< 14 April	16 April >

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Lee (Taiko)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY; perhaps someone with better linguistic skills can prove me wrong. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; time it was resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Looking over he does seem to have some sort of notability. Wgolf (talk) 18:43, 8 April 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he appears notable (only Westerner to win the competition, etc.), though the article needs serious cleanup and refs to support some of the claims. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally, I can't find any sources to establish notability. If someone could prove me wrong with specific sources, I would be happy to change my position, but at this point, I say delete. If you do so, please ping me in your response. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:56, 22 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 snowy keep as no valid reason given for even nominating it for deletion. Meets no deletion criteria at all. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asiana Airlines Flight 162[edit]

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

WP:GNG, etc.. This just needs debate before inclusion, for all the usual reasons Petebutt (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no such "usual reasons" for such debate in WP:GNG. Can anyone provide statistics or overview about the prevalence of such debate for very new articles? Layzeeboi (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see significant coverage from CNN, NBC, WSJ, BBC, Bloomburg, The Guardian, three major Japanese news services (in English), two Korean news services... Do we need this make-work debate? Layzeeboi (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)+[reply]

- Comment Media coverage is WP:ROUTINE....William 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somehow I don't think that coverage of a near catastrophic accident falls under that particular guideline. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There doesn't seem to be any real rationale for deletion at this time. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No comprehensible reason given for starting this deletion debate. Article seems to meet WP:GNG easily. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - insufficient rationale given for deletion. FWIW, the incident has turned out to be more serious that was apparent at first, especially in regards to damage sustained by the aircraft. Sure, the article could do with further improvement, but that is not the remit of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy keep - Obvious airliner hull loss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 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. These articles should both have been deleted via G11 without going through AfD. I see no reason to extend this issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Validation (email)[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Reasoning was as follows: Does not appear to be a notable subject, no significant coverage from independent reliable sources is evident, possible conflict of interest issues as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in 3-D Windows for the same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theuser who created this has now made it clear that they are in fact the patent holder [1] for these two bits of technology, and has chosen to hurl nonsensical insults at me rather than participating in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notablilty KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be promotion of user's product/patent --Elmidae (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Obvious promotion of the author's own work with no apparent standalone notability. Patents are very rarely notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:COI violations. Slapping away Liz' olive branch and the personal attacks on Beeblebrox make me think the articles' creator may be WP:NOTHERE. Miniapolis 22:14, 16 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. Nakon 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Rayl[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with lack of significant coverage in independent sources. There is a citation to Daily Herald but it is merely their website hosting a press release, which GNG says "are not considered independent". ~~The rest of the citations are trivial mentions in IMDb, which WP:RS/IMDB advises is considered unreliable. There are also citations to other Wikipedia articles, which WP:CIRCULAR discourages.~~ I can't find anything significant and/or reliable in web searches. —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Update: Striking cleanup items performed by Cowlibob (detailed below) on older version.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed loads of links to IMDb and other wikipages that were present in the article. Does not meet GNG, NACTOR, NMUSIC. The Daily Herald Piece is a press release so not an independent source as it wasn't written by the newspaper. My searches don't turn up anything in the way of substantive coverage of this young actress. I couldn't find any reviews of her music, in her films thus far it has mainly been shorts where she is a minor character. She is I think a case of too soon and if she becomes notable in the future, the article can be restored. This article seems to have been created by paid editing of "SierraScribe" as well. [[2]]. Cowlibob (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope they didn't pay much to have circular references to Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly fails WP:GNG - not a single reliable source covers her and her work in any real detail. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, this article fluffed it a bit and noticeably looks more like a personal website or a resume. A look at IMDB easily shows she hasn't had much including recently. Multiple searches found nothing and thus nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 22 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. Nakon 01:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Marlowe[edit]

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

One of these articles that is basically one line saying that it was a name used by 2 writers but nothing to back it up. Not sure what the wiki guidelines are for pages like this are (I have found a few others like this also) Wgolf (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete because a move can't be supported. Multiple searches found nothing that is required to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 22 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. Nakon 01:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dividend Matrix[edit]

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

No indication of any notable use of this term in the context of multi-level marketing WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be WP:MADEUP and promoting a pyramid scheme. I could find nothing supporting the term in the context used in this article. My speedy nomination, and another editor's PROD were improperly removed by page creator. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only Google Books actually found some links but nothing that I can see helping the article (more complex stuff like equations and a little too technical). SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "dividend matrix" found in the Google Books search might well refer to some complex matrix algebra representations of investment strategies, etc., and not to the "pay-it-forward" model spoken about in the present article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 22 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. Nakon 01:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pankhuri Awasthy[edit]

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

Actress who I can't find much notability for and the only refs I can find are about her character on a show not herself. Wgolf (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 April 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 8 April 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, czar ⨹ 20:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:BIO. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems she's only had one role so far and she's not even listed at IMDb. A Google News search found one of the same articles listed here and several within the past month for a rap song she performed. A search for older articles gave me nothing. Nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 22 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. Nakon 01:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Mesa[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. There is a single book and a single article in wired about the term but it doesn't seem to have spread beyond a small group of people in the early 2000s Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 April 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 8 April 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, czar ⨹ 20:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two unconvincing references in obscure journals for "many survived"/"many died" weasels, two self-published, only one good reference. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a terrible article but it's missing things. Multiple News searches adding details found nothing and a Books search found a few results but nothing significant and the first one is the Ed Regis book. The term has not been widely used enough or recently for that matter. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 22 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. Nakon 01:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJAX Service Bus[edit]

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

I'm not certain the subject of this article exists, and the article certainly doesn't help me to understand what the subject is supposed to be ... —SamB (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, multiple issues, no references since 2006, whatever this tried to be is long dead. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that the AJAX Service Bus's only mention in a reliable source was here in an October 2006 issue of Computerworld, around the time of the article's creation. The brief mention, in an apparently promotional piece, describes the AJAX Service Bus as a feature on a coming software release from "JackBe Corp." Several of the article creator's other edits also relate to this company, including the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Enterprise Application, which was deleted as a copyvio of the JackBe website. This article looks like a strange and nearly incoherent attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a product that never took off. Strictly speaking, it is not a hoax, but it fails WP:N and several applications of WP:NOT, so the recommendation would be Delete. Calamondin12 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several News searches found nothing and only a Books search found some links including this which reads very similar. Nothing to show the use was widespread or recent. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 22 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. Nakon 01:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Barnes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS White Whirlwind 咨 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough published reviews or library holdings of his book Chinese through Poetry to justify notability as an author, and anyway even if the reviews were there we would have issues with notability for only one thing. As the nominator states, we also don't have evidence for notability as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 7 April 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, czar ⨹ 20:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His book Chinese through poetry is this person's only claim to notability, as far as I can tell, and the book itself doesn't have much on the internet to qualify it as notable. RatRat (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches at News, Books and Scholar found nothing related and the article doesn't have that much detail. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 22 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 merge to Miss Universe. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Organization[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No doubt that the pageant is notable but the organisation behind it seems to fail WP:GNG. Seems a bit advertising and link-building through the back door. The Banner talk 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Miss Universe There's no significant coverage of this organization to show it should have its own article, but I think it could definitely go with the competition it runs. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Miss Universe Per above. Cheetah255 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little unique content exists into Miss Universe then Redirect to same. There's an argument to be made for the organization itself having notability as it has drawn news coverage independent of the individual pageants it owns but I'll leave it for another motivated editor to find the sources and craft the prose, should they so choose. I see from the first AfD that we're rapidly approaching the 10th anniversary of the last pledge to merge this article so merging/redirecting for now is the path of least harm. - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 21 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. Nakon 01:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Darby[edit]

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

Actor who I can't tell if he really passes guidelines for Wikipedia or not. He does come across as too soon almost despite having a few roles. Though his only major film he was in which was a Tyler Perry film just has him as a extra. I could of put up a BLP prod but it was made a few days before. Looking over I think maybe he will need a page someday. Wgolf (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His roles are small parts aside from the Dance of the Dead. There is no significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing even close to significant even for his Dance of the Dead role. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 22 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. Nakon 01:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MetaL (programming language)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but it is not in my usual area. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Greenrd); hopefully we can get it resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any significant third-party coverage of this programming language listed on its news page, or in a Google search. I have not heard any mention of this programming language for the last 7 years, and indeed it appears to have been last updated 7 years ago.--greenrd (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches including News and Books found nothing aside from Books providing a few results. Nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources that exist are mirrors of wikipedia or get their information from wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉ 20:33, 22 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. Nakon 01:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WebStudy Learning LMS[edit]

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

Neither the article nor a search are showing the company is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as per WP:ORG. Notability tag applied in April 2011. Stesmo (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing aside from Google Books finding a few results but they all basically say the same thing and there are even a few Wikipedia mirrors (Cram101). SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 22 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. Nakon 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Applied Special Technology[edit]

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

Claims to notability are unverified. Tagged for notability 7 years ago by RayAYang; hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A News archive search found several results but they fade by the 5th page and they're all passing mentions. An additional search found a few more here and here (all passing mentions). Google Books found results but nothing looks potentially good there. I'm not sure what to make of the Google Scholar results since I'm not an expert of academia. Overall, I haven't seen anything to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Anthropology, University of Athens[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, and it has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Carlossuarez46). Possibly worth a merge to National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, where it is not mentioned at present. Old, but couldn't establish that it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly not the most famous museum in Athens, but it seems to have been a historically significant institution, as discussed in a variety of sources, including extensive discussion in the book Physical Anthropology, Race and Eugenics in Greece (1880s–1970s) [3] as well as coverage in other books such as [4][5][6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Arxiloxos.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC) @Boleyn: I'm aware that there's a few Greek museums stubs which are dubious, Hoverfish sorted out a lot of them. I really do think you'd be better off creating a list of ones you have issues with and discuss them with Hoverfish and the Greek project rather than taking them to AFD individually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Should not have been tagged for notability in the first place. (User:Maunus, logged off)169.228.146.30 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This museum is an entity of its own since 1886, it has research and projects going on all over Greece. It doesn't need merging with the University of Athens. But if the nominator finds it "worth merging" elsewhere, then it would have been better to suggest merge it rather than AfD it. I think this one passes comfortably notability criteria. Hoverfish Talk 21:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Arxiloxos. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per all above. Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 16 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 as per affirmative consensus and no calls to delete the article beyond the nominator. Inadequate sourcing and weak writing can easily be fixed in the editing process. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lomax[edit]

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

BLP whose sole source is to an organisation that employs him; more specifically that organisation's opwn biography of him. PROD was declined. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources can be found about him by basic searches, e.g., [7][8][9][10] And as the former president of Dillard University [11] he clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not add those sources instead of leaving it horribly sourced? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator does not seem to realise that AfD is for deletion of article on non-notable subjects, not poorly sourced articles on notable subjects (although this article isn't even especially poorly sourced and is certainly not "unacceptably-sourced" as claimed in the prod). There is no mandate to delete poorly sourced articles, although some editors seem to believe there is. Citing WP:BLP is a red herring, as his employers' website is a reliable source on his career. BLP is primarily intended to protect living people against inaccurate statements in their articles and one assumes Dr Lomax probably has no problem with his page on the United Negro College Fund website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The United Negro College Fund is a major philanthropy. As CEO, he is unquestionably notable. Poorly sourced means editing, not deletion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:53, 17 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 delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Brown: The Musicals[edit]

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

Another hoax tagged thanks to Calamondin12. The author's only other article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Joseph Adventure, where it was said there was "no evidence that this is any more than a figment of somebody's imagination", and that is true here too: I have not found any independent confirmation. There is no mention, for instance on Brendan O'Carroll's IMDb entry or on the Mrs Brown's Boys website. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 as doesn't even exist, Nothing on Google, Nothing on IMDb. –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've tagged it under A11 seeing as I forgot too when !voting above... –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 17 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 one outside of the nominator is urging that the article be removed, and updates to the content and sourcing appear to have reaffirmed the subject meets WP:BIO requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander N. Rossolimo[edit]

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

non notable. CEO of a startup so minor the article doesn't mention its name or link to a reference that does. No major office or significant prize ; The references are either by him or list trivial accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - he's clearly not just a startup director. When The New York Times prints your opinion pieces about post-Soviet nuclear threats, you're 1) clearly considered an expert about a notable topic 2) clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Name of startup where Alexander N. Rossolimo was CEO (IntellectExchange, Inc.) has been added, with a reference to a Harvard Business School case about this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Austin (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 17 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. Nakon 01:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Kenneth Rajna[edit]

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

Non-notable--essentially all refs are by him DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely self-sourced, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 18 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. Nakon 01:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ellen Niver[edit]

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

Exceptionally promotional article for a travel blogger. The first sentence of the article calls her a " passionate writer, ... and global citizen " and the rest is in the same vein. (I would, btw, be quite prepared to consider bringing a deletion request as either AfD or G11 for any article with a lede calling the person a global citizen,or using passionate in the first sentence .)

all or essentially all the many references are either press releases , or articles she has herself written. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While she promotes every detail of her blogging career, she discloses essential data like her birth date. --Till.niermann (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. One of the worse written articles I've ever seen in 8 years as an active Wikipedian. "Local Expert" means run of the mill travel blogger. "Are you serious?" Bearian (talk) 00:26, 21 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. Hallows AG (talk · contribs) appears to be inactive. Nakon 01:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candle (programming language)[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not particularly notable and seems to be more self-promotion than anything else. According roadmap listed under references the project appears to be dead, being seven releases behind schedule. In addition no references to candlescript can be found on Github, Google Scholar or Google News. A Google search provides no secondary sources mentioning candlescript; the sources noted on the talk page are primary from the author of the project, and the only significant contributor to the page is related to the project, having the same username as the contact information for the CandleScript website. Joehms22 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent reliable source coverage provided or found to indicate notability. Pinging @Hallows AG: who accepted this via AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 21 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. Nakon 01:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil (public relations agency)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The article before my edits was supported by bare URLs to PRWeek, but all of them were broken links. I found one here, but it was the type of sources I was expecting that does not really suggest notability. It's interesting that their website says "For more information about us, please go to Wikipedia." Not a bad thing I suppose, though it suggests the likelihood of COI editing (or possibly they just felt Wikipedia was a good source of neutral information?) CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single print publication anywhere, first source is a self-interview, article has so many citations as if trying to cover up its own lack of notability. Bottom line: Does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. KDS4444^Talk 20:06, 21 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. Nakon 01:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stumbo[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Subject also has requested deletion from OTRS Mdann52 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band director is not an automatically-notable position and in borderline situations I think the subject's wishes for deletion should prevail. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 17 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 delete g12, copyright violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News curation[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY. Would have to be completely rewritten to conform to verifiability and neutrality guidelines. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: as blatant copyvio of this website. Qwertyus, I remind you to always check for possible copyvios when reviewing new pages. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: sorry, thanks for the check. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:39, 15 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragos Mihalcea[edit]

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

No independent sources attest notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this is essentially a case of WP:JUSTAVOTE. Can you please demonstrate how the subject meets WP:GNG, in other words how he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has been promoted to the rank of principal dancer in the Royal Swedish Ballet and has also been a principal dancer in the Dutch national Ballet for a couple of years. --Hegvald (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, Hegvald, we do have policies like WP:V, WP:BASIC and WP:BLP. Yes, assuming what you say about the man is true, he's probably notable. But notability isn't inherent, or at least not for principal dancers. We do actually need some kind of evidence that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Come up with such evidence, and I will even withdraw my nomination. But we can't simply ignore our own policy requirements. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't think those facts would be in dispute, and I would actually argue that notability in the world of ballet isn't determined by wikipedians, but by the institutions that hire and promote dancers and put them on stage in leading roles in front of large audiences. As for other sources, I can find a number of reviews online in Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet (such as this one from as late as today, or this one from 2010, which calls him "purely brilliant in his jealousy-possessed murderer solo", an admittedly clumsy but literal translation). There are some online Romanian articles, such as this seemingly quite substantial one in Curierul Naţional, this one in a publication called avocatnet.ro, and two interviews in larevista.ro ([12], [13]) (the last two articles appear to be republished in several Romanian on-line sources). --Hegvald (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Principal dancer at a major ballet company. That's enough for me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convinced by Hegvald's links and arguments above. /FredrikT (talk) 16:04, 21 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 Delete per A7. Was deleted by Gilliam under such. Victor Lucas 04:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cnstimes[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Should have been speedied, but an anonymous user continues to remove the speedy tags. ubiquity (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unremarkable blog that gets less than a hundred hits on Google, none of which look like reliable sources. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria, and this does not look to satisfy them. Besides that, it's basically an advertisement for the website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. This article is a remake of an article that had already been deleted per CSD A7.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and per above. --Finngall ^talk 15:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and the fact it fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Victor Lucas 22:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 16 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 result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo NAC –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan-E-Azam[edit]

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

No indication that this film even exists. It is not in imdb, and the filmographies of the cast members do not mention it. ubiquity (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I would say delete but since it was created by a obvious sockpuppet it already will be. Oh well-Delete. Wgolf (talk) 15:21, 15 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. Nakon 01:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Alighieri Society in Wrocław[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by Mangiacarrube (talk · contribs) who did expand the article; unfortunately I am not convinced that the article is encyclopedic. References seem either self-published or - like all the other sources I see on the web - mention this NGO only in passing. Wikipedia is not a list of all organizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 April 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this satisfies GNG and is just one of many WP:BRANCHes of a Society with branches in cities throughout the world. Yes they all exist and hold local interest events but usually do not merit stand alone articles that double as a more visible web page. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:26, 17 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halide (programming language)[edit]

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

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. ― Padenton|✉ 15:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2013 PLDI published about this has already attracted 68 citation. This one might be a keep. —Ruud 11:27, 1 April 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly needs some expansion and doesn't pass WP:GNG with flying colours. However, there is no promotional wording in the article (admittedly because it is a stub). My gut feeling is that it is notable, but unfortunately no independent reliable sources have been published to fully back this up. The language's GitHub repository has 933 stars and 114 watchers so is used to a certain extent and is actively maintained. As pointed out above there are publications (1 and 2) by MIT about the article. — Jordan Mussi (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep. It has been published in a respectable conference proceedings and introduces some unique concepts. Time will tell whether it is historically influential, but I think it is notable enough to keep for now. Perhaps it could be merged into some other general article on this class of language, but I don't have any immediate thoughts on where. 58.182.250.23 (talk) 16:44, 22 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. Nakon 01:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Force Paintball[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with only a single secondary source, a brief one-paragraph namecheck in a Telegraph article about paintballing in general. Other sources are directory entries, an About.com page about paintballing in general, Delta Force's own websites and a safety accreditation announcement from the company who runs Delta Force. McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 April 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:00, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nom, it's a non-notable company that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:28, 15 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. Nakon 01:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Kumar Sharma[edit]

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

Despite the claims in the article, this looks like a promotional piece for a non-notable 19 year old "businessman" with no sources except social media QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity bio, no notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An affinity marketing entrepreneur regarding whom no evidence of notability is evident. Previously deleted twice by CSD A7 and submitted this time by a WP:SPA account, so an AfD decision could be useful. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate any of his businesses have had any impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 19 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. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Cusenza[edit]

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

Citation of another user's (FactStraight) entry on the "talk" page of the article, which I fully endorse: "No sources verify Cusenza sovereignt. I suspect that this article and this family are a hoax. The new Wikipedia account, User:RiservaZingaroNet, has created and insists on retaining this article, without reliable sources, despite requests. The sources given are entirely to private, online websites and/or to a generic source about "surnames" that does not establish the specific history, significance or relationships of this alleged "House of Cusenza". Now we are being told that hundreds of years of history were deliberately destroyed so that we must take the "oral history" reported here as being truth. Unfortunately, that does not suffice in view of the challenges to this family's existence and notability that I am raising here. If there are no citations, this article cannnot be considered legitimate."--Kjalarr (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm looking at the lists & the first three I sampled all have meh references. The last family I looked at here Category:Da Carrara family. Is there further basis to suspect a hoax? Do you have a patrol or anything setup for nobles in Italy? -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my entry on the talk page 8 months ago, as cited above. Several attempts were made to add mirrors and unreliable sources, but despite requests no such cites have materialized. Even if produced, insufficient grounds exist for the notability of the content that remains or the alleged family of which it speaks. People complain about the proliferation of "royalty/nobility cruft". This article is an example of why. FactStraight (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This article reads more like folklore than history. I looked hard to see if there was anything that could be rescued. It has a picture of a castle, which is alleged to be the family home. I wondered whether the article might be repurposed as relating to that building and its inhabitants, but there is no real contnet concerning it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 18 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Watson (executive)[edit]

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

is this person Notable? TheMagikCow (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, he's notable. I'm in the process of writing it; you gave me less than 15 20 minutes between initially creating the article and proposing it for deletion, which seems a bit over-zealous to say the least. He meets WP:ANYBIO#1, as is already noted in the article, since he's appeared in Fortune and The Guardian's lists of notable LGBT people. He meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC based on all the below coverage (which is just a selection of the stuff I had open to use to expand the article, all of which I found with a very quick Google): Fortune 1 Fortune 2 Guardian 1 Guardian 2 Business Insider CIO 1 CIO 2 Wall Street Journal Bloomsberg International Business Times Time —me_and 09:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been significantly expanded, and I think now clearly meets GNG and friends without reference to the list of sources above (mostly because a lot of the links have been incorporated into the article). I still have a bunch more sources which I'm looking to integrate, hence not removing ((under construction)) just yet. —me_and 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, I've asked @TheMagikCow if he'd be willing to withdraw the nom. —me_and 10:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WIthdraw TheMagikCow (talk) 17:20, 16 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. Procedural Keep. Requests to change a page's title can be made at WP:RM. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mallick Family[edit]

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

The article talks about a specific Mallick family from Bihar. There are many other families sharing the same surname, having a very different history. The title of the article should be more specific. The following link tells about a people having the same surname but belonging to different family altogether: ^[1]

Though in the above case the surname is misspelled ("Mallik" instead of "Mallick"). Warcops (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://gangeshwarmandir.weebly.com/contact.html

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Until this is clarified - it would suck to delete the wrong thing. -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I would recommend amending the title of the article. I agree that there is some good fact about family of Syed Ibrahim Mallick Baya, and this information should not be lost. Is there any way that the title can be changed to something more appropriate like "Family of Syed Ibrahim Mallick Baya". This would settle the dispute and we will still have the article. Warcops (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.142.242 (talk) [reply]

Keep Use requested moves for changing title, AFD is mostly for getting an article deleted. Fundarise (talk) 02:24, 23 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. Nakon 01:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Datamax[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 3 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by Mean as custard. Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom, non-notable company.Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 17 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 redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 1). (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milk (How I Met Your Mother)[edit]

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

Not every episode of every TV show is notable--there is no reason to assume this one is. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 1) as per WP:EPISODE.Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If they are not all notable ... how many are you proposing to delete? -- IamM1rv (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that depends on how quickly my carnitas cook and how many papers I have to grade... Drmies (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 1) - Personally looking at a few of the other episodes it looks like they all need the same treatment .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - If they don't all pass, they say to make a single episode page in the guidleines at WP:EPISODE. Out of courtesy to the author, you should advise and give weeks to them to move the information. -- IamM1rv (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Inother (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 1): There are lots of episodes of this show that I think are notable, but this one doesn't seem to be. It's completely unreferenced and I haven't found any reviews of the episode by The A.V. Club or IGN or any other reviewers. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 17 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. Nakon 01:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saula Waqa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 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 substantial improvements since the last AFD which closed as no consensus. Nakon 01:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fonte Coffee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to lack notability , and is primarily promotional. "From the outset the Smith and Odom wanted to create a special coffee and aimed to do so with a Probat Roaster, which is known for its quality within the industry" "one of 32 master roasters" etc. I don't see how it could be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, the secondaries that pull up are blogs, routine local coverage, and a some press releases. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I'd recommend listing this place in WikiVoyage since it sounds like a cool place to go. but Not notable in the encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 15 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 delete. Look, it's WP:SNOWing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anal jihad[edit]

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

Neologism that makes no claim about significance or notability. Wikipedia does not write articles about obscure neologisms. Wikipedia is not a dictionary LK (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to latest search results(clicking on the links above). Zero mention in JSTOR, zero mention in google scholar, Zero mention in google books, zero mention in newspapers, and only 20 stories in news all of which are offshoots of one story, which comes from unreliable source. Keeping this will be a complete mockery of policy and set a precedent for inclusion of complete lies into wikipedia. Anyone who says there are "reliable" sources supporting this should list them with his comment so that others can examine the sources and take them to the reliable source noticeboard FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much better sourcing can be brought forward. Strikes me as a cheap slur. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hilariously (or offensively) entitled as it is, there are sufficient reliable sources discussing the subject by that exact name. Pax 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates NPOV, and cannot be edited into a neutral article because there simply are no sources to support such an aericle. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term has very little currency, broadly, it fails GNG. Citations themself maintain that it is a hoax, for a hoax to warrant an article, more notability in reliable sources needs to be demonstrated. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOWCLOSE This article is based entirely on a source with an anti-Muslim Brotherhood COI[14] and an Onion-like satirical letter [15] Rhoark (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not (now) appear in the article.--Auric talk 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preposterous article. It's possible to have articles on hoaxes or indeed on misconceptions touted by anti-Muslim activists (e.g Moon god Allah), but this is far too trivial and poorly supported. At most it could have a sentence in an article discussing Islamic views of homosexuality or anal sex. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As funny as it is -as noted above it just seems to be a slur, So unless better sources can be found I'll have to go with Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPOV. Most likely doesn't even exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Ridiculous and offensive, it's obviously created to be provocative, it has no encyclopedic value. We try not to have articles that are merely punchlines to a joke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inherently POV phrasing for a non-notable neologism. Unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Jihad or related articles.--Auric talk 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Having reviewed the linked sources for the article, I must also note that several of them do not directly support the basic premise of the article, but are tangentially related to it, e.g., anal sex for the purpose of expanding one's horizons to accept a suicide bomb. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:22, 16 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 you should be using drv not renominating as soon as the prev discussion closed. but dont hold your breath for the drv to go your way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CollXtion I[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable studio EP by non-notable singer. References include brief mentions, sales websites, celebrity twitter messages and status, blog posts from fans. This article fails WP:GNG. The EP fails WP:NALBUMS. The article looks like a publicity blitz to me, as another editor said previously at the first nomination for this article. User:Miniapolis said " Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud." WordSeventeen (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my quote, which was used here without my consent. Although I disagree with the original discussion's outcome (especially the NAC here), deletion review of the NAC is IMO a more appropriate response than opening another deletion discussion on the heels of the first; this, to me, is POINTy. Miniapolis 12:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The discussion was only closed ~~6 days ago~~ yesterday (My bad I completely forgot the AFDs were bundled in to one!).... If you disagree with the outcome then the next best place is WP:DRV. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep See all the reasons why here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Allie_X.2FWordSeventeen.2FWP:DE.2C_WP:POINT.2C_WP:LISTEN.2C_WP:HA.2C_WP:HOUND.2C_WP:TWINKLEABUSE 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Actually, the previous AfD was closed less than 24 hours ago as "speedy keep". This is a seriously pointy nomination (not to mention WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:33, 15 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. Nakon 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Val Falvey, TD[edit]

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

Unsourced stub. Only (possibly) independent reliable source appears to be this dating from before it was shown, part of which discusses another film. Greykit (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about this RTÉ webpage http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/val_falvey_td.html, this http://mostlyfilm.com/2011/06/08/great-tv-youve-never-seen-val-falvey-td/ and this episode details http://www.locatetv.com/tv/val-falvey-td/6517475/episode-guide for starters? Personally I don't have time to deal with it, nor is it an area of interest. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is definitely not independent ("The show began airing on RTÉ"), the second is not reliable (it is a self-published blog) and the third one I am not sure (it also refers to a blog). --Greykit (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 April 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:32, 12 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 15 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. -- GB fan 22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surin Elephant Round-up[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not familiar with how festival can be considered notable. This particular festival has national-level importance (i.e. Thais know about it and have plenty of Thai news coverages) Example from The Nation [16], Bangkok Post [17],[18] Information from Tourism Authority of Thailand [19]. International references are rarer. I can find from Lonely Planet [20], CNN (mention as example) [21], The Independent (one of many trips) [22]. Not sure how much would be enough to establish notability. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem is that the article is written as an advertisement or a tourist guide. That style is absolutely not suitable for an encyclopaedia! More sources conform WP:RS are needed. The Banner talk 02:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:25, 30 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources from Lerdsuwa above, which demonstrate notability. The existence of promotional material is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. C 679 10:16, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some tiny things which may keep this from deletion at the moment. I remember seeing a program about this a few years back so I will be making some efforts to have this kept, please do not close this debate for the next three or four days.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content , which was later reviewed by The Banner. I have now added some more and removed the maintenance tags. If hope it is enough for a keep.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree now. The Banner talk 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator So much work done and context added that my concerns are solved. The Banner talk 12:50, 16 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 merge to Internet_censorship_in_China. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 China censorship of Google services[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is a badly written content fork of Internet censorship in China. It's about an incident in 2014 but is written in the present tense. However, the language is opaque and most of the references are in Chinese so it's impossible to understand what the current state of affairs is. Normally I'd merge it but without adequate references that can't (and shouldn't) be done. This is a well-meaning but hopeless article that fails WP:CFORK, WP:POV, WP:VERIFY. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (i) The present tense is used only because it is not a incident in the past, but a incinent from past to present. It is still blocked now. (ii) Wikipedia:CFORK issue. I don't think it is a content fork. By definition, A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. However, it is a complete article. Even if you really think it is a content fork, it should be included in the exclusion rule - related articles. (iii) WP:NPOV issue, the non-neutral words such as "obviously" have already removed. If there are still some, then please remove the words. (iv) WP:VERIFY issue. Most of the words have citation, exception some with the ((citation needed)) templates. Moreover, citations to non-English sources are allowed, although English-language sources are preferred. I don't think that "I don't understand non-English sources" can be a reason to deny the reliability of sources. --Yejianfei (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason why it cannot be included in the main article, which already has a section on specific events such as blocking of Google in 2013. The article uses both the past tense and the present continuous tense randomly, but only gives dates and references from mid 2014 - nothing more recent - so there's no reliable sources to prove that this is ongoing. I'm sure it is, of course, but then it certainly isn't a 2014 issue per the article title and much of the content, and that's an even stronger case for merging with the main article. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the tense: There is nothing wrong with the tense. Google started to be blocked at the end of May 2014 (past tense), but is still blocked at present (present tense). -- Yejianfei (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not how it reads. For example the second sentence says "users... found that" (past tense) "are not able" (present tense), both mixed up in the same sentence. You also talk about this as being ongoing but provide no recent references. Admittedly it's now a lot clearer than it was, but anyway that doesn't matter - this article is a content fork, which is all that needs to be said, really. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed all the sentences with present tense to "started to", and now I don't think I need any references to prove whether it is ongoing. Again, I don't think it is a content fork. Do you think Windows 7 is a content fork from Microsoft Windows? -- Yejianfei (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it simply is a content fork. Regardless of whether or not other articles are, this one is. Consider this point: the title refers to 2014. That means the article can only be about an event that happened in the past, in 2014, and is now finished (like the 2012 Olympics, for example). But in that case it is a content fork of the main article because there are already other similar incidents there that took place in the past, such as this one in 2013, and that is the appropriate place for it to be. But if it is about a wider ongoing issue (which it is) then it addresses a more general point about China's ongoing censorship of Google, which is a subject that is covered extensively in Internet censorship in China. So if it's in the past, about a specific event, it's a content fork and if it's in the present, about an ongoing issue, it's a content fork. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(i) In fact, this one in 2013 you gave for example should be splited according to the Wikepedian rules Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Article size.
(ii) The question "Do you think Windows 7 is a content fork from Microsoft Windows?" is not actually asking you to judge whether that article should be deleted or merged, but asking you to clarify your judging standard of content fork, because I have found your judging standard is really strange. -- Yejianfei (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content in 2014 is pretty sparse, I think the best thing for the content as a whole is to place any wikiworthy content in Google China. And if Google china gets super big we can look at ways to split it then. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Somewhat relevant: With regard to national censorship of popular sites, for Facebook we're using Censorship of Facebook and we put a handful of countries in there, each with different incidents. I notice most of the stuff in this article: Censorship_by_Google appears to be government or legal forced censorship on Google, and there's already a China section, so seems to be a good target for merging or merge to Google China as suggested above.. ― Padenton|✉ 21:48, 1 April 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - But it needs a bit of a rewrite. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 12:28, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No real meaningful content for a stand-alone article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like belling the cat, I'm not sure exactly who should do the merge or how. I'd have already done it myself if I could make sense of the article and the references were of good quality and up to date. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:52, 15 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. Nakon 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What It Means to Be Defeated[edit]

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

The articles fails WP:NALBUM. It does have references, the most notable could be Infectious Magazine [23], announcing their tour and about 17 words about the album. Other notable reference could be Metalinsider [24], but 2 lines about the album does not make it notable (yet). Should be redirected to Dayseeker. Karlhard (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of album articles which only consists out of at least two or three sentences and don't have any references (for example Above the City or Behind the Mountains). Why we should keep them? I looked up some references for that article and it is going to be deleted because the references aren't notable enough? --Goroth (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above the City has a billboard article [25]. as per Behind the Mountains [26] [27] [28]. Should I continue? This article does not address any notability as a musical recordings. This should be strongly deleted or redirected to Dayseeker. --Karlhard (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may have articles in Billboard or similar magazines but no one is linked in the articles. What It Means to Be Defeated has reviews in New Noise Magazine, Smag Magazine, Punktastic, here are some articles about What It Means To Be Defeated, Top40 Charts and Rockfreaks. Notable sourches enough? --Goroth (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are not notable enough, most of them are press release. Could not even stablish the notability of the article. Let's wait the feedback from other contributors. Karlhard (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources brought up here. Sources like the Rockfreaks and New Noise Magazine ones are reviews, not press releases. Also, here's the correct link to the Punktastic source, which is also a review. Kokoro20 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are references available which aren't promotion for the album. --Goroth (talk) 15:14, 12 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 15 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khedery[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Minor foreign adviser whose name was mentioned among thousands others in WikiLeaks.--Kathovo talk 13:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Photo caption: "Ali Khedery standing behind George W Bush, with Nouri al Malaki"... op-ed piece in the NY Times... and WashPo too... significant mentions in multiple books... clearly had a lot of power. Wikileaks was a small part of his notability. Article in Foreign Policy... --Elvey^(t•c) 21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standing behind Bush in a photograph is not a criterion for notability.
He clearly fails WP:AUTHOR, co-eding aryicles is obviously not a valid reason to establish notability as a notable author. He also fails WP:POLITICIAN for that matter.
Mention 1st is a brief description in one sentence among a long list of minor advisers, 2nd is somewhat a lengthy personal description, author also describes many others, hundreds of names are found in the index. 3rd Khedery is acknowledged for proofreading parts of the book.
Wikileaks are basically email correspondences, you can find tens of thousands of names in database, nothing special here.--Kathovo talk 06:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, numerous reliable news sources demonstrate notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that he receives significant media coverage.--Kathovo talk 10:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you have to make a small effort, like checking Google News. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not media coverage of him. He is a media commentator, his articles and their mirrors results in X hits when googling his name. You will find also thousands of commentators[29][30] and journalists [31][32] whose name also appear quite often in news search results, this is simply no criteria for an entry in Wikipedia unless they accomplished something of note.--Kathovo talk 11:45, 3 April 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that photo, of that event, it's evidence of notability. He's the guy who made it happen.
What straw man arguments you make! It doesn't matter that he doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:PORNSTAR, either. FS, he's not a "creative professional". Wrong category. Meets WP:GNG. Numerous reliable news sources WHERE HE IS TEH SUBJECT demonstrate notability.
Mischaracterizing him as a mere a "media commentator" is like describing Barack Obama as a mere "community organizer". FS! Then, at the citation you mischaracterize as being merely that he proofread, he is credited for his efforts as a diplomat to build democracy in Baghdad.
Played a major role in Iraq's political history, among other things, as a kingmaker (of Nouri Al-Maliki). This classified cable was addressed specifically to him by name. Probably because it was largely about Maliki.

--Elvey^(t•c) 16:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special Report: How Exxon helped make Iraqi Kurdistan Reuters, What Went Wrong in Iraq: the Khedery Version Iraq Business News, Man who ‘discovered’ Maliki explains what went wrong CNN, Iran's Military Mastermind Is 'The Leader Of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, And Yemen' Business Insider. These are 4 reliable sources with articles about Khedery. He clearly meets WP:GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:26, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ism Schism above; these are good sources that seem to establish notability. Not a fan of the inflated "Literary References" section though, that could do with a slimming.-- Elmidae (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ism schism. Steel1943 (talk) 13:00, 22 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. Due to a consensus that the article just meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purification (film)[edit]

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

lack of indi secondary sources fails GNG. Film doesn't meet WP:NOTFILM Widefox; talk 18:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as we can confirm its release, TOO SOON is inapplicable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that in TOOSOON/NYF? I do see "Attributes" 1. no evidence 2. no 3. no 4. no 5. no. Additionally it just doesn't have any notable person or company and Joseph Ciminera was deleted G11, recreated as Joe Ciminera (deleted). I've unlinked him. Despite good efforts, it is an orphan, created as a promo / COI, and it comes across borderline GNG to me. Oh, I missed John Basedow, a borderline notable BLP with COI / promo advert. Widefox; talk 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found one review and a press release. I removed the original sources, which were all non-usable for various reasons. It relied heavily on primary sources and IMDb, but it did have two reviews, neither of which were in places that Wikipedia would really consider reliable. VideoViews doesn't seem to have any real editorial oversight, which is kind of hammered in by the fact that they misspelled "reviews" at the top of the page. The issue with the ShockYa website is that it also doesn't appear to have any true verifiable editorial oversight and the review also appears to be a cut/paste from the Examiner website, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so that's a no go as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a cut/paste, but the issue with the editorial oversight does still seem to be an issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, so we have two sources without editorial control (http://bloody-disgusting.com/bd-staff/ doesn't seem to list any staff). Widefox; talk 11:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Disgusting is a reliable source. It's listed at WP:FILM/R. Brad Miska is the editor-in-chief. I don't know what happened to their staff page, but it's got editorial control. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So one without editorial control, and one that did have and presumably does still have now. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't It Cool News is still considered to be a reliable source for the most part. I have my own reservations about the site for various reasons, but they do have a set staff and an editor so they're usable as far as reviews go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not listed at FILM/R. Widefox; talk 11:37, 10 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep While not the same far-reaching notability of a big studio's blockbuster, I find Bloody-Disgusting, Technorati (page 1), Technorati (page 2), Aint It Cool News and Dread Central and EMM Report enough to show that WP:NF is met... even if just barely. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding sources. Still, it seems weak (see above). (I get a security warning when checking the emmreport.com link). Widefox; talk 11:30, 10 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by MQS. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Basedow is at AfD (and the disruptive WP:OWNer ~~reported at WP:COIN~~ blocked). That leaves this as a borderline GNG orphan with little chance of improvement. Widefox; talk 11:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Widefox; talk 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: WP:WAX? A shame about that BLP article, but under WP:NOTINHERITED, problems with a poor article on one of its minor actors (man with gun) does not denigrate the existing press that has THIS film topic meet WP:NF.

But as long as we're waxing, an article on Ciminera may be back... as his notability as a chef (not as a filmmaker) may allow it just as it does with chef and foodie Bobby Flay. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: WP:NOTINHERITED is a powerful essay to remind us to consider solely on the merits of this article, all well and good. It's not actually that clear-cut is it? Guideline WP:NACTOR "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films,..." so there's an explicitly inherited relationship for actors from films (but agree none specified for films from actors, and none for minor roles). Sure, this film arguably passes GNG on its own merits (per above), but lacks normal healthy support - no incoming links as it's an orphan, it was promo/COI with the main outgoing link to be deleted non-notable (promo/COI). It may technically be a weak keep but it's not a rosy picture. Widefox; talk 09:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: But you are trying to denigrate the film's coverage through a dependence on an immaterial association of the film with a minor personality whose role was the simple descriptive "man with gun". Almost every film meriting a Wikipedia article also has actors who are themselves non-notable. At best that role is minor enough so that it should not be included in the article about the film, unless there is some coverage of "man with gun"... and I find none that include John+Basedow in way way other than his minor name being in listings. By way of extreme example, our article on the film Inception informs our reader of 14 cast members, while IMDB lists over 50 credited with many as descriptives. We do not ignore a film's coverage because some of its cast were non-notable. Sorry, but that's an extreme misuse of WP:INHERITED and not how we judge films. As even you grant "film arguably passes GNG on its own merits", there is no need to deflect by bringing forward an AFD on a different issue. As Basedow's minor role does not meet WP:NACTOR, that one goes, while this one stays. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Straw man argument. The sourcing speaks for itself - it's weak: [33] doesn't count for N (a simple listing), then we have an interview (so lacking independence) pages 1 and 2, and a primary. That leave two sources (1. and 5., as discussed above). That's borderline GNG, far short of significant coverage. There's no notable distributor or knowledge of wide distribution or award. These are serious notability issues. Separately to N, there's little or no redeeming/supporting features such as (notable actors) incoming links, outgoing links. It's an island barely above water. There's also the TOOSOON point above? Widefox; talk 11:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: The "strawman" is to ignore that GNG is met... even if just barely... and to then complain that it does not meet criteria NOT demanded by WP:NF. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:37, 23 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. Nakon 01:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rauno Thomas Moss[edit]

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

Has an Estonian-language article, but that is also poorly sourced. Perhaps someone with better Estonian can help. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so hopefully it can now get a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not (yet) notable. --Sander Säde 08:52, 13 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 15 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 redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yugi Mutou[edit]

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

Fictional anime/manga character, primary source references only, no reception section. Fails WP:GNG. Prod declined by anon who suggested a soft delete (redirecting to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters). A reasonable compromise, perhaps. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters, as was done with Seto Kaiba per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seto Kaiba. As the main character of the franchise, this obviously shouldn't be a red link when we have a character list. I oppose any sort of soft delete (which isn't the same thing as a redirect), as the history should remain in case anyone wants to merge content to the list or finds enough sources to restore the stand-alone article. Calathan (talk) 16:35, 10 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Calathan. I think it's reasonable to assume that the article could be improved in the future to solve the issues such as notability, but until that time it does not need or justify a separate article. However the edit history and current version of the page may prove a useful start should someone provide some evidence of notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Character isn't notable on its own however since people actually do search for Yugi on his own then a redirect is the best bet. —Kirt^Message 23:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters, I don't see any real world information in the form of concept or reviews to have this have a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 19 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 no consensus on the applicability of guidelines; default to keep. Der yck C. 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chessgames.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, I can only find passing mentions of the site, but no actual significant coverage from reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 03:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentions (passing?): [34] [35] [36] [37] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have used this free site daily for 10 years and have no financial connection. FWIW I'm quite familiar with wp:AFD discussion rules having attempted to remove Libertarian Party (UK). Chessgames.com has an invaluable database of master games, graded daily puzzles and biographies which should provide synergy with the Chess featured article for users of Wikipedia. Top grandmasters can also play consultation games with users. My efforts to use it as the authoritative reference it undoubtedly is for Henry Thomas Buckle's chessplaying record were thwarted when the reference was removed. The article lists his best games and record, what more is needed? Even if the article lacks newspaper references, if it reliably informs our readers it deserves to stay. This is an important principle & I believe WP:IAR applies. JRPG (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JRPG: See WP:PPOV. Even if the site is useful, it still needs to meet our notability guidelines. Usefulness is also subjective, so that the argument that keeping the article under WP:IAR is subjective.

Also, because I can't find any reliable sources to verify the article, (unless someone finds significant coverage from multiple reliable sources) the only article that can be produced that meets our verifiability guidelines is a very short article with very little information. Even a decent-sized article would have to rely on primary sources connected with the subject and self-published ones, thus not making the article a "reliable informer". Esquivalience ^t 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Esquivalience I'm very familiar with the rules, agree the article doesn't meet them(!) and am an enthusiastic wp:deletionist so ..uhm -please let me explain why this is only the 2nd occasion where I've supported 'keep.' AFD rules seem to miss a point for websites used extensively as Wikipedia references. I also supported 'keep' for They work for you which uses Hansard transcriptions for UK politicians parliamentary speeches. It's is faster, collates more information on individual politicians than the official Parliament.uk & it's a reliable reference used in hundreds of biographies. It can easily be checked against Hansard.

Similarly chessgames.com's importance is in providing Wikipedia chess users with a database of games which can be checked. Neither website needs an extensive Wikipedia article -they aren't important in their own right but it is useful for the user to know just a little bit about them.

Take 3 recent world champions, Magnus Carlsen has 3 references,Viswanathan Anand has 3 and Garry Kasparov has 2. A book on any of them will have details of many their games which can be used to verify the database but chessgames.com database entry on Kasparov alone has 2,349 games, far more I think than any single book. I would expect most if not all of the 948 grandmaster articles listed in Category:Chess grandmasters will have at least one reference. I think either WP:IAR applies or a minor change to accommodate websites like these is required.

Regards JRPG (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that in their biographies, many of the chessgames contributors also say they have contributed articles to Wikipedia and I would expect them to have used the website as a reference. JRPG (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problems with a short article which includes a statement saying it's widely used as a chess-related reference in Wikipedia. If the site is deemed not-notable will that affects its use as a reference? If so, a large number of articles will need altering. JRPG (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a well established site going back to 2001, and is one of the most popular chess-related sites on the internet, despite its well publicized shortcomings. I think significant negative coverage in reliable sources counts towards establish notability too. (I'll fix the link to Olimpiu Urcan's chesscafe article to point to the wayback machine.)

How to determine what is a "reliable source" with regard to chess? The fact is most mainstream news sources rarely cover chess, and when they do they often get the details wrong (e.g. not knowing the difference between a "game" and a "match"). Taylor Kingston's chesscafe.com, Edward Winter's chesshistory.com and Mark Crowther's theweekinchess.com are among the more reliable sources for chess information. Lubomir Kavalek's column in the Huffington Post is good, Leonard Barden's column in the Guardian is good... but the chess community will always be somewhat incestuous and self-referential.

I really think wikipedia needs to re-examine its WP:WEB notability policy; just because a web site doesn't have an article written about it in the New York Times doesn't mean it's not notable. The current policy makes it too easy for people with an agenda to get articles about websites they don't like deleted; this has happened in the past with other chess-related websites. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:04, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~If not independently notable, then a selective merge to List of Internet chess servers would be a functional WP:ATD.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a chess server like ICC, FICS, chesscube, chess.com etc. It's more like a hybrid between an online database of chess games and a social networking site. There is no interface for members to play live real-time games against each other. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'social networking' is limited to comments either on the game in question or very similar games. I don't regard it as notable -except for use as a Wikipedia chess reference -which is an excellent but inexplicably omitted reason for keeping it! I agree with MaxBrowne, WP:WEB notability policy needs to be examined. JRPG (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my notion above, per just below the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per WP:IAR. This particular article improves the encyclopedia; its removal would not improve Wikipedia, relative the topic's historical significance and the size of its member base. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 15 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 merge to Peep show. Nakon 01:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Show World[edit]

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

while they were in the news, the fact that the company closed instead of unionizing means they were a sidenote, compared to the Lusty Lady, which did unionize. not a particularly notable company. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peep show – California, as a functional WP:ATD that will enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of this article's content to Peep show. Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 15 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 redirect to X-Dream#Latest album. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Interface[edit]

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

Long time unsourced, unotable album Wgolf (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a error happened and it came up twice on the AFD listing. Wgolf (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X-Dream#Latest album. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. In my search for source, all I could add was discogs. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 April 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, Nakon 04:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing Panic in Paradise (album) and Radio (X-Dream album) into redirects to the band (which Radio is actually on prod and expired but since this does make the most logical sense) *edit*-adding Irritant (album) as a redirect also. Wgolf (talk) 14:37, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 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. Nakon 01:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lookeen[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. Outside of the solitary review in PCWorld (reminder: "However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability"), all coverage seems fringe, promotional or self-published. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated as it was not written about the latest version after I found several blogposts and reviews on relevant blogs and website about this software Peteroe (talk) 16:06, 16 April 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, Nakon 05:09, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage seems insufficient - this program does not seem to have any larger significance.-- Elmidae (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because several references have been added, e.g. reviews from two of the most important desktop search blogs in the web (arnoldit.com und brianmadden.com
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peteroe (talk)^Peteroe 13:57, 22 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 merge to Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office. Nakon 01:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Sydney[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. trade offices do not have the status of consulates or embassies. There is no significant third party coverage of this one. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ZHWP keeps all the HKETO at zh:香港經濟貿易辦事處 (海外) (Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office). Together with Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Berlin and London uses only primary sources (from Hong Kong Government and the Offices themselves) or evidence of mere existence, and it is hard to establish separate notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office. No point in keeping this permanet stub.--Antigng (talk) 04:49, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 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. Nakon 01:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poorvi Bhatt[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NTENNIS for junior players. Is not in the top 3 of the ITF rankings and has not won a junior grand slam. The references given are brief mentions or as part of a list and do not amount to significant coverage. Fazzo29 (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:41, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being ranked 10th among under 12 girls is not enough to meet WP:ATHLETE and the sources do not show significant coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet gng, tennis project guidelines nor nsports. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 17 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. Nakon 01:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific University Udaipur[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reason why this is notable. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a legitimate degree-granting institution, which we always keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:11, 9 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said by Necrothesp, it appears to be a legitimate university. I have added some information regarding membership of an organization. I believe the article should be renamed though, either to its full name (which is a real mouthful), or something more palatable like Pacific University (India). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:49, 22 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. Nakon 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LivItaly Tours[edit]

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

Declined AfD. Entirely unremarkable travel business, article propmotional in intent. Slim sourcing which I assume is reason for the speedy being declined really only demonstrates that the company does PR. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Comes across as a advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per above. Alex2006 (talk) 12:40, 16 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 and redirect to U.S._Route_1_in_Florida#Miami-Dade_County. Redirecting to the U.S. Route 1 article to prevent double-redirect. Nakon 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biscayne Wall[edit]

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

It may or may not literally be a hoax. The only source was dead and the internet search is circular since this page has been around for so long. I copied the content from the page to save it and put it in a sub page where it could be put in an article on Biscayne Boulevard which is more specific than the US Route 1 in Florida page. B137 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a hoax; I was the one who declined speedy for that idea. Yes, a search of plain Google turns up a lot of Wiki mirrors or sites that link to this article. But a search of Google News makes it clear that the term has passed into the language.[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] On the other hand, those are all just mentions; they are not enough to build an article around. So I think your idea of a merge/redirect to Biscayne Boulevard (which really does deserve its own article) is probably the best way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. My searches yielded similar results to MelanieN's—it's not a hoax and is used in various sources, but there's not enough discussion to warrant a separate article—and I agree with her analysis. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 15 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. Nakon 01:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Girls Softball League[edit]

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

This article about a girls softball league has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference listed in the article is simply a link to their web site. My own search found nothing of significance, Whpq (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a link to the league's own website. Fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source is a link to the league's own website. If it can't get publicity elsewhere, then I guess the local editors and news directors don't consider it Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local girls' softball league for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. This is dangerously close to qualifying as a WP:A7 "speedy delete" for failure to state the article subject's importance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 22 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. Nakon 01:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aisling's Diary[edit]

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

Sourced only to the network, the Internet Movie Database, the production company and Bebo. Claims it aired in 3-minute episodes. Created in 2009, yet hardly edited or improved since then. Greykit (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:44, 16 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. Nakon 01:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.A.S.T.[edit]

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

Sourced only to the network (that link is no longer working). No indication of notability. No indication that it's still being shown. Greykit (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:44, 12 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:46, 16 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. Nakon 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J1 – Summer in the Sun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Once-off show with no coverage independent of the network. Previously closed as NPASR after 1 month due to lack of participation. Greykit (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:50, 16 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. Nakon 01:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerine Records (1990)[edit]

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

Obscure record label that seems to only have 1 release-not to be confused with another record label with the same name from 1992. Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete N/N record label. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:36, 8 April 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 15 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. Nakon 00:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Strike 1990–1993[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable event regarding a strike, that, by it's own admission, "received next to no attention in contemporary gallery and museum art." Although there are external links, there is no inline citations, which suggests some original research as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet notability guideline, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:05, 15 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. Nakon 00:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Chainsaw Massacre[edit]

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

Short film that I'm not sure if this really qualifies for wiki standards or not. Basically no reliable sources and that's it. Wgolf (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are lots of hits for a 1987 incident where Mr. T decided to chop down all the trees on his property, but there are almost no hits at all for this film. Too bad, because it seems to have been created in an effort to increase coverage of African topics. There really isn't anything to say about this, however; short films often don't get any coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dang that be a more amusing film lol. And that is true-unless if the short film got nominated for a Oscar they are likely not going to have a page (well that is for short films made probably in the past 40 years-old short films are much more well known). Wgolf (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Nothing to do with the Mr.T headache. It's a film by UNESCO and, even though verifiable as part of their permanent archives, UNESCO archives sadly are not "national archives" of any one particular nation. This will never hit the big screens in the US. If we could have confirmed it as having screened in festivals after 2010, I'd have gone with a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are obviously reliable sources that indicate this film *ahem* exists, there isn't anything much beyond that. I don't really see any way we can expand it beyond a stub. Luthien22 (talk) 21:22, 22 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. Nakon 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EXO Next Door[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a web drama starring Exo as...themselves. Each episode is 15 minutes long. It started airing five days ago (as of today). The article has no sources at all. I can't see how this show could already be notable at this point in time (and actually how it could ever become such). Many articles about short-duration vanity shows starring a kpop group have been deleted recently because there's really nothing to say about them and it's pretty tough to show they're genuinely notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This web drama can easily be discussed in the band's article, and I can't find evidence of notability. The only English-language sources are announcements / press releases (e.g. [43]). More significant coverage is needed to show notability.
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:58, 16 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Katz (dentist)[edit]

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

Tho speedy was declined, I continue to see not even a claim of importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it were alleged, I don't see any remote evidence of notability. This is an utterly run of the mill dentist. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of bloggers at Huffington Post. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some biographies listed, but they don't pass GNG. Noteswork (talk) 08:50, 21 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. Nakon 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Moxley[edit]

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

Listing as "young innovator" means only "not yet notable" ; student prizes do not give notability . All this is on a par with the final sentence: "He later went on take 2nd place in his junior high school science fair after devising a system to broadcast "Laser Kenny Loggins" using a pair of gerbils and a shoe-box diorama." DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a notable search doesn't come up with significant coverage from secondaries. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not quite as bad as DGG makes out; the company he founded shows some promise, but it isn't there yet, nor is he. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 15 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. Nakon 00:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Hillin[edit]

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

Non-notable writter. Ridernyc (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:TOOSOON facts are cited to her writer bio at Huff Post - No evidence of notability there. She is a writer on 3 movies IMDb, but no one appears to have written anything about her in connection to these movies in a secondary source. The linked article in Variety does not. similar for her debut novel. This [44] is a paid-for promotion. her book sounds like it's a movie pitch. Which, along with the 3 IMDb credits indicates that she may well be notable soon. She certainly has mastered the art of self-promotion, I assume that she wrote this WP article about herself. Or her agent did. Or her mother. I'm not sure what sort of standards the non bluelinked Monrovia Weekly maintains. It is the only secondary source on the page that actually discusses Hillin. But the article is not signed, a fact that combines with the breathless tone ("so begins yet another exciting chapter of her prolific life as Santa Monica-based Taryn Hillin, pen name C.T. Hillin, adds published author to her burgeoning resume with the release of her debut novel") which the Monrovia Weekly was the only publication - web or print - on the planet to notice. If it wasn't written by Hilen, or someone close to her, I'll eat this page. It and IMDb are the sum total of what we have. It's WP:TOOSOON E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 15 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. Nakon 00:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Razza[edit]

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

Another band with questionable notability. I did put the expand language tag just now but looking over the Italian wiki its just a expanded description with no reliable refs at all. Wgolf (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found a few links at Google Books. The links aren't solid mentions though and there may be more links in Italian but the two at Wikipedia Italy are dead and I recovered it but there's not much potential. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 22 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. Nakon 00:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fraser[edit]

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

Despite this claim that he "starred" in all those shows, they were just a few episodes. Yes he has quite a few tv shows he was on-but none of the characters really stood out big time. (Though I do find his tv listing quite impressive I will admit) Wgolf (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches at News and Books found nothing aside from the one Deadline link mentioned at IMDb. It seems he never got attention for the plethora of TV shows he's appeared in. Nothing to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 22 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 prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malos Cantores[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Okay trying to find any reliable sources for this rap duo. I did find a link on MTV.com though which is reliable but other then that I'm having trouble finding sources-now maybe someone from Italy might be able to help. I do find it odd there is no Italian wiki for them though. Wgolf (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a notability search comes up lacking for significant coverage establishing notability. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I exported the content to WikiBands Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing aside from this minor mention. If they only had two releases, it's unlikely they ever established much ground anyway. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 22 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.