for play award farm. Claim of rotation is not supported by any reliable sources. Suppleid source does not say rotation and there is no suggestion of national rotation. She lacks mulitple significant acting roles in notable productions. (Die Geschworene is uncredited, SOKO Donau is minor [27]. if Into the Darkness (film) ever sees the light of day then that may be one.) Current sourcing is terrible. iTunes, facebook, imdb, youtube, primary. No independent reliable sources. A seach found nothing good. (Note. Article is spam created by a series of corporate accounts from Secret Service Media.) duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 10:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Northamerica1000 and Vejvančický. The Kenton Magazine article, for example, provides substantial biographical coverage of the subject:
Austrian born singer and actress Dalal Bruchmann has exploded onto the dance music scene with the video for her hit single “Taste The Night”. With well over a million views on youtube alone, it’s apparent that Dalal is on the upward move.
Dalal’s entertainment career was no fluke. Born into a long line of talented artists, composers, and musicians, she was already a certified musical prodigy and performing artist by age 4. She learned to play both the violin and piano; composed her own scores at age 5, and at age 8 had already played with several acclaimed orchestras in Europe.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep – This is kind of a borderline case. WP:NMEDIA wants "a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." I added a note to say that the broadcast history was 1950–1969. I guess keep because the general practice seems to be keep college stations with broadcast licenses. See Category:College radio stations in the Philippines. The fact that it is now defunct wouldn't matter as such. I did add a note to DZRV – Radio Veritas to say that it took over the frequency formerly used by this station. Also, there is a proposal to merge this article with Tiger Radio, but they seem to be different stations operated at different times. The only thing they have in common is being operated by the same university. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable product. Checking the sources, almost every one is either a press release or an ad. The exceptions are two academic papers which make no mention of the product, and as one was published in 1968 this is unsurprising. I couldn't find anything viable online. Bilby (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject fails WP:NACTOR. Has not had significant roles in multiple productions and consequently does not have a fan base or have made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Only appears to have had minor roles in TV series in which she has appeared. The article was previously deleted as a copyvio of http://moviespictures.org/biography/Monico,_Monet and this version still retains significant similarities to that source. AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom, newly added intro proves the point: was a rising star until derailed by drug abuse. With minor roles leading to no notability, article focuses on her Dr. Phil appearance and drug addiction which makes the article more promotional in nature. Recent reference additions only solidify my opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring)14:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weakly kept, in my view, because consensus is roughly "it probably happened, so it's probably notable", which isn't very convincing, but there's nobody else advocating deletion, and the nomination isn't terribly convincing either. Sandstein 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, biased information, violates NPOV policy and is propaganda. Also, there is a lack of impartial/neutral information pertaining to this event in English. Xtremedood (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [No sources, biased information, violates NPOV policy and is propaganda. Also, there is a lack of impartial/neutral information pertaining to this event in English.]:
Comment For me reading this article was rather discombobulating. No where near enough content to put the article in a constellation of understanding. If this battle was part of a war, mention it in that wars article. if it wasn't mention it in the history of the mentioned countries. I felt like I had so little to go on I wouldn't even know where to start researching this to help the article out. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep – When I started searching for sources about the "Battle of Sarsa" I was truly perplexed, since the only websites mentioning it seemed to link back to this Wikipedia article. Then I started searching for related terms, such as "Gobind Singh". (Oh look there's a Wiki article: Guru Gobind Singh.) It became clear that the river in question is more commonly spelled Sirsa. Parivar Vichora is apparently a site on this river, related to the Battle of Sirsa. Here's a mention. Here's a longer discussion from sikh-history.com. So I dunno, it seems like a pretty significant event, widely recognized as happening, at least within the Sikh tradition. Maybe the article looks like "propaganda" right now, with the spin currently given, but do you think the event didn't happen? Do you (Xtremedood) know of any good sources discussing this place and time which might have better information? groupuscule (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have found more information, however I believe at the current the information should be kept simple. I have made considerable changes to it, however the pages are prone to vandalism on a regular basis, which I think qualified editors should look out for. Xtremedood (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 07:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seem to have occurred, ergo are probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was tagged as a speedy deletion as something that was edited by a sockpuppet account, but I'm declining it because there have been edits from others (albeit mostly from the AfD nominator) and there's just enough of an assertion of notability here to where it'd probably be better for this to go through a full AfD since it's already in progress. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically there's two people here who seem at least somewhat interested in keeping the article and (presumably) improving it to show notability. However at the same time there is still an impetus to prove notability for the battle since there have been many, many battles throughout history, some with names and some without. A battle occurring and receiving a name does not automatically mean that it's notable. It can make it easier to find sources, but it's pretty typical for historians (amateur or professional) to label battles in order to keep dates and facts straight. What we have here is a siege that is sourced by one source. It's by a reliable publisher but the book contains information about thousands of battles and isn't really the type of source that we'd keep on that basis alone since it contains many, many entries. This needs more sourcing to really prove that it was a notable event. Now this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement for deletion, just that right now based on the sources there really isn't a strong assertion that this battle would pass notability guidelines based on the single source. It is, however, enough to where I think it should continue through AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment-tough call, she seems to fall under too soon at the moment. As for the sources, that is kind of expected though to be honest as newer artists will have more sources. For now a Weak delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 07:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 07:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? It was shown one month last decade on a network that has been around since the 1960s. No mention is made of it there and it is hard to see how any could be? --Greykit (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sourced only to the network. That link doesn't even work. No indication that it's even shown anymore or that it's notable. Greykit (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not blown away by the content by any means. but when I search the category "Category:Irish children's television programmes" It's not that much worse then the other articles there, This is why I think having Catagories instead of articles can be dangerous. If we had an article for Irish children's television programmes This show could have a paragraph in that article. as is, the only choice they have is to be a stub. given the state of the article as a hole I'd say hold off on deletion but a lot of articles in that category are pretty sparse and could use some help. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. Even so, and referring to the other contents of that category, this is a particularly poorly sourced one which is rife with original research and asserts no notability, the website doesn't work anymore and it no longer appears to be shown. Aifric, for instance, has at least one award. Best Bitz from Back Den has two sources. Custer's Last Stand-up has a BAFTA. Dáithí Lacha's sources date from the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s and is the country's "first home-grown television cartoon star". The Morbegs has three sources. Pic Me is an award winner and globally distributed. Roy has a BAFTA. Quizone doesn't (yet?) compare. --Greykit (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 07:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not finding enough reliable third-party coverage of this book to make me believer it's notable. There are various appearances and interviews by the article and some self-promotion, but I can't find reviews or commentary about the book itself. Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 07:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems not to have been reviewed by any major media. I'm willing to change my mind if such sources are found and added to the stub. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete unless independent sources can be found. This is a classic art gallery/art centre/art space conundrum: there may be plenty of RS available, but they are about the exhibitions, not the gallery. I've had trouble with other artist-run centres, which technically are notable but cannot be verified as such for Wikipedia. Unless there are some RSs available that are about the gallery itself and are more than trivial, sadly this is a delete. freshacconci talk to me20:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - exhibitions being covered in reliable sources is some indication of notability. As such, I would be inclined to keep if even one reliable source discussing the history (for example) of the centre existed. Sadly, I couldn't find any. Pinging @Hallows AG: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NOTABILITY. Without beng able to see NYT aticles, it is unclear if they were significant mentions, or even if they were much about him rather than successful family. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can get it resolved now. Pinging Bradv who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR, His books appear to the the leading non-academic books in his area of work: Thebook on Afganistan is held in over 1700 libraries; the book on the "Wars of the Bushes" has been translated into three languages. I've added library holdignsand reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletedCSD A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance, following deletion of the artist's page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Added more references. Real company with local recognition and an increasing presence in the crowdfunding industry. Compared to other entries related to crowdfunding, this page has more notability. This also relates to the JOBS Act and financial technology. Talbot0893 ( talk ) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes , there are more references. I've read them. Most are references to show specific companies use the services--but these amount to incidental mentions of WealthForge, not substantial references, and do not prove market share; if you can prove it is the most important firm in the industry, that would show notability. You've added an academic reference--but it just includes the company name in a list of 27 companies in the field, without discussing it at all. (The list does show that 17 of those companies entered the business before this one.)
You've kept in such promotional material as "Mat and Fred developed technological solutions, leveraging the web to create new efficiencies and scale for private equity markets. These technologies form the foundation of WealthForge's services, and fit the larger trend of financial services becoming web-based" This says nothing specific, and only a promotional web site would refer to the founders by their first names to give an informal touch--not an encyclopedia.
" local recognition and an increasing presence": "local" is a reason against notability, and increasing presence translates as not yet notable
The JOBS act and financial technology are important, but I don't see how that shows this specific firm is.
on my talk page, you write", Wikipedia already has pages for many similar companies" Yes, we have pages for other crowd funding companies. If they're as promotional as this and prove as little, we need to get rid of them, not add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response You bring up good points. I have tried to keep promotional language to a minimum, but more of it can and should be edited out. I am not associated with the company, nor am I paid or benefiting in any way from this article. I live in Richmond where the company is headquartered and I am a student at the University of Richmond, where the two founders attended school. However, I do not know them and I am not trying to promote the company in this article. Some of the information comes from promotional materials, and I actually cut out much of the promotional language – more needs to be edited out, though. In creating this article I am interested in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the crowdfunding industry, which I think is very important. For example, I find it very interesting that someone can invest in lawsuits through Lexshares, a client of WealthForge.
While WealthForge is not the most important firm in the industry, it is well-known in crowdfunding nationwide, its technology is used by other crowdfunding companies, and its financial services are used by many more. News coverage is a little hard to come by not because it lacks notability, but because of the nature of its work. This is also why some sources mention the company only tangentially. Much of its work is done behind the scenes between companies, but it provides the necessary services for crowdfunding. If we delete WealthForge, Wikipedia would lack a clear explanation of how the crowdfunding industry works, because while we might have crowdfunding websites present on Wikipedia, the company that allows many to actually invest – Wealthforge – would be absent.
Crowdfunding is not done through the more traditional financial institutions, instead, new, small companies like WealthForge provide specialized services for crowdfunding clients. Moreover, while I do think many articles about crowdfunding sites on Wikipedia lack quality, I do not think they should be deleted. If we delete these sites, we lose significant coverage of the crowdfunding industry, who the actors are, and how it works. Since it is also a growing industry, these pages will probably develop much more in the coming years – including WealthForge's page. I should also mention that WealthForge can act as an interesting case in crowdfunding startups, since it started merely as a crowdfunding platform called Fundroom.com, but then transitioned to provide services to the rest of the industry.
This is not my first time editing an article on Wikipedia, but you obviously know much more than me when it comes to the rules and principles of the site, so I look forward to your response and I hope I have been able to change your mind about this page a little bit. Please know that I am not trying to vandalize, nor promote any organization, I am simply aware of the company, found it interesting, and hoped I might add something about. I will certainly try to be more careful about notability in the future, though. When I created the page I did not have it fully planned out, and thought there would be more sources. Then, I scrambled to add things so it would not get deleted. Nevertheless, I do not think we should delete this page. I think it has something to offer, especially if we improve it. Talbot0893 ( talk ) 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Delete The article is not moving toward meeting Wikipedia's standards with the just added material and cites.
Example: the material supported by the cites to PRNewswire, characterized by its website with Amplify Take your release beyond the basics for better results.
Example: the Reuters cite has this disclaimer at the head Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Example: the HuffingtonPost cite has this mention of WealthForge such as WealthForge.
Example: the WSJ cite may speak to the notability of a client of WealthForge, but is only a passing mention of WealthForge.
These cite failures, in addition to the pervasive promotional tone and PRspeak, indicate, to me, an article aimed a potential client. — Neonorange (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources I saw on the page were press releases - and any company can put those out, really. The article is, indeed, written in a promotional tone, and I'm not convinced that we can get around this problem. I should mention that notability is not necessarily conveyed with a few brief mentions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails to meet Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. the only substantial discussion that is independent (and the press releases and the U Richmond sources are not independent) is the local newspaper, and that kind of regional notability is not enough for NOTABILITY. the other sources are just passing mentions. not substantial. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ghits were overwhelmingly for other things called Sky Force, I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. An orphaned page with no good redirect target. Tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Fabrictramp tagged it for notability, Dgebel removed prod. Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poetnial keep -- As I read the article this is (or was) a para-church youth organisation. Even if its merger has led to it being defunct, it may have eben notable once; if so, it should remain notable. I am taking the article at face value. If it could be demonstrated that it was only the program of one local church (or a handful), my view would be different. If my reading of the article that the organisation is effectively defunct, and was before the days of the Internet, the lack of Ghits is unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the one trying to prove notability? I double-checked Sky Force's website and they don't have a list of local chapters, so there's no telling if it was at 12 or 12,000 churches. ~EdGl!23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, not exactly, unsourced articles don't go to AFD, only articles that you have attempted ot find sources for, and failed. I'm gonna take a good faith swing at sourcing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. I did find a self published book by a father-son team of ministers in Muskoka, claiming to have founded this children's evangelical ministry. But neither, they, nor their church, nor Sky Force itself seem to have any independent sourcing or notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Disgusting example of tag bombing, I'll be back to fix that tomorrow when I have time to edit. This organization has a NAMED ARCHIVAL COLLECTION at Northeastern University in Boston, 12 linear feet, which is pretty big. And yes, the historical abstract attached to that collection is significant published independently-produced content counting towards GNG. I have to go to work, more latter. This topic is going to be an easy GNG pass, I think. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist commentCarrite makes a pretty compelling case to keep on the face of it, but I've relisted for a week just in case anyone has any other comments to make on this. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After looking at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, I think this is a borderline case, but I couldn't quite establish that he meets the criteria through reliable sources. There were lots of websites which mention him, many using the same wording as his personal website. He seems to be successful within his field, and I considered whether he might meet WP:MUSICBIO #1, but I'm not sure it's quite there. As this has been tagged for notability for seven years, I thought it best to bring it to AfD now and resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Did a search and cannot find any reference to albums produced, live tours or awards. The only article is related to her being a judge on a singing competition. The page reads more like a CV and has a promotional tinge. Karst (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS or trivial and thus unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the author of the article clearly has a WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- I am unaware of any significant coverage such as required by the notability guideline. The sparse existing non-trivial (more than mentioning its existence) coverage overlooked by the author of the topic is dismissive as well TEDickey (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any significant coverage of this text editor anywhere obvious. It's interesting how many irrelevant hits you can get for "xvi" "text editor" "stevie". I don't know how people can possibly tie together Stevie Ray Vaugn, Pope Benedict XVI, and text editors, but at least one person managed to do so. Anyway, it's already briefly described at Vi, so I don't think a merge is necessary. Given the few incoming links from other pages and the disambiguation, I don't think a redirect would be very helpful. However, it could be redirected to Vi#Contemporary derivatives and clones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains advertising content related to a small, privately held company. The company is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia page, nor is the PR-style article a neutral, non-biased description of the company. As this entry exists purely to promote the company, it should be deleted Kdb150 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real evidence of notability Al pst al refs are local press releases. The WSJ award is not a first place, but a minor award in category. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stub: I noticed it won the WSJ Innovation award[44], which unlike the rest of the award spam is actually a significant award. Did a quick Google News search[45] and there are plenty of sources. The current article is an advert, so suggest stubbing and watchlisting. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
None of the third party sources do more than mention her--I suspected this from their titles, but I confirmed by reading the sources . DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources range from self-published,[53][54] to user-generated,[55] to passing references,[56][57][58][59]. Subject won two awards from her theater department in college,[60][61] but neither award seems "well-known and significant" enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Most coverage outside article is limited to her role on Adam Carolla's podcast, but again, passing mentions only. Only this interview would seem to help establish notability, but a single source is not sufficient. Levdr1lp / talk14:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:IMPORTANCE. Working menial jobs in the Los Angeles entertainment industry does not make a person notable. 20:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC; article has zero secondary reliable sources. This is a group created by SM Entertainment and composed of members of existing SM Entertainment groups, whose purpose was to perform one time at one of Korea's big year-end music festivals. I can't really see that a standalone article is useful for this one-off event group, as there is no biographical information to include (all members are discussed elsewhere, in their own or group's article), no discussion of how the group formed (it was done by a big company for one event), nothing to say about their musical style (it was one song, a cover of an existing song by Zedd), no controversy or critical response. There's literally nothing to say about this "group" other than "here are the members and they performed this song one time." The year-end music festival at which they performed frequently have many "special groups" like this one perform, and none of them have Wikipedia articles; SM Entertainment just gave this one a name so an SM fanatic made an article for them. If not already there, it might be worth a mention in each participant's article and/or the SM Town article, but I think just typing it into those articles would be preferable that trying to merge or something official like that. since this article has no RS anyway. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pure personal opinion, not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:SOAPBOX explain why this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I couldn't figure out which CSD criterion this meets, but it may qualify for speedy deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an exact copy of a previous article that was speedy deleted per A7. I've tagged it. However I'm not entirely certain that A7 ought to apply as it deals with things rather than ideas. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the essay has some interesting advice it isn't encyclopedic, the editor who added it clearly has a head for management and could likely do a lot of good for wikipedia, but the essay should not be an article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like Animalparty, I wanted to find a Speedy Deletion justification for this, but it did not seem to fit any category. But it is a personal essay of no particular note, which does not belong in Wikipedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion category for personal essays like this (though I was tempted to delete it under the 'uncontroversial housekeeping' criterion). It obviously isn't an encyclopaedia article, and so is out of scope. This might be accepted by Wikihow. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article appears to fail WP:EVENT. The only notability I can see in this article are that some famous people died in the crash, and there was a mural built after the accident in memory. These people might be notable, but I believe this event would also fail WP:NOTINHERITED. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Tado's article. Let's be honest, most of the coverage for the incident was regarding him. Sure the bus company involved was suspended for several months, but that doesn't necessarily establish notability. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deadliest bus crash in the Philippines in 2014.1 Event received significant coverage and in fact continues to get media coverage. 1, 2, 3, 4.--RioHondo (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article must be expanded to focus more on the background of the accident and investigation. Also I propose renaming the article to 2014 Bontoc bus accident to be more specific.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the press coverage may in good part been because of the celebrity, but the event as a whole is significant quite apart from him. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(This is a serious nomination, not an April Fools one.) This is a completely unsourced article and nothing more than a collection of Star Trek trivia. It belongs on Memory Alpha, not here. There have been two prior AFDs. The most recent (in 2011) was from a sock puppet and so the nomination wasn't especially considered. The first AFD (7 years ago) said let's clean it up. Almost nothing has changed in the article in the seven years since then - it continues to be an unsourced list of trivia. B (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rather obscure fictional character. Granted this guy is a character from novels over 100 years ago. But not sure just how notable he is. Now maybe userfy be nice on this. But overall not sure if this should stay on wiki or not. (Though it does sound interesting I will admit) Wgolf (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait just noticed something the creator of the article has THE SAME name as this guy. No author for the book...only thing I can find on Google is wiki mirrors....is this a hoax??? Wgolf (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Definite hoax. Google reports No results found for "Daniel Pontillas" -Wikipedia prior to 2011.[62] User:Mikuu_achi is a clear sock of User:Daniel_Pontillas. Neither account has edited outside the Daniel Pontillas article. At one point he even inserted an (off-site-hosted) photo of himself into the article. He also changed the name of the "leading lady", presumably to match his change in girlfriend. I'll place a hoax user-warning template on both account talk pages, although neither account has edited in over 4 years. Alsee (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that got me first was when I saw the words Sherlock and was thinking "that is odd"....Of course it be obvious if we saw something like "Man who won 2 Oscars, a noble peace prize, 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 Grammys...." (Unless if they were the worlds most busiest and amazing person ever) or "The long lost unknown president of the US" (Okay that is pushing it). Wgolf (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable main-belt asteroid. Only reference is to a database list, with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NASTRO but may be worth a redirect to Asteroid belt -War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar and have all been tagged for notability since 2012:
Nomination withdrwan per my comments below, apparently this is more controversial than I originally thought, honestly thought it would be uncontroversial or I wouldn't have attempted the bundle. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I'm confused here. Usually if you redirect items to a list, that list doesn't have links to the items in question. They are unlinked. The list you mentioned is a list of links to things like the asteroids on this delete list. It would be a circular redirect. Such as the item on this delete proposal 1747 Wright. We would either delete every individual article on the list you mentioned (but keep the list) or keep all the individual articles and keep this list page you mentioned and add these new ones to the list. Simply saying redirect to list doesn't really solve anything. There appear to be over 217,000 of these asteroids/minor planets. The first 10,000 pretty much have an individual article for each and every one. Randomly picking a few here for deletion is ridiculous! You'd still have over 9,900 to go. Personally I think an article for all these is trivial and should go. I would simply keep the list (with unlinked asteroids) but include in the table next to each asteroid an external link to its JPL Small-Body Database number. If someone is truly interested in asteroid "4997 Ksana" they would be a click away from the jpl website info. So it's keep for me unless we discuss ALL the asteroids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent. I agree with Fyunck(click), either keep these or also delete similar mini-stubs, but don't just randomly pick a few of them. --JorisvS (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These weren't picked randomly, they were all part of the hidden category of pages tagged for notability. If the other articles had been on that list I would have included them as well. For the record I had about 5 more articles on this list that I had to remove because less than 24 hours after I had put together the list, those 5 articles had been nominated individually by another editor, or had been redirected. Obviously there is a bunch of these articles we need to deal with, and it does seem silly to deal with them all separately. I was just trying to cleanup some notability tags though, I didn't realize how big of an issue this was. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: First, WP:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Dealing_with_minor_planets recommends redirection rather than deletion, so that an AfD nomination runs directly against WP:NASTRO policy to begin with. Second, such redirection should only occur if a good-faith search has failed to locate supporting references. For at least some of these asteroids, reliable sources do exist (I haven't checked them all, and you obviouslyhave not), and so redirection is not appropriate either. Rather, they should stay as stubs until they can be expanded. Essentially, I agree with Graeme Bartlett below. To pick just one example, 1747 Wright has published information on its orbital characteristics, albedo, lightcurve, spectrum, surface mineralogy, and other attributes. There is also an image and a substantial amount of infobox data already in the article, which would be lost if the article was redirected. Clearly, there is enough material to expand at least that one to a decent article size, and ditto for all the others I've checked. It's also WP:Astro practice to keep the articles on low-numbered asteroids, precisely because they've almost all been known long enough to accumulate a fair bit of literature. I must say, I consider this particular mass nomination extremely disruptive, and in my opinion the nom deserves a trout. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does recommend redirection, and once I realized that the consensus on these was to redirect I added the bit about a possible redirect to the nomination, and have said in my other comments that a redirect would be appropriate. Unfortunately, I had already nominated it, once I realized what the consensus had been, but have no prejudice against redirecting these. Secondly, I am not a subject matter expert, nor do I claim to be, there are editors at this AfD that obviously have a lot better understanding of it then I do (such as yourself) and are able to find sources easier than I could (and thank you for providing sources to back up your claims, rather than just announcing their existence). The checks I did found some info, but not enough to warrant an article, that third link you provided clearly has enough to support an article, I didn't find anything that extensive. I still don't appreciate some of the bad faith comments made about the nomination. That being said, your argument is enough to convince me that this nomination was made haphazardly and I probably should have contacted some folks at the astronomy wikiprojects, so I will withdraw the nomination. It was not intended to be "extremely disruptive" and anyone familiar with my editing history would know that. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first one I looked at even had an image. So these have obviously been researched heavily, as you can also tell from the low numbers. So without checking, and I am sure the nominator did not check every one either, I recommend keeping every one of them. If they are nominated for deletion after the nominator has done a literature search for that one then they can be considered individually. Until then keep the lot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It even had an image??? How is that a valid argument for keeping it? In what world does having a picture of something automatically mean it's been "researched heavily?" You are just making assumptions. You are also assuming (in bad faith) that I didn't do any literature search before nominating these articles. Then you say that I should do a literature search on "that one" but don't even tell us what "that one" is. If your convinced that it's been "heavily researched" then why not spend 5 seconds typing it into Google to prove that statement? I would check "that one" out now, but unfortunately I'm not sure what "that one" is. Based on previous discussions it seems the consensus is to redirect these articles, not keep them outright as 65.94.43.89 pointed out above. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - these all fall within the context of NASTRO's section on dealing with minor planets. Why this particular set for AfD? I don't know. I think some at WP:Astro have argued for keeping dedicated articles for the asteroids with numbers up to 5000 or 10,000 or something, and I'm ok with that as a matter of practice. However, since someone has brought it up here, let's go with the policy. WP:NASTRO was initiated, originally, in response to an unusual amount of article creation for high-numbered asteroids. In the case of this set, redirecting does no harm, and if/when any particular rocks among them are studied beyond basic parameters, then an individual article can be made. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't arbitrarily pick these pages, I picked them because they had the notability tag placed on them, no prejudice against adding others to the list that are the same. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I should have realized that the notability tag is pasted on a large number of the asteroid stubs...perhaps even placed by me in some cases! It's not really controversial to take a critical eye towards the asteroid stubs, and I think this was a good faith attempt at dealing with the ones you found with a notability tag. As you've found, though, the community currently prefers to redirect existing minor planet stubs rather than delete them outright - a pyrrhic victory for inclusionists! ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the corresponding minor planet lists as detailed in WP:NASTRO. Those stating keep may want to reread the guideline, which states that an object must have significant coverage to be retained. In the case of these minor planets, I'm not seeing any significant coverage (and no, an image most certainly does not count). StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable academic. Atangana claims a fairly high impact factor by having his papers frequently cited, but an examination of the citations shows that they are largely him or his co-authors citing his own papers. There is no indication that many other authors have cited his work. Atangana publishes exclusively in journals published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation, an open-acces, pay-to-publish organization that has been put under watch by the Beall list for predatory publishing practices. The conferences listed cannot be found except as mentioned in Atangana's papers. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atangana is a young researcher that has published 67 papers in his field of expertise in less than 3 years. His research paper appears in top journal like "Vibration and Control", "Computational Physic", "Journal of hydrological processes", "Communication in nonlinear science and numerical simulation" "Neural computing and applications" and others this journals are not open access and in addition, I will like to point out the fact that, almost all the journals in Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and other have open access option does that means they are not good?
The conferences list exist and are well-known — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboctara (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the claim is not that all open access journals are of poor quality. But Hindawi's journals have been called to task by Jeffrey Beall, with specific note that several of their journals have been delisted from Thomson Reuters' Impact Factor listing, some more than once. (See [63]). Also, Atananga's practice of citing his own papers artificially boosts his own citation count within Google Scholar (a poor, but often used measure of an academic's impact). The fact is, there just does not appear to be the necessary indication that Atananga is a person who has had a deep impact on his field of study. Quantity is not the same as quality. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS confirms the actual lack of impact of this subject's work. The citation count list is 31, 18, 13, 8, 8, 6 etc, but most of these are him citing himself. For example, of the 31 cites for the highest paper, 22 are his own. For the second paper, 13 of the 18 cites are his own, etc. This is hardly representative of a "leading mathematician". Agricola44 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even with self-citations, his h-index is 10, which isn't enough for WP:PROF. Nor does he have the kind of senior position that would satisfy WP:PROF. He gets zero mentions on the Cameroonian web. In the last few years there have been papers applying mathematical techniques to e.g. African diseases. This may make him notable eventually, but so far not yet. -- 120.17.0.71 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hindawi, Naturalspublishing, and Omicsonline are all dubious-quality publishers. Skipping them and counting only the journals from reputable publishers (in this case Springer and Elsevier) in a Google scholar search, we have citation counts 30, 16, 10, 6, 2, 2, 1. (Surprisingly close to the WOS numbers.) Eliminating the self-citations makes the citation record look even worse: 10, 5, 8, 1, etc. I don't want to conclude from this that he is *not* notable: mathematics is a low-citation field and it's possible for important work to be poorly cited. But certainly this means that the publication and citation record by itself provides no evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1. And what else is there? Editorship (not editor-in-chief) of some journals, and a postdoctoral fellowship, neither of which is sufficient for notability. Being a Cameroonian mathematician, maybe, since that is an unusual combination, but we would at least need sources (such as magazine profiles of the subject) saying so, and we don't have even that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even close of any of the WP:PROF criteria. I do not see how being Cameroonian makes up for any kind of notability; even if he was the only mathematician in Cameroon but got nothing published on him in GNG style, PROF ought to apply in full force. Tigraan (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The consensus is that the company lacks sufficient coverage in independent sources to satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was the original author of the article. I of course vote for Keep. I wrote the following comment (sic) to DGG's nomination to delete the article, and I think it applies here as well:
I mostly disagree with this nomination as I still think the Wiki article I wrote is factual and non-biased, and represents an article on a company with all the available info. That includes the bit about the humanitarian mission. It's not a praise of the firm. It's a fact drawn from the firm's website. Would you rather have articles that only selectively mention a firm's activities? (FYI, many of the Wikipedia articles on firms (including some Fortune 500 corporations) mention their humanitarian missions as factual statements with references only to the firm's website, and nothing more... So Wikipedia should really try to inspect those as well with the idea of fairness).
As for "notable," the current definition Wikipedia is using is rather incapable, and it's very unfortunate. There are many "notable" and significant firms in the world economies that might not have third party biographies or summaries simply because they're not well known to consumers or masses, or haven't received any attention in the media. That doesn't mean they have no notability or aren't significant in their niche. This particular firm, Orgenetics, makes Organic vitamins from plants. I have found no other company in the nutraceutical industry that is capable of that. In my opinion, this is notable. However, as this particular firm is a raw material supplier, I doubt consumers and mass media would know about this firm. Along the same idea, I doubt this firm would have any substantial third party media coverage due to its niche as a raw material manufacturer and supplier.
Anyways, it seems I fundamentally disagree with this opinion and Wikipedia's policies, so this would all be a moot point until any of it changed. Yours truly, HealthTake (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — HealthTake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I vote keep for now, i agree it certainly is on the lower sides of notable, but if 3rd party verifiable resources can be drummed up I think it could be a fine article. if not we can delete it later not a big deal. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "author" (ahem) throws WP:OTHERSTUFF in the way, claims facts from the company's website (cough), and is admitting that the article violates policies but it should not matter because it is a niche product. Well, indeed, we rarely apply WP:GNG to companies because of that very reason (most companies have a specific audience) but I still fail to see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Tigraan (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Tigraan (talk), I'm not claiming that the Wiki policies don't matter because this company has a niche. Please reread what I wrote before misconstruing my statements. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's "notable" policy is incapable, and I gave the aforementioned reasons. I never once mentioned that it shouldn't apply to this article, again, if you read what I wrote. Along the same lines, I did take facts from the company's website, but the references in the article clearly mention that. (Isn't that the point of references anyway?) HealthTake (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my misunderstandings then, but I fail to see how the following can be compatible:
WP policies matter, and should apply to the article (even if they are "incapable");
The article fails to follow the policies ("I doubt this firm would have any substantial third party media coverage (...)");
The article should be kept (that's what a 'keep' !vote means).
By the way, the point of references is not only to point to the company's website. A company's website is considered a reliable source for things like the name of board members, or the postal address, and barring specific circumstances it is usually a good addition to the references. I am not disputing the addition of the company's website; I dispute its use as the sole source of content for their actions, or for notability, as for instance the claim that they have an "emphasis on fair business practices" (putting quotes to indicate it is their own claim does not change the problem). Tigraan (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company, article is sourced to company resources or (imho) unreliable sources. 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete I'm afraid. I couldn't find any third party sources. The award article posted above by Eord is really kind of trivial coverage from a notability perspective. The results from Natural Products Insider appear because Orgenetics sponsors that website and shows up in a sponsors sidebar. HealthTake, you cannot avoid deletion by expressing fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's consensus rules about what's notable. The idea is that if this were such an important company then someone would have written some impartial, detailed article about them. I hope you are not frustrated by this experience; I would like to see nothing more than you taking our advice on-board and contributing many non-promotional articles about notable companies to Wikipedia! AgnosticAphidtalk23:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I Googled for a while and couldn't find any independent Reliable Sources. The award noted above is an Honorable Mention, of an award for which I failed to find independent Reliable Source coverage. Comment to HealthTake: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or Facebook-type site for self-publishing. The criteria for encyclopedia inclusion is that a subject must have significant independent coverage in books, news, or other similar sources. Most businesses do not belong in an encyclopedia. Sorry. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent coverage. This is Wikipedia's criterion for whether or not the subject qualifies for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. We call it "notability" which is not really a good term, because of course all business owners think their company is "notable"; maybe "coverage" would be a better name for it. But call it what you like, that is the requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fail's notability, beyond the supplied IMDB links and a Facwbook page I can't seem to find anything online that would point to this being notable. LenTheWhiteCat16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Having fished this event for many years I would highly disagree on your comment of Extreme Kayak Fishing Inc. this green company is a well known event in the city of Pompano Beach Florida which also sponsors this tournament. This organization has donated thousands of dollars to the Broward Children's Center in the city of Pompano Beach in efforts to give back to the community. It is very simple to check the status of this well organized and accomplished company having been around for over four years. Before making accusations I would highly recommend you do your research before stating false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.250.93 (talk)— Ryand1024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I Joseph Hector am the owner of Extreme Kayak Fishing Tournament Inc. Based on what evidence am I being accused of having a promotional spam non- notable company. My company is well known in the city of Pompano Beach Fl. We attract anglers from all over the world for our tournaments. These anglers help generate money for the city through the hotel industry and food service industry, which increases tax revenue for the city of Pompano Beach. What information do you need from me to negate the accusations that have been placed against Extreme Kayak Fishing Tournament Inc. Please advise me, as I want to resolve this issue immediately.
Hi Joseph. The intention is not to insult you or your company. On Wikipedia the term "notable" is used somewhat technically as a term which must conform to these guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability. Your company doesn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This article is Spam, and smells like spam--it doesn't even smell like bad fish. The article was created by an editor whose ONLY contributions have been to this article. The other 3 primary editors' contributions have been exclusively or predominantly to this article. The proprietor of the business comments and asks that it not be deleted. Overwhelming evidence of Spam. The ostensibly independent references are 2 fishing websites (don't know their reputation) and 2 local news outlets. Not sufficient notability. The proprietor also put 2 pictures of himself in the article--obviously about publicity. Tapered (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In categories we are listed as a fishing tournament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fishing_tournaments
How is our article different than all the other fishing tournaments? We have 14 references backing our article including the florida sport fishing magazine. Please advise me on what I have to do in order to keep this article from being deleted?
Joesph Hector
Well you have made a start by trimming some of the more excessive spam and self promotion. Looking at the category list, there are tournaments of questionable notability there that should perhaps be deleted also. The references you mention, now 12 of them, are mostly to publications that are not notable, that do not, for example, have a Wikipedia entry. The Kayak Fish Mag is a local state magazine. The Sun Sentinel is notable, but it does not contain an in-depth report and again is a local state publication. Another reference is only to a press release. Can you find better sources, perhaps to books from reputable publishers, or perhaps to recognized magazines that are international, or at least national? If you can't then the article is not really ready for Wikipedia. It might be ready in a few years time, and then you could try again. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By providing new references that our listed in Extreme kayak fishing article reference page, why is this page still up for deletion? Please advise me if there is anything more that needs to be addressed in order to make this article notable for Wikipedia. Thank you Joseph Hector — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekft (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The positive commenters on this page are 1)the proprietor of the event, 2) a major contributor to the article whose username is an acronym of the event, 3)98.249.250.93, the original author of the article. These facts strongly indicate this article was begun as promotion, and is still promotion. Tapered (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is still a great deal of unsourced content (fails WP:OR and WP:VERIFY; there are still 4 or 5 blog sources (fails WP:SPS) and press releases (fails WP:INDY) - outside of that, it is a local paper (the Sun Sentinel) or Palm Beach Post (which is a paragraph). and it is all kind of news-y, and WP is WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of regional reporting doesn't bring the event up to WP:NOTABILITY for the encyclopedia Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In categories Extreme Kayak fishing article is under Fishing tournaments. See here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fishing_tournaments
Why is this article being singled out? This page has more content and reputable sources than most fishing tournaments listed there. One of our sources is "Guy Harvey Outpost News". Guy Harvey is a reputable source that is nationwide and has its own Wikipedia article. This source explains what Extreme kayak fishing is and lists all the winners. This article is not meant as self- promotion or advertising. It exposes the facts about how it is possible to catch large fish such as sailfish, marlin, and pelagics in a small boat such as a kayak. It is a type of fishing tournament that is now possible through the engineering changes in kayak design. These boats can be paddled, pedaled and stood on. These kayaks are made specially for ocean offshore kayak fishing. This changes the game and level for offshore fishing. Please specifically advise why this article is being singled out from all the other fishing tournaments on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekft (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. You haven't responded to the objections raised, and in any case, you disclose that you own the event - you are a paid advocate under our WP:COI guideline and you have ignored what that says - namely "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing" (emphasis from the original). Please pipe down and let the community decide to do with your work. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see reliable sources that mention the company, but none of the ones I reviewed are what I'd call significant coverage of the company. Covering that an event happened and who won isn't coverage of the company. If this ends up being kept, it needs gutted because the current state stinks of promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted. See WP:DISCUSSAFD if actually interested in contributing.
*'Slander. Looking at all of these comments and reviewing Extreme Kayak Fishing article and all of the other "Tournaments" this is looking like slander against this ONE company. Most comments are very unprofessional toward this company for one. They provided answers to most questions and asked for guidance on others. Also they HAVE notable references, even if individuals believe otherwise. Reading over most of the comments they all fail to realize that "stats" and who won these events is what this company is about and is NOT promoting. Yet 90% of the Wiki tournaments have the same thing.
SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. Law of Nisi Prius, 3. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Bac. Abr. Slander. Written or printed slanders are libels; see that word.
2. Here it is proposed to treat of verbal slander only, which may be considered with reference to, 1st. The nature of the accusation. 2d. The falsity of the charge. 3d. The mode of publication. 4th. The occasion; and 5th. The malice or motive of the slander.
3.-Sec. 1. Actionable words are of two descriptions; first, those actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages and, secondly, those actionable only in respect of some actual consequential damages.
4.-1. Words of the first description must impute: 1st. The guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a "traitor," "thief," "highwayman;" or to say that he is guilty of "perjury," "forgery," "murder," and the like. And although the imputation of guilt be general, without stating the particulars of the pretended crime, it is actionable. Cro. Jac. 114, 142; 6 T. R. 674; 3 Wils. 186; 2 Vent. 266; 2 New Rep. 335. See 3 Serg. & Rawle, 255 7 Serg. & Rawle, 451; 1 Binn. 452; 5 Binn. 218; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 261; 2 Binn. 34; 4 Yeates, 423; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 44; Stark. on Slander, 13 to 42; 8 Mass. 248; 13 Johns. 124; Id. 275.
5.-2d. That the party has a disease or distemper which renders him unfit for society. Bac. Abr. Slander, B 2. An action can therefore be sustained for calling a man a leper. Cro. Jac. 144 Stark. on Slander, 97. But charging another with having had a contagious disease is not actionable, as he will not, on that account, be excluded from society. 2 T. R. 473, 4; 2 Str. 1189; Bac. Abr. tit. Slander, B 2. A charge which renders a man ridiculous, and impairs the enjoyment of general society, and injures those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence which man has with respect to man, is also actionable. Holt on Libels, 221.
6.-3d. Unfitness in an officer, who holds an office to which profit or emolument is attached, either in respect of morals or inability to discharge the duties of the office in such a case an action lies. 1 Salk. 695, 698; Rolle, Ab. 65; 2 Esp. R. 500; 5 Co. 125; 4 Co. 16 a; 1 Str. 617; 2 Ld. Raym. 1369; Bull. N. P. 4; Holt on Libels, 207; Stark. on Slander, 100.
7.-4th. The want of integrity or capacity, whether mental or pecuniary, in the conduct of a profession, trade or business, in which the party is engaged, is actionable, 1 Mal. Entr. 244 as to accuse an attorney or artist of inability, inattention, or want of integrity; 3 Wils. 187; 2 Bl. Rep. 750; or a clergyman of being a drunkard; 1 Binn. 178; is actionable. See Holt on Libels, 210; Id. 217.
8.-2. Of the second class are words which are actionable only in respect of special damages sustained by the party slandered. Though the law will not permit in these cases the inference of damage, yet when the damage has actually been sustained, the party aggrieved may support an action for the publication of an untruth; 1 Lev. 53; 1 Sid. 79, 80; 3 Wood. 210; 2 Leon. 111; unless the assertion be made for the assertion of a supposed claim; Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the case for Defamation, D 30; Bac. Ab. Slander, B; but it lies if maliciously spoken. See 1 Rolle, Ab. 36 1 Saund. 243 Bac. Abr. Slander, C; 8 T. R. 130 8 East, R. 1; Stark. on Slander, 157.
9.-Sec. 2. The charge must be false; 5 Co. 125, 6; Hob. 253; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown. 2 East, R. 436; 1 Saund. 242. The instance of a master making an unfavorable representation of his servant, upon an application for his character, seems to be an exception, in that case there being a presumption from the occasion of the speaking, that the words were true. 1 T. R. 111; 3 B. & P. 587; Stark. on Slander, 44, 175, 223.
10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, be published, that is, communicated to a third person; and if verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired. 1 Rolle, Ab. 74; Cro. Eliz. 857; 1 Saund. 2425 n. 3; Bac. Abr. Slander, D 3. A letter addressed to the party, containing libelous matter, is not sufficient to maintain a civil action, though it may subject the libeler to an indictment, as tending to a breach of the peace; 2 Bl. R. 1038; 1 T. R. 110; 1 Saund. l32, n. 2; 4 Esp. N. P. R. 117; 2 Esp. N. P. R. 623; 2 East, R. 361; the slander must be published respecting the plaintiff; a mother cannot maintain an action for calling her daughter a bastard. 11 Serg. & Rawle, 343. As to the case of a man who repeats the slander invented by another, see Stark. on Slander, 213; 2 P. A. Bro. R. 89; 3 Yeates, 508; 3 Binn. 546.
11.-Sec. 4. To render words actionable, they must be uttered without legal occasion. On some occasions it is justifiable to utter slander of another, in others it is excusable, provided it be uttered without express malice. Bac. Ab. Slander, D 4; Rolle, Ab. 87; 1 Vin. Ab. 540. It is justifiable for au attorney to use scandalizing expressions in support of his client's cause and pertinent thereto. 1 M. & S. 280; 1 Holt's R. 531; 1 B. & A. 232; see 2 Serg. & Rawle, 469; 1 Binn. 178; 4 Yeates, 322; 1 P. A. Browne's R. 40; 11 Verm. R. 536; Stark. on Slander, 182. Members of congress and other legislative assemblies cannot be called to account for anything said in debate.
12.-Sec. 5. Malice is essential to the support of an action for slanderous words. But malice is in general to be presumed until the contrary be proved; 4 B. & C. 247; 1 Saund. 242, n. 2; 1 T. R. 1 11, 544; 1 East, R. 563; 2 East, R. 436; 2 New Rep. 335; Bull. N. P. 8; except in those cases where the occasion prima facie excuses the publication. 4 B. & C. 247. See 14 Serg. & Rawle, 359; Stark. on Slander, 201. See, generally, Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the case for Defamation; Bac. Abr. Slander; 1 Vin. Abr. 187; 1 Phillim. Ev. ch. 8; Yelv. 28, n.; Doctr. Plac. 53 Holt's Law of Libels; Starkie on Slander, Ham. N. P. ch. 2, s. 3.— RyanD1024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article may very well be a hoax, given the other deleted articles by the article's creator. The article has no sources of any kind verifying that the article's subject even exists, let alone anything coming close to meeting WP:GNG. Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fairfax News Store - there is one result for "Cassie Dimovski"; a one-sentence mention in an article in the Newcastle Herald.
Fairfax News Store - no results for "Cassandra Dimovski"
Factiva - five results for "Cassie Dimovski". The first is a profile on her in the Diamond Valley Leader, a local newspaper. The second result is an AAP wire report where two sentences are dedicated to Dimovski. The third is a squad listing in the Herald Sun in which Dimovski is included. The fourth is the Newcastle Herald article mentioned above. The fifth is a one-sentence mention in the Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Philip Leader, a local newspaper.
Factiva - 22 results for "Cassandra Dimovski". All but one profile piece in the Diamond Valley Leader are at most one-sentence mentions in routine match coverage.
EBSCOhost Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre - one result for "Cassie Dimovski"; the Newcastle Herald article mentioned above. No results for "Cassandra Dimovski".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod-a list that would be impossible to ever get info for (just look at films and you would get a endless list that you would have to have by decade and it still be too large)
Just a list you can't have on here. Wgolf (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE DELETION. In my view, this proposal for deletion is arbitrary. In the first instance, IF the list ever gets too long, one can then cherry pick the most notable stories. Secondly, Wikipedia already carries a huge number of similar lists, where arguably the topic can (and sometimes does) lead to long lists. By way of example, I will mention just a handful of such lists:
Hi Clarityfiend. Notwithstanding that you are also keen on deleting this page, your reason for deletion appears to be diametrically opposed to the view of Wgolf, in the sense that you believe that such a list should be a very short one! However, there are many more examples of notable fictional stories where the library plays a very significant role, such as in the 2002 film The Time Machine, for example. Did you see that film by any chance? Joe Gatt (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would be a reasonable list if it were only works of fiction where a library played a central part, not just a scene took place there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-yes that is true-I was just thinking when I saw the title though how this is used a bunch of times. And maybe if you indicate by film, novel or video games also. (I mean how many films have scenes where the secret chamber is behind books!) Of course there is Beauty and the Beast while we are at it. Wgolf (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that this list would be notable enough to warrant an article, though if the other lists mentioned above are notable enough, maybe I'm wrong. Tris1313 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be a decent article here if it focused on fictional works where libraries played a central role, but what we have here is just a random list of works that have a library in. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In respect to those who are advocating for the deletion of this page, I still have not received any explanation of why this such a page should be deleted, when Wikipedia already carries a host of similar lists! Joe Gatt (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per WP:NCYC (Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2) (my bolding) and per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Yes, this is not due to start until October, but it is listed by the UCI to take place. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading para. 1 of WP:CRYSTAL, the event is (a) notable, (b) almost certain to take place, (c) in preparation, (d) the subject of plenty of reliable sources. As a secondary matter, it also passes WP:NCYC. I've expanded the article, corrected false information and improved the referencing to boot. Relentlessly (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well this was a iffy one and yes I did-which is why I put this up also as I was not 100% sure given the fact that since I thought if the first one never happened it might be too soon then! With that said-WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete To the extent she has been given an award, it is due to award inflation, not particular accomplishment. She has not done more than many other hospital administrators over the years. This article mainly just tends towards presentism in Wikipedia. She has not made significant impact. She was given a low level honor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CBE, which has always been held to satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1 in previous AfDs. Nobody with such an award has ever been deleted to my knowledge. Very definitely not a "low-level honour" or due to "award inflation" (how insulting and ignorant is that?) in any shape or form. The highest honour below knighthood for which most people are eligible and only a few dozen are awarded every year. In actual fact, contrary to what some seem to believe, considerably fewer honours at this level are awarded now than were awarded in the past, so I really fail to see how this is award inflation (it is certainly true that many more OBEs and MBEs are awarded now, and we do not consider these alone to be evidence of notability, but these increased numbers do not apply to higher awards). Only those who have made a very significant contribution to their field would even be considered for an award at this level. Quite frankly, anyone who believes the CBE is insignificant clearly has absolutely zero knowledge of the British Honours System and should probably avoid looking foolish by commenting on it. See my answer to the nominator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smart (healthcare administrator). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awarded the CBE which is a very high level award in the British Honours System only awarded to someone who has made an incredible and significant contribution in their respective field. Jack1956 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keeppp. Pax - needs to realise that when he clearly doesn't understand a subject and is being kindly schooled on that subject that it is extremely unbecoming (not to say potentially idiotic) to insist that one's teacher that he's wrong. Le petit fromage (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're !voting speedy keep here when you !voted delete in the Smart AfD? That's incongruous. (Aside from that, I would suggest remaining WP:CIVIL. Pax19:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, really, it's not, as has been explained to you multiple times now. It's not my fault you refuse to understand what is being explained to you. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has it ever occurred to you that I have concluded you're wrong? I wasn't the only one to do so at the Smart AfD. Pax04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a minority of two is hardly distinguishable from a minority of one and does not represent consensus (which has been explained to you now at length - see previous comment). Le petit fromage (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have obviously failed to notice the significant difference: Smart doesn't have the CBE! There is therefore nothing inconsistent here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to those editors who keep pushing the CBE: As noted in the Tim Smart AfD discussion (also linked in the rationale), the CBE (as opposed to, say, a knighthood), is not a significant enough award to confer notability. (The fact that it is being routinely bestowed upon civil service bureaucrats without external notability is rather telling.) The subject's major accolade aside from the CBE, being 33rd highest paid manager is one bureaucracy, puts them lower on that list than Smart. Pax19:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not routinely conferred on anyone. Please try to understand that you really don't know what you're talking about here. In the Smart discussion, the only person who "noted" the CBE wasn't notable was you - and since Smart doesn't have one it wasn't relevant there in any case. The fact is that in every other AfD for someone with a CBE the article has been kept, usually on the principal basis that they have a CBE. It's your prerogative not to agree, but your rationale is incorrect and your opinion is not accepted by the Wikipedia community. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
104 (give or take a few due to my shoddy counting) CBEs were awarded in 2014, the over-whelming bulk of them to faceless bureaucrats and political hacks (such as the illustrious "Clive Kenneth Stephens. Deputy director, Large Business Service, Bristol, HM Revenue and Customs." and "Roy Alexander Stone. Principal private secretary, Government chief Whip's Office", etc. - Private secretaries? These people are not in the news. They are not movers and shakers. They are simply being given a cheapened award now thrown out like candy at a parade. There is no suitable rationale for considering them notable. Pax03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously really don't have a clue about British government if you think a principal private secretary is non-notable. Just because these people haven't played in a single professional football match (our standard of notability for sportspeople), had a song in the charts (our standard for musicians) or been elected to a 1,000-person national assembly (our standard for politicians) doesn't make them non-notable. Given you're in a clear minority here, just give it up, stop insulting people you don't know and honours system you don't understand, and go back to commenting on something you know something about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Keep That she has a CBE seems enough. I read what Pax said and if it's true that the CBE has become meaningless then change my vote. What does external notability refer to? Can she not be notable for her bureaucratic work alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Pax says isn't true. He's been told is isn't true multiple times by multiple people. He's also been told why it isn't true multiple times by multiple people. Yet, he persists in claiming that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Le petit fromage (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe have usually accepted CBE: It is MBE that we general do not seriously consider. (nor, usually OBE) She has been head of a major hospital trust, which is a position that has often been considered notable here. The head of a major service like that is not a routine civil servant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CBE should be deprecated if over a hundred of them are being handed out every year (see Guardian link in prior comment), with >90% of them going to government barnacles. Pax03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was previously deleted in 2013 and he has no notable accomplishments since then. Winning some junior awards does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE. This is no mention of him as an adult in the FILA (world wrestling organization) database. Any coverage of him is based on his winning the ancient Iranian sport of Pahlevani wrestling in 2000. I tried to redirect this article to Pahlevan of Iran and was told I had to take it to AfD by user Just Chilling. I would still prefer to Redirect this article.Mdtemp (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who contested the PROD mainly since I think deletion (or not) should take into consideration the Pahlevani wrestling title. Is that a notable event, is it equivalent to a National title. I could not help but think of Sumo Yokozuna. I know wrestling is big in Iran. On a related note the quality of the Pahlevan of Iran article does not inspire a lot of confidence.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Just checked the Pahlevan of Iran page. Only wrestlers who also placed in major international tournaments have English Wikipedia pages. This person perhaps warrants a page in Persian Wikipedia, but I just checked some US wrestlers of slightly lesser stature, and they don't have pages in English. Tapered (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator but also based on the comments of Tapered. Not convinced that Pahlevan of Iran is the equal to the top competitive National wrestling title and there is no evidence of success at international senior level events.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (Changed comment) This is a prestigious championship in a major wrestling nation. There are 2 reliable and ABSOLUTELY independent reliable sources, from nations with diametrically opposed policies--the US and Iran. I changed my comment based on a thorough reading of WP:N. Please at least extend the comment period for others to read this new opinion. Tapered (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There's just not much there - I would be willing to change my mind if any efforts were made to expand and improve the article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wrestling is a major sport in Iran and being one of it's champions is on par with being a #1 PGA Championship ranking or a US Open champion in the US. Even a delete voter says this person warrants an article on Persian WP. No need to start systemic bias with this champion. Additionally the coverage already in the article, particularly by Radio Farda, looks very significant. --Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the significant coverage that would support a separate article for this individual. Wrestling is a big sport in Iran, so it's quite possible that this event is notable. However, there's nothing that supports a claim of notability through WP:ATHLETE since this event isn't an official FILA national championship, but rather more of a cultural and historical event. I can't decide how I want to vote on this article, but I think I am currently leaning toward a redirect on the individual and towards saying the event is notable. I know the event isn't actually up for AfD, but it feels like it. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant coverage of this person linked in the article. Even if it wasn't there, barring BLP concerns it wouldn't be a CSD candidate as it asserts notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) An hey, Nightshift. Nice to see you. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It "asserted notability" the first time it was deleted. As a previously deleted article, it is a CSD candidate. Yes, that can be overcome of the subject becomes clearly notable, but obviously at least a few people don't see that notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Violates WP:CRYSTAL and may be outdated. Article is about a proposed rail station that was briefly mentioned by local newspapers back in April 2013, but otherwise, there have been no other references about this proposed station ever since. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- How does WP:CRYSTAL apply to a station that existed in the past? Once notable, always notable. Just because there has been talk to re-open it doesn't mean it has vaporized from history. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only result in a google news search is the wikipedia article on it. WP:CRYSTAL does apply because it is not currently in existence. Perhaps when it is rebuilt (if it ever is considering it was planned in 2013) it possibly may become notable, but it isnt now and has nothing in the past to make it so. AlbinoFerret19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article isn't about the former station, it's about the proposed SEPTA station, hence the article name. It it were renamed or rewritten for the former station (assuming its notability could be established), then that would be a different situation. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only that it is about the former station. The name "SEPTA" is simply an affectation based on the proposed future service. Many stations all over the world have newer names based on their current or proposed affiliation. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Interesting but non-notable research institute within a single university. Various projects and people there may be notable, but not the instate as a whole. In practice, our standards for such institutes is on the strict side. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The assertions at top from DGG are incorrect. IHMC began 25 years ago at one university, but later was set up and funded by the Florida Legislature as an independent organization. IHMC receives federal and private grants, and is affiliated with most Florida universities. Please see Florida Statute 1004.447, which established it as an independent institute. The institute has more than 80 researchers, most of whom have Ph.Ds or M.Ds. Regarding earlier concerns about promotional-sounding content, most of that has been removed, and sources added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Rabb (talk • contribs) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources Their robot is notable. Their director is notable. None of that shows the organization is notable. Local news stories are based on PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to the band unless that article is deleted before this AfD finishes. Wgolf - when you come across articles like this containing little more than a tracklisting, no claim of notability, and no sources, could you please try redirecting them to the artist/band first rather than PRODding or AfDing them? --Michig (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Elsa [speaking] Bolt? [singing] Do you want to melt the snowmaaan? It's the only way to end this craaaze. His page cannot be up here anymore, so don't be overlooked, use your superpowers to melt him awaaaay. And I'll let you take over his place if you can prove that your powers are better than mine, tooooo. Bolt, do you want to melt the snowman? Okay, tryyyyy. Trainfan01 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per WP:TNT It took some digging around, but there is apparently some rather significant coverage on this "Internet" thing from books, newspapers and other print sources. Unfortunately, this article is so overly reliant on its own sources that I think it would just be easier to delete it and rewrite it from scratch. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find a good source, all print sources seem to make use of this internet to some extent, haven't been able to find a single writer that covers it that doesn't use it for communication. Glad someone caught this, seems like it's been stealthily trying to control Wikipedia from the start. PhantomTech (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again..." Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This entire article violates the principle of least astonishment, and there is no possible solution other than outright deletion. Why, you ask? Because...
Delete Our chief weapons of fear, surprise, a fanatical devotion to the pope...will be less valuable with an article. If there's a Wikipedia page, anyone can read about and expect the Spanish Inquisition! Origamiteⓣⓒ03:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CAREFULLY delete while wearing lead-lined clothes - I already emit 61 µSv of radiation daily, I don't need to emit more... -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 03:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.