< 7 April	9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Bosi[edit]

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

Can't find any sources which would indicate this professor is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for some source discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our article needs a lot of cleanup. But as past president of the Audio Engineering Society [1] I think she passes WP:PROF#C6, and her highly cited work on digital audio coding also gives her a pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, per WP:PROF, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." - Do you have any sources which could be used in this article? Sam Walton (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You ask that after I included one such source in the comment you replied to? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "a lack of reliable, independent sources" - The AES isn't independent, especially given that the source is an interview. Sam Walton (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The kind of source you're looking for is usually only written after an academic dies, and requiring independence to mean "did not ever work with the subject" would probably even rule out most academic obituaries. The AES is independent in the sense that (at the time this source was written and published) the subject had no control over it, and that's good enough for me. But perhaps you would be happier with this profile and interview in Billboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 5 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) 23:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scholars are not judged by WP:GNG, they are judged by WP:ACADEMIC. Her publications are heavily cited at Google Scholar, establishing her as a thought leader in her field. ~~The article needs a lot of work,~~ but the subject meets our criteria for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have made improvements to the article, reorganized it, and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition past president of a major professional society (Audio Engineering Society, 14,000+ members, established 1948, many chapters at US universities). --Erp (talk) 03:07, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Norris[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not made an appearance in a fully professional league. JMHamo (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't made an appearance for Cambridge in League 2, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hmm ... starting keeper in 2014 FA Trophy Final - which did lead to coverage [2] - though is it routine? Some other borderline coverage [3] Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Norris has received coverage in a number of reliable sources, independent of the subject, including local, regional and national news outlets [4][5][6][7][8] (and those listed above by Nfitz). This coverage can be deemed “significant” given that he is the focus of each article. It is therefore presumed that the subject is suitable for a stand-alone article as it satisfies the criteria set out in WP:GNG and therefore that set out in WP:NFOOTBALL. Srrnmt (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well 5 and 6 seem pretty routine, and the others are all a bit borderline. But that's a lot of borderline coverage, combined with the FA Trophy articles, I'd say that's a keep. ~~... barely~~. Nfitz (talk) 15:33, 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) 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Natg 19 Norris has now made an appearance in League 2 [9] therefore fulfils criteria set out in WP:NFOOTBALL. Srrnmt (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as above, he now passes WP:NFOOTY, after playing for Cambridge United in League 2 match yesterday. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 12 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. Sandstein 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible Education About Life Act[edit]

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

Failed bill that died in committee 8 years ago. Died multiple times in committee in different congresses, does not appear a vote ever occurred. ― Padenton|✉ 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill bill proposed and not passed. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources (such as this table), including several books, but no coverage which which I would consider passing significant coverage. It was noted that President Obama had cosponsored the legislation, but in no way does that make the subject any more notable. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, I must support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 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. Sandstein 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brolico[edit]

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

This page is clearly promotional material for an unnotable product. The product itself is not covered in enough WP:RSes to be notable. The page itself has a number of things copied from the promotional materials of the company. It doesn't meet WP:Notable, it's guilty of WP:Advert and WP:POV. It should be deleted. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was significantly more promotional when it was first created (I noticed it and intended to AfD it then, but forgot). This version was prodded as advertising; it was then substantially toned down by another editor, which is appreciated but still insufficient. Product is not notable; I can find zero independent coverage of the subject. The product's health claims are, of course, complete bollocks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I PROD'ed it, it was easily just advertising and full of unsourced claims, but given all the improvements I'm going to stay neutral on this deletion as it has been rewritten in an encyclopaedic tone and does have two, possibly good sources, but I can't verify them as they are offline. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete JSTOR has never seen the term, not once, which leads me to believe that the reference to Science does not mention the subject by name. Given the high standards of WP:MEDRS and the use of this purported substance toward medical use, I think we have to ask for something that can be verified. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 14 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. Nothing but ipse dixit assertions from the IP commenters, no showing this is a notable concept or not OR. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of borderless countries[edit]

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

There is not a suffient distinction with List of island countries to justify a separate article. There are some differences, but these can be easily explained. Bazonka (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The distinctions were never explained throughout the years when the two lists were fused. Being borderless is itself a notable criteria for countries. 116.48.87.173 18:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then we explain better. Bazonka (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an original conception of borderless and so this fails WP:LISTN. When you look at sources, they don't use the phrase borderless to refer to islands but instead to countries with no formal border controls such as the Schengen Area. Andrew D. (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative name would be List of countries with no land border. Such a list is necessary since these countries got quite different security and sociocultural settings. 116.48.87.245 16:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 116.48.87.173. As notable as island nations, if not more so. 203.210.6.36 (talk) 19:48, 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, postdlf (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Andrew D., as most sources I see using "borderless countries" are in context of the European Union/Schengen Area. On the other hand if 116. manages to find a good compromise in moving or restructuring the list with RS significance, I have no objection to doing that. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are notable. 104.236.210.161 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:OR. Do not redirect into the list of island countries. Reasons:

This list falsely claims that these countries do not have borders. They do, otherwise would control the world several times over. See maritime boundary for details. These countries only lack land borders. As such it is a misleading list.
The list is nearly identical to list of island countries and the few exceptions are well covered (!) in that list in the column "geographic configurations".
I studied geography and did not just cover it in grade school. While specialized in political geography, I never ran into the strange concept of borderless countries. Therefore I checked Google Books and "borderless countries" is always used in a different context and still not as a clear concept. In other words, this list is a clear cut case of WP:Original Research.

In conclusion, there is no justification for keeping this redundant and misleading OR list, not even as a redirect (which of course would be a lesser evil). gidonb (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Bazonka, for nominating this article. Wikipedia is in dire need of raising its quality from a geography perspective! gidonb (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I had been hodling off on this one but my thoughts are along those just above. It's one person's idiosyncratic notion. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename as suggested above. Countries with no land border patrol their borders very differently and got quite different sociopolitical settings. 218.102.4.22 (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if not reverse merge. Apparently notable. 210.0.147.129 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what's notable is that all of the Keep !votes are from IPs, and all bar one of these are based in Hong Kong. Just saying! Bazonka (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon K. Newton[edit]

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

non-notable author. Does not meet either WP:PROF or the GNG. One of his 3 books is in only 22 libraries; one in 7, the 3rd in none. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. I can find no independent coverage of Newton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete He is a theological scholar, so it is not strange that people are finding it more difficult to find independent info on him. But for the record here is a brief list of independent sites which cover him:

http://www.fbs.org.au/abrauthor.html http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/17455251/18/2 http://www.anzats.edu.au/whoswho.html http://www.eptaonline.com/journal-articles/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.12034/abstract The latest book was only just released so it is unsurprising that it is not easy to find it in libraries yet, although see http://library.harvest.edu.au/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=65695&query_desc=kw%2Cwrdl%3A%20Newton%2C%20Jon . His books are in more libraries than is suggested DGG (above), but these are generally libraries owned by private theological colleges which are not linked with worldcat.org see http://library.emmaus.edu.au/cgi-bin/koha/opac-MARCdetail.pl?biblionumber=9409 for example. He has been published in numerous scholarly research journals, these are listed independently in ebsco's database and ProQuest's database. If it will help I can include ISSN numbers of these journals. These journals are found in or are given access to by any decent college or university library which has a religion department. --Windupboy82 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Windupboy82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

do not delete This academic clearly meets the Notability criteria. 1) He has earned a PhD at Deakin University and serves as the Head of Research and doctoral supervisor at a Theological Seminary; 2) He has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association i.e. he is a director of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Theological Schools. His general notoriety is clearly high within his field and this is reflected in the fact that he has been published in a wide variety of academic journals and by two major theological publishers. --Orinsa1118 (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Orinsa1118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - the keep votes above do not demonstrate notability. The criteria are listed at WP:PROF, and the subject doesn't appear to meet any of them. St Anselm (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While theological colleges tend to be smaller than universities, dean of research, is a senior post, higher than professor (in the non-US sense). Serving on the board of anzats also points to his notability. The article does seem to have a lot of redlinks, but that may be due to the deficiencies of WP in not having articles on significant subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a large corpus of "AfD case law" that has established that President, Chancellor (or vices thereof) and sometimes Provost satisfy WP:PROF c6 and, moreover, these must be at "a major academic institution". Dean at a small seminary does not satisfy c6. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Criterion 3 of WP:PROF states: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)." He clearly meets this criterion. He is not only a member but a director at the most prestigious theological scholar society in Australia, i.e. ANZATS. --Orinsa1118 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote more than once. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

— Orinsa1118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Objective evaluation against WP:PROF guidelines indicate that the subject falls far short of notability. The usual criterion is c1, but David (nom) shows that Newton's books have very low holdings. Likewise, his scholarship has barely been noted: only 2 GS citations for his cumulative body of work. (Note that Windupboy82 and Orinsa1118, whose edit styles are very similar, are under the misunderstanding that publications confer notability, when in fact it is citations to a scholar's publications that matter.) The other claims, e.g. being a director of ANZATS, a seminary schools association, or being a dean do not satisfy c6. It appears the 2 SPA accounts are jointly pushing this article and the one on Harvest Bible College, where Newton is on faculty – smells of possible COI. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pragyaa[edit]

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

This article is just an attempt to advertise a college's technical festival. College festivals like Techfest of IIT Bombay may meet the WP:Notability guidelines to have their own separate articles, but this one does not. A section about this festival, at the article of the college Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology, is sufficient, and I have added such a section there. There are article quality, language, and reference problems too, but the main issue is notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not anything else, and an encyclopedia would not have entire articles on such topics. Engineering Guy (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Pragyaa 2011 for deletion, because this, too, is an attempt to advertise this festival, and does not meet the notability and other guidelines, as explained above. --Engineering Guy (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Engineering Guy (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Engineering Guy (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Pragyaa to Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology. Delete Pragyaa 2011 (as an implausible search term). Fails WP:GNG. I was expecting at least some local media coverage, but even that doesn't seem to exist. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Cultural festival of the college.Not notable and is not a search term and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:01, 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. Sandstein 20:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working Fermentor + Freezer combinations[edit]

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

Contested PROD by Finngall which I endorsed, unencyclopedic original research. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as original PROD'der. No references provided, and most likely sources of citations would be blog posts and other unreliable sources. --Finngall ^talk 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the relevant editors to answer these questions:

If references were provided for each row of my table, would that address the attribution / citation issue?
If blog posters and other grass-roots sources are considered unreliable, then why is this not also a detriment to the likes of the list of Cryptids? The attribution for most of these examples is, by definition, unreliable. If I purport to see a flying pig this evening, and add that info to the Cryptids page, has Wikipedia grown its encyclopedic repository more reliably than adding a row to my table does? Where is the line drawn?
If Wikipedia is not a How-To guide, how does one explain pages like Tequila_Sour?
The examples in my table (a given combination of freezer + fermentor) are not easily reproduced in vacuo, but are meant to be 100% reproducible from these sources. Does that not constitute a form of encyclopedic knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbcook (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielbcook: I'll ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a moment. 1) No, we don't like lists of "things" that don't exist elsewhere in the encyclopedia and are essentially just a bunch of external links, even if they are presented as citations. 2) The list of Cryptids is a list of articles, not a list of things that don't exist in the encyclopedia. If one of them is sourced to blogs as you say then it should be nominated for deletion and removed from that list. In the meantime, anyone is free to non-controversially remove redlinks and non-linked entries from there. 3) Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it. 4) I suppose that's for this discussion to decide. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog: Sorry, in my #1 I didn't mean to use "references" as defined by a link off-site to a more official repository of the same information. What I meant was: would it address your concerns if each row of the table is marked as having been contributed by a specific person? The collection of information represented by the table doesn't exist anywhere else, to my knowledge, for if this information did already exist in one place then I wouldn't be attempting to create the page.

I will borrow directly from the article Wikipedia is Not a How-to Guide, under the heading "1. Instruction manuals", "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic...". This proposed table is nothing more than a description of how people (i.e., home brewers) do something (i.e., successfully combine a fermentor and a cooling chamber). Take for example the Stout 40-gallon fermentor, which will fit into a small # of commercially-available freezers, making it of high value to learn a priori that a given freezer is proven to fit this fermentor before shelling out $1300+ for it and then discovering that all your efforts to find a home for it will fail (unless you happen to find a local Craigslist ad for one of the three late-model units it works in).

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:53, 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 Speedy delete by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), Reason: G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: misplaced user script page in article space. (non-admin closure) Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europhobe/common.css[edit]

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

Its a blank and unmeaningful essay shuvokhan123 20:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be a .css page that the user meant to create in their user space that was accidentally created in article space. Move to userspace or speedy delete as non-controversial housekeeping. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time Inc.[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Wholly unreferenced. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only Google hits are their own website and social media, so fails notability. —George8211 / T 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per my original nomination for CSD. --Cahk (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 13 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 Bonfire (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because It's Christmas Time[edit]

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

Prodded for non-notability and no references. Prod removed and a reference that confirms the song was released as a single CD in 1997 and 1998 only. Still no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonfire (band). Wgolf (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonfire (band) per failing WP:GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per sk1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Molly[edit]

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

~~Seems to be a obscure clothing company, having trouble finding refs also-the Swedish page is even more bare bones then this one! Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)~~withdrawn[reply]

Once successful, now struggling, clothing company which has been listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange since 2007. Swedish business (and fashion) journalists find them worth writing about: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. As for the Swedish Wikipedia, like its counterpart in English, it is run mostly by nerdy young men interested in sports and technology, but with little or no interest in fashion and an indifference verging on hostility towards any business that doesn't involve paying people to play either ball or electric guitar. --Hegvald (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going for keep or delete? Or unsure now. I think the description you had was more amusing then the article lol. Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for descriptive and, I hope, informative. --Hegvald (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by User:Hegvald demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG, and more importantly that it belongs in an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Odd Molly is a well-known brand in Sweden. Passes GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-per refs. (I do wish sometimes people wouldn't leave these unotable tags so long though ha ha) Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like the promo / copyvio problems can be resolved editorially. Sandstein 20:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Rationalists' Association of India[edit]

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

This article seems to be an advertisement/promotion of Science and Rationalists' Association of India WP:G11. Also, it may be a Unambiguous copyright infringement from http://esotericotherworlds.blogspot.com/2013/01/science-and-rationalists-association-of.html WP:G12. I suggest we DELETE this article. --Jaaron95 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a copyvio, from the main website as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove any copyvio The page was there BEFORE the copyvio text. It was created 21 February 2006‎. The only thing we have to do is rollback in the latest non-copyvio version and hide any copyvio revision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is being used for WP:SOAPBOXING, that they "debunks pseudoscientific claims", give me a break. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite with neutrality: The association has been split into two entities and there is a legal battle going on. There is fair bit of ambiguity about the parties and their full legal rights to use the name and logo. This article may be retained but the legal issues as well as the viewpoints of both the stakeholders must be mentioned. --2kaibiswas (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After all the recent cleanup, I think this article is worth keeping. It is a notable organization, the copyvio has been removed, its clearly sourced, COI and neutrality issues are mostly removed. I don't see a reason for deletion now. Insofar as the legal battle, it should be mentioned, but be sure to stick closely to COI and neutrality rules... Jcmcc (Talk) 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable organization. Many mentions in Google News (see the "Find sources" link above). In my opinion, it passes WP:NORG. And ya, we should not allow soapboxing. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like a promo, with lots of names, as if the advertisement banner. Educationtemple (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have indicated, the problems that this article had can, and it seems largely were, corrected by editing. This organisation is well know in skeptical circles in countries outside India. I have known about it in Australia for many years. There must be many more sources like the last three current references. It is a notable organisation. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on this one. I personally could only find passing mentions of the organization, but it seems like I may be missing some sources here, so neutral. If kept, then stubify because the content seems promotional and the statement on the group criticizing Mother Teresa is a borderline violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 14 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Woodman Root[edit]

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

Not notable, his father is though. Definitely does not meet WP:GNG. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Frederick W. Root had an extensive career as a choir leader, composer, choral arranger and vocal instructor. I have a subscription to Newspapers.com; I found over two hundred references to him in the papers there. Many (but not all) of the ones in Chicago where he lived were just local trivial, but there are reports of his musical activities or compositions and arrangements in papers in California, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico as well as several places in Illinois. HERE are a few references that I intend to use as citations when I get time to edit the text carefully. I included a short description beside the ones where a subscription is needed. There is an extensive article about him in The Voice. In spite of being tagged as possibly unreliable, this New York publication has an editor listed on the front page, and appears to have been a monthly journal in its tenth year of publication. This means he was known from coast to coast. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The two spellings of the first name, Frederic and Frederick, plus the references being split up between those with a complete middle name, those with an initial, and those without, cause a quick search on any one of the six combinations to show only a few hits, a lot of these buried among items about his better known father, whose middle name was Frederic(k). Also a lot of the information was in subscription-based databases which Google doesn't pick up.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As per the suggestion by Anne Delong that she knew there were sources available to help show this person's notability, I became BOLD and made a good attempt to expand, and further reference this article using WP:RS. With significant coverage across numerous sources, this article passes WP:GNG , and also places the article subject across the threshold of WP:N notability. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per what Anne Delong said. Wgolf (talk) 19:30, 12 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. Sandstein 20:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noman Group of Industries[edit]

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

Not convinced this passes WP:NCORP based on the single source that is not self-published. Dolescum (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1 possibly reliable reference, from website of major Bangladeshi newspaper. The other is "under development," therefore new and not a reliable source, so the article fails WP:N. 6 of 8 references are from company literature, ergo WP:SPAM. Tapered (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, per above. Doesn't pass notability, likely WP:ADMASQ. ~ nafSadh did say 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AUCS Linux[edit]

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

Declined PROD by article's creator. Article has zero third-party sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - all three refs are own web-site - no independent refs, no evidence of any notability. Purely promotional Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Linux distribution. A search for sources turned up nothing at all of significance, nothing on Distrowatch, nothing anywhere. Completely fails WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Software and WikiProject Linux, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Totally non-notable. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability on Wikipedia is not measured by how many people may or may not be using a Linux distribution. As explained at WP:N it is determined by the existence of independent third party references, like magazine reviews. This is for two reasons, 1. so that an article can be actually written with some objective comment and criticism, not having to rely only on primary sources, which are naturally biased in favour of the subject and 2. to prevent Wikipedia from being used for promotional purposes, such as to advertise a new Linux distro that is only being used by a handful of people. If it is too new to have any third party reviews then WP:TOOSOON applies. As far as mentioning it on the Arch Linux or Manjaro Linux pages, without third party refs it isn't notable enough for inclusion anywhere. Also I have to ask, you claim above that "over 500 people are shown to be using it currenly". Where is the proof of that? - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no third-party reliable sources can be found on Google. -- intgr [talk] 07:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article indeed fails to establish its notability as required by WP:GNG. Moreover, it is so devoid of actual content that I think it barely escapes the A3 criteria for speedy deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I the author request deletion. Once 3rd party sources are found, we can un-delete the page. However, after reviewing policy, I find it to be worthy of deletion. Perhaps we combine it with Manjaro Linux untill it has 3rd party sources. I recommend that this plan be executed immediately as I am the author.Smokey2022 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without third party sources it is not ~~notable~~ verifiable enough to even mention in Manjaro Linux or other articles, see WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ahunt: Just to nitpick, the correct policy against covering it in some other article is verifiability, not notability. Quoting WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article" -- intgr [talk] 11:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:G7, the author has now requested deletion (and all other non-SPA !voters agree). Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Munja (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it should be kept? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Educational purposes. No reason not to introduce all Linux distros on Wikipedia, even if they are less popular. --Munja (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Um, you might want to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Articles still need to have third party references to meet WP:GNG or they cannot be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from confirmed socks. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article should not be deleted as AUCS has been downloaded by 1000 people and is being used by many, including myself.Anon01110111 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Anon01110111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Comment -Sorry but a handful of people using a distro is not a reason to have an encyclopedia article on it. This is just WP:ILIKEIT. You should probably read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and reformulate your post here to give a better reason based on policy. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep-The article can be modified to contain 3rd party sources once they arive. However, since this is such a new distro, I reccomend keeping the article. Will33333 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Will33333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] "Once they arrive?" This a direct contradiction of Wikipedia's founding policies. This article has come simply too soon. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep-This distribution is fairly new and recent, so allow some time for 3rd party sources to arrive.Catcorpteam (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Catcorpteam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] When such sources do appear, you're encouraged to restore the article at WP:DELREV. -- intgr [talk] 07:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Just a note here, WP:SOCKPUPPET "keep votes" are not counted and will just result in a block for the sock-master. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from confirmed socks. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article should not be deleted as AUCS has been downloaded by 1000 people and is being used by many, including myself.Anon01110111 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Anon01110111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -Sorry but a handful of people using a distro is not a reason to have an encyclopedia article on it. This is just WP:ILIKEIT. You should probably read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and reformulate your post here to give a better reason based on policy. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article can be modified to contain 3rd party sources once they arive. However, since this is such a new distro, I reccomend keeping the article. Will33333 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Will33333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Once they arrive?" This a direct contradiction of Wikipedia's founding policies. This article has come simply too soon. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This distribution is fairly new and recent, so allow some time for 3rd party sources to arrive.Catcorpteam (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Catcorpteam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
When such sources do appear, you're encouraged to restore the article at WP:DELREV. -- intgr [talk] 07:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a note here, WP:SOCKPUPPET "keep votes" are not counted and will just result in a block for the sock-master. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "The distribution you requested does not exist in our database", DistroWatch about "AUCS". –Be..anyone (talk) 12:08, 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 all. Also considered the consensus in the formerly seperated AfDs. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allie X[edit]

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

Non-notable singer that fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST AND WP:N WordSeventeen (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. She (1) "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." See references 1,2, and 3 for a start. (2) She has had a single on Canada's hot 100. She meets two of the criteria for musicians, and only one is required. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are not acting in accordance to wikipedia policy. I tried to act in good faith now, but you very clearly are either not reading the article or you can't follow guidelines. On primary sources, this is what the guidelines say "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." I have not interpreted primary source material. Another thing, the articles you removed like Vice are so far from a self published blog with no editorial oversight it's very clear you didn't even bother to learn about the institution. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(magazine) I also cannot even fathom what kind of issue you had with a archived, broadcast radio interview. WP:MUSICBIO WP:MUS WP:PRIMARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and these sources [20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reference #1 [27] goes to an archive.org site with an error message "Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_ in /home/stickyma/domains/stickymagazine.com". This reference #2 [28] is a brief mention not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. This reference #3 [29] is also just a brief mention, not significant coverage, also fails WP:GNG. So two are trivial brief mentions and the third goes to an error page sort of like a dead link. Not sure what the problem is there with archive.org and stickymag. The VICE reference a user refers to above goes to a blog type site with no editorial oversight. They contract out to freelancers for their content and have no editorial oversight. [30] NOT WP:RS) Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard article is a "brief mention"?!?!?! It's 1,083 words, and she is the subject of the article! It's not like she is briefly mentioned in passing in an article about someone else, the article is 3 pages of text about her! That's really a decent length feature article for a magazine. As for the Time article; yes, it's a lot shorter at just 2 paragraphs and 148 words, but it's still a non-trivial mention for a major newsmagazine like Time to review a single.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WordSeventeen: Archive.org error fixed. Also, it doesn't matter if it failed WP:GNG because the GNG specifically states "or or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." These guidelines are ones people continuously have told you, known as the WP:MUS and WP:MUSBIO which is most certainly does not fail.SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSBIO. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allie X (meets WP:MUSICBIO), merge the other two. Too soon for separate articles; if we had separate articles for every song which ever charted, we'd have no room for anything else. WP:GNG overrides subject-specific guidelines, which are intended to be used with common sense, and there's a lot of source overlap in these articles. Miniapolis 22:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the "we'd have no room for anything else" argument, may I remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have since bundled all three related AfDs, and I !vote keep for all three. They each respectively pass WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS due to charting. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep Catch (Allie X song), per my keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song). Keep CollXtion I, per the non-trivial sources in that article, including reviews from Exclaim! and Edmonton Journal, as well the sources talking about the songs from the album. Keep Allie X, per WP:MUSICBIO, as others have been pointing out. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep: Substantial references in mainstream music media including Time and major article in Billboard. If a 1000+ word profile in Billboard doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia, I'm not sure what does. Goyston talk, contribs 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that despite it being closed procedurally per being bundled here, up to the time it was closed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) had an overall consensus for article retention. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I did not receive as much input. It's important for these discussions to also be taken into consideration at the time this newly-bundled discussion is closed. See below for reference. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Catch (Allie X song)[edit] Catch (Allie X song) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable debut single by non-notable singer. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep: I really can't see why this article should be deleted or merged. There's already sources cited in the article that gives the song significant coverage, per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep: I have no idea how my article is not notable. Obviously large institutions like Billboard and TIME think it's notable enough to mention her and her single multiple times. Also aren't you supposed to fully explain how it violates the policies? I don't really see that you did that.SanctuaryX (talk) : 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment If found non-notable, should redirect to the album its on. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Sanctuary, it is not your article. Please see WP:OWN. As you mentioned above th time and billboard references are just mentions. Article subject fails to met WP:GNG. The references include mentions at the time reference and billboard reference. Also there are links as references to sales sites of itunes and amazon. Other references are youtube and sound cloud. None of these have significant coverage from WP:RS. The only one that might be considered significant is the interview at [31] WordSeventeen (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @WordSeventeen I realize I do not "own" the article, but you are supposed to identify that you have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article. Sorry you misunderstood. WP:AVOIDCOI. I fail to see in any way how it does not meet WP:GNG. It has received significant coverage from multiple sources, they come from reliable sources with integrity, the content for most of the article is based on secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject. Moving on, The Youtube/Soundcloud references are for very specific things, like release dates and labels. Not information that can be biased or obfuscated. As quoted directly from WP:RS, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I am in no way making any such claim with those references. Also, there are two Billboard references, and some of them are not just a mention. The song has also managed to chart, which does put points in it's favor for meeting the WP:NSONGS criteria. There is another interview from Radio.com conducted by Courtney E. Smith. I've further updated the article with even more interviews cited. If you have a problem with a few minor references like the Youtube for publication date, a request for reliable citation should be made, not requesting that entire article be deleted.SanctuaryX (talk) : 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] There is no requirement that the person doing a nomination for deletion to " have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article." Please redact your personal attack, "No need to be a snob" It is inappropriate to attack the nominator. Also please comment on the content not the editors or nominator. I have no COI, in fact I have no relationship or ties to this non-notable singer or her non-notable debut single. Perhaps it is just too soon. WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I don't see how you still managed to misconstrue my meaning. I had a right to identify my interest in the article and was chastised for doing so. I never, ever said you had any relation to the article. Again, I don't see how any of the information doesn't follow protocols. I suppose we will just wait and see. SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I don't know if you are busy or what but please take the time to read and understand what I am saying. I only disclosed I created the article. I am in no way affiliated with the sources of any of the content or the subject. I am incredibly frustrated I did the right thing and am being reprimanded for it. Comment I have removed the objected content as it was not essential to the article; only the "mentions" remain as they are used only as direct quotations as they are reviewing the song in question. When you have time please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk\|Contribs)}problem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep Meets WP:NSONG. It's been ranked on the Canadian hot 100 and the article cites multiple non-trivial published sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk\|Contribs)}problem solving 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above and these sources [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Allie X. 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. Miniapolis 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Miniapolis: There's not a page for "all of her recordings." There's 3 pages for her. 3. One for her, her first major label release, and her only charting single. That's nominal. I did my best not to include anything that has little to nothing to mention. And again, there's alternatives to the WP:GNG, like the WP:MUS.SanctuaryX (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The song has charted, so it passes WP:NSONGS. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song)

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catch (Allie X song)[edit]

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

Non-notable debut single by non-notable singer. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really can't see why this article should be deleted or merged. There's already sources cited in the article that gives the song significant coverage, per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have no idea how my article is not notable. Obviously large institutions like Billboard and TIME think it's notable enough to mention her and her single multiple times. Also aren't you supposed to fully explain how it violates the policies? I don't really see that you did that.SanctuaryX (talk) : 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If found non-notable, should redirect to the album its on. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sanctuary, it is not your article. Please see WP:OWN. As you mentioned above th time and billboard references are just mentions. Article subject fails to met WP:GNG. The references include mentions at the time reference and billboard reference. Also there are links as references to sales sites of itunes and amazon. Other references are youtube and sound cloud. None of these have significant coverage from WP:RS. The only one that might be considered significant is the interview at [31] WordSeventeen (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WordSeventeen I realize I do not "own" the article, but you are supposed to identify that you have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article. Sorry you misunderstood. WP:AVOIDCOI. I fail to see in any way how it does not meet WP:GNG. It has received significant coverage from multiple sources, they come from reliable sources with integrity, the content for most of the article is based on secondary sources, and they are independent of the subject. Moving on, The Youtube/Soundcloud references are for very specific things, like release dates and labels. Not information that can be biased or obfuscated. As quoted directly from WP:RS, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I am in no way making any such claim with those references. Also, there are two Billboard references, and some of them are not just a mention. The song has also managed to chart, which does put points in it's favor for meeting the WP:NSONGS criteria. There is another interview from Radio.com conducted by Courtney E. Smith. I've further updated the article with even more interviews cited. If you have a problem with a few minor references like the Youtube for publication date, a request for reliable citation should be made, not requesting that entire article be deleted.SanctuaryX (talk) : 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the person doing a nomination for deletion to " have a vested interest and are a major contributor to an article." Please redact your personal attack, "No need to be a snob" It is inappropriate to attack the nominator. Also please comment on the content not the editors or nominator. I have no COI, in fact I have no relationship or ties to this non-notable singer or her non-notable debut single. Perhaps it is just too soon. WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how you still managed to misconstrue my meaning. I had a right to identify my interest in the article and was chastised for doing so. I never, ever said you had any relation to the article. Again, I don't see how any of the information doesn't follow protocols. I suppose we will just wait and see.

SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if you are busy or what but please take the time to read and understand what I am saying. I only disclosed I created the article. I am in no way affiliated with the sources of any of the content or the subject. I am incredibly frustrated I did the right thing and am being reprimanded for it.
Comment I have removed the objected content as it was not essential to the article; only the "mentions" remain as they are used only as direct quotations as they are reviewing the song in question. When you have time please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG. It's been ranked on the Canadian hot 100 and the article cites multiple non-trivial published sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and these sources [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Allie X. 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. Miniapolis 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Miniapolis: There's not a page for "all of her recordings." There's 3 pages for her. 3. One for her, her first major label release, and her only charting single. That's nominal. I did my best not to include anything that has little to nothing to mention. And again, there's alternatives to the WP:GNG, like the WP:MUS.SanctuaryX (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song has charted, so it passes WP:NSONGS. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] CollXtion I[edit] CollXtion I (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable 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 was "released physically on April 7, 2015" but today is 6 April 2015? This is really just WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I would really like to ask. When you make these nominations are you actually reviewing what content on the article was taken from the sources you're frowning on? Those are general guidelines. The content taken from those sources are minimal and don't seem to fail the criteria for why you cannot use those sources. Your phrasing implies the entire article is a biased and poorly constructed affair based entirely off of these. The "sales website" is Amazon, only for release date, which I have added citations from the publishing company detailing its release schedule. I'm not even going to bother saying anything else. If you have a different paradigm from what the guidelines say than from me, fine. I just hope more people have my view.SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Please show WP:AGF. I always observe WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. I always review and read the article and all the cited "sources". The problems with the cited "sources" are included in the nomination rationale above. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep I apologoize again. Anyway, even though I don't agree that these sources are incorrect (and there are no fan postings on blogs, I have no idea what you are talking about there; sorry) I have gone on and removed all of the objectionable content, as they were only extra references, save for the mentions as they are only used for reviews and are direct quotations. The link to the music video still remains. When you have time, please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] This is the blog/fan post and either a primary source or fansite I refer to. Whichever it is is it, is definitely not a WP:RS and needs to be removed from the article: http://alliexandra.com/post/114330875910/which-one-of-the-producers-including-yourself-in [39] Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) Comment Thank you for edifying. I removed it and tidied other references. On the Catch article as well. Though I would like to ask, why is that not ok? That is a primary source I used to indicate who the producers were on a song. This is from Allie X herself. The WP:RS just says not to interpret and to use caution when using primary sources. Why was that wrong?SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk\|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep Meets WP:NALBUMS. Single charted on the Canadian hot 100, and album/single/and artist have all been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in major magazines like Billboard and Time. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk\|Contribs)}problem solving 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above and these sources [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Miniapolis: I think it should be kept, but I can see how it may not necessarily meet all the criteria for NALBUMS and may need to be merged until it becomes more popular to better satisfy the criteria (if it even does.) But under no circumstance do I think it should be just obliterated as he wants. And it wasn't in anyway intended to be a publicity blitz, I just wanted to try my hand at making articles as these are the first I ever have.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:Your first article. Miniapolis 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I did read that. I would've never contested any of this or made these articles in the first place if I thought it was against the policy. I don't know if you were trying to be helpful or rude so I will leave it at that. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CollXtion I[edit]

(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 was "released physically on April 7, 2015" but today is 6 April 2015? This is really just WP:TOOSOON. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would really like to ask. When you make these nominations are you actually reviewing what content on the article was taken from the sources you're frowning on? Those are general guidelines. The content taken from those sources are minimal and don't seem to fail the criteria for why you cannot use those sources. Your phrasing implies the entire article is a biased and poorly constructed affair based entirely off of these. The "sales website" is Amazon, only for release date, which I have added citations from the publishing company detailing its release schedule. I'm not even going to bother saying anything else. If you have a different paradigm from what the guidelines say than from me, fine. I just hope more people have my view.SanctuaryX (talk) : 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show WP:AGF. I always observe WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. I always review and read the article and all the cited "sources". The problems with the cited "sources" are included in the nomination rationale above. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologoize again. Anyway, even though I don't agree that these sources are incorrect (and there are no fan postings on blogs, I have no idea what you are talking about there; sorry) I have gone on and removed all of the objectionable content, as they were only extra references, save for the mentions as they are only used for reviews and are direct quotations. The link to the music video still remains. When you have time, please review the article again.SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the blog/fan post and either a primary source or fansite I refer to. Whichever it is is it, is definitely not a WP:RS and needs to be removed from the article: http://alliexandra.com/post/114330875910/which-one-of-the-producers-including-yourself-in [39] Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk)

Comment Thank you for edifying. I removed it and tidied other references. On the Catch article as well. Though I would like to ask, why is that not ok? That is a primary source I used to indicate who the producers were on a song. This is from Allie X herself. The WP:RS just says not to interpret and to use caution when using primary sources. Why was that wrong?SanctuaryX (talk) : 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WordSeventeen: you probably should have bundled all three of these AFDs together. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X is for the singer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catch (Allie X song) is for the song, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CollXtion I is for the album. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUMS. Single charted on the Canadian hot 100, and album/single/and artist have all been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works in major magazines like Billboard and Time. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and these sources [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] and I do believe she passes WP:MUSICBIO #2... –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Miniapolis: I think it should be kept, but I can see how it may not necessarily meet all the criteria for NALBUMS and may need to be merged until it becomes more popular to better satisfy the criteria (if it even does.) But under no circumstance do I think it should be just obliterated as he wants. And it wasn't in anyway intended to be a publicity blitz, I just wanted to try my hand at making articles as these are the first I ever have.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Your first article. Miniapolis 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that. I would've never contested any of this or made these articles in the first place if I thought it was against the policy. I don't know if you were trying to be helpful or rude so I will leave it at that. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep all - Allie X, her album, and single have received significant coverage in reliable sources and thus are notable. (Note that the album come out next week, so much of the coverage [e.g. professional reviews] is within the last week.) These nominations seem to have been a huge waste of time as notability is not remotely borderline. Given the desire to discount even a 1000 word Billboard article, this is eitehr an epic misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines or a bad faith nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NMUSIC #2 by having a verifiable hit on a national music chart. The article could do with a serious copyedit, but deletion is not the answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 13 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 18:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hästpojken[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND. Swedish article yields no further references. Mdann52 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely notable. The reference issue can be solved. AfD is not a clean-up or request for references tool. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a reference to the fact that one of the band's albums peaked at no 7 at the Swedish album chart, which ought to be sufficient to establish the basic notabilty. /FredrikT (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added now reference from very good sources: For example Nojesguiden, GSO, Göteborgs-Posten], Blixten. The latter also quotes from reviews from reputable sites. For example Gaffa gives 5/6 to the band. For a very recent live concert see here By the way, I don't find AfDs as misplaced, but rather a needed opportunity and incentive to do the necessary homework and to add relevant references to articles. So in a strange kind of way, AfD requests help solidify articles rather than delete them in a frenetic bid by editors like me to try to save the articles concerned in the very little time we are allowed for re-editing articles we had started so lovingly years back and had overlooked later on never having had the chance of returning to them. So me I treat AfDs as wake up calls. Of course another side effect is getting to the catalogue of the band concerned. In this case just take a look at one of their biggest hits "Caligula" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2oAtHCjco4 Absolutely enchanting! Here's also an acoustic version of same with classical influences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VgWThddrw So thanks Mdann52. Much appreciated. werldwayd (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi Chibi Burger[edit]

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

No indication of notability; haven't found any good reliable sources for this show. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability per WP:GNG apart from its association with the band Cherrybelle. Can't find any WP:RS for it either, in English or Indonesian. Nothing here yet worth merging to Cherrybelle. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evander Earl Andrews[edit]

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

While tragic, this subject does not have notability extending beyond being the first casualty of Operation Enduring Freedom. Harland Q Pitt 14:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are some passing mentions in RS there doesn't appear to be "significant coverage" to establish notability per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica May[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable ACTOR. Quis separabit? 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:24, 8 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, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no major parts. We tend to delete marginally notable child actors. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:57, 14 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 Cinemassacre Productions. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James & Mike Mondays[edit]

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

This page was nominated for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag because I didn't think that it fit the criteria and it deserved to go to a full AfD debate. The few references provided for the article are all in non-notable sources. Personally, I think this show is non-notable outside of Cinemassacre Productions and it should perhaps just be merged in as a subsection there if it is not deleted outright. Note also that there is an (unreferenced) "List of James & Mike Mondays episodes" article as well. Also note that this has been mentioned on their website [47], so there is likely to be an influx of fans commenting here (as can currently be seen on the article's Talk page). Bueller 007 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Non-notable Web content. Fails to provide non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The series isn't notable and the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:A180:749:8046:508C:F45:5E11 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article you referred to has no bearing on this page. Please provide a Wikipedia valid argument to support the deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from Imdb (reliable for industry facts but not for biographical details), none of the other sources are reliable for WP:N purposes. There is already mention of the show at the Cinemassacre Productions page. Worse--THAT page looks like WP:SPAM. All of its linkable refs are from the Cinemassacre website. Major candidate for AfD. Tapered (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinemassacre Productions as valid/useful search term (bolded term within article, even if currently with undue weight). Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and doesn't warrant its own article. (?) It had no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 22:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Czar's comments. 23W 22:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect also WP:COI? TEH (talk • contributions) 01:33, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Mende[edit]

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

Not a notable person. At best there might be enough for an article about his app. Strongjam (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). And neither does his app, if the sourcing in the article is all that there is to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way the article is reinstated verbatim within a few minutes is pretty suspicious. It seems as this user Lord Subro has been managing information elsewhere on the Internet, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.192.38 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC) formated by --Ben Ben (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads promotional only. Proofed with a load of WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. The source from youtube, that is in german, not even mentions him.[48] --Ben Ben (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Prune and merge. Arguments to delete based on redlinks don't really address NLIST but we clearly cannot have a directory masquerading as a list either. So I'm moving both lists to draft space for someone to fix up into a single sourced list of notable people that can be moved back into mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African american men in computer science[edit]

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

African american men in computer science, and it's counterpart African American women in computer science are lists of non-notable people, on this list because they have achieved a Ph.D. While that is no small undertaking, particularly in an underrepresented demographic in the computer science industry, that does not equate to Wikipedia notability. An argument could be made for an article to generally discuss the underrepresentation of African-Americans in the Computer Sciences Industries, but a blanket list of those who have achieved a Ph.D. in that field is not the way to go about it. Further, there are some BLP issues, as these are effectively unsourced or poorly sourced lists of people. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BOTH This list is no different from The List of Computer Scientists. If these lists are deleted then we should start the process of removing ALL similar lists on Wikipedia. --Tygrandison (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC) — Tygrandison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment There is a HUGE difference, including the fact that the list of computer scientists you mention is a list of NOTABLE scientists with articles about them, not a collection of scientists who are not yet notable but happen to share traits defined by the author of the list. Also, I note your unsigned contribution is one of only two edits you have made, both contesting deletion of these articles. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the heads up on the signature. Happy to sign anything. A few random examples: Monica Lam and Andrew Chi-Chih Yao are no more 'notable' than a lot of computer scientists I know. Your generalization, without evidence or context, is at the heart of this issue. Factually answer why this list is not notable in comparison to all the other lists that myself other commenters have mentioned. I challenge you to Google a random sample of 20 from each of these pages and do the same for the other lists mentioned and do a 'notability' comparison on the facts. --Tygrandison (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Yao? Who won not only the Knuth Prize, but the Turing Award, the "Nobel Prize of computing"? Monica Lam, co-author of Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, the definitive textbook on what is arguably the definitive tool of computer programming? Please. If any of the people on this list have won either of those prizes, or co-written one of the definitive works used by basically all CS students, then they should definitely have articles. Have they? --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable 2nd or 3rd party sources to justify all the people on this list. Fails WP:N The article is essentially a regurgitation of the list from Reference #1. At most reference #1 could be noted in Digital divide, which FWIW, is not very well written. Tapered (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both I actually considered nominating African American women in computer science for deletion shortly after it was created, but with no apparent precendent on this type of page, I wasn't sure it was appropriate and decided to do nothing instead. However, my original concern (and my reason for !voting delete) is that we would never have an article called Caucasian American women in computer science, and while I understand African American's are a minority, that does not somehow make them anymore notable than the majority population. In the same regard that it's not appropriate to assume white people are more notable for being a majority, it's not appropriate to assume black people are more notable because they are a minority. So, if we keep this article, than the counterpart article for every race/demographic would also be appropriate, imagine the list of all those people with PhD's!!! I also would like to point out that the creator of these articles included themselves on the list at African American women in computer science, one Quincy K. Brown. So there are also COI issues. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(See below). The page was created as a part of [an event which sought to highlight the collective role of African-Americans in STEM fields; several attendees were notable in STEM fields in their own right. Dr. Brown was an invited guest at the event who was gracious enough to share her expertise and get this started, with my assistance. We did carefully explain that writing one's autobiography was not appropriate. Having a PhD start the list of PhDs seemed logical enough to me-- is this really some sort of problem? --Djembayz (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a problem, I was merely pointing out a possible conflict of interest, Wikipedia policy doesn't forbid someone with a COI from editing a topic, it is simply discouraged, and will be met with a higher level of scrutiny, so these editors should edit extremely prudently. That being said, my issue with this article is still that it is a list of non-notable people. Whereas an article discussing African Americans role in computer science would be acceptable, as would a list of notable African Americans in computer science. But a list of EVERY African American who has ever received a PhD in the field seems a little silly, like I said, they could earn a degree in that field and then not contribute a thing to the field afterword. The inclusion of EVERY African American with a PhD is exactly what causes this article to fail WP:LISTN, if the list was made up of all notable folks, it would easily pass WP:LISTN. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Both~~ Merge and clean per David Eppstein's solution Almost all use none at all, self-published, or otherwise questionable sources. One heavily used source reads:
This list is based in part on a list compiled by Dr. Scott Williams, Professor of Mathematics at State University of New York at Buffalo: "Computer Scientists of the African Diaspora". SUNY Buffalo - Mathematicians of the African Diaspora. 2008. Retrieved 2015-02-25. As of 2008, Dr. Scott considered his list to be a complete list of all the known African Americans holding PhDs in computer science.
This is a personal website, not a reliable source. Also, it's talking about the African Diaspora, not African Americans. Lastly, if it remains, there's plenty of names to add, begging the question of reliability for his website and the other source about the number in academia, so I'll just leave these lists here: [49] [50] [51] ― Padenton|✉ 15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are finding more recent information! If you can find a current source with listings and exact numbers of African American CS PhDs, that would certainly be a help in improving the page. Do note that people attending an editathon have to work with what they have access to on the spot, and rely on others to improve what they have started afterwards.

Also, the fact that you do not realize why the first African American PhD, or the number of African Americans in a profession is particularly significant is actually an encouraging sign. African Americans in the US were specifically barred from certain higher educational institutions, and thus from certain professions under segregation in the US. Other minorities did not always face the same levels of discrimination as African Americans. For people of a certain age in the US, it goes without saying that the moment when an educational institution or a profession actually opens up for everyone to participate is when the African Americans are welcomed. --Djembayz (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for Upcoming Event. This is needed for Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Tech LadyMafia Edit-a-thon, April 2015: Women in Tech, coming up next Friday. Also, I don't understand why you think a computer science professor would be an unreliable source for names of other colleagues in the field. This is a pretty small group of people, most of whom would know each other, and most of whom would only be documented in this fashion. We're not talking about writing individual articles for all of the people on the list, we're talking about a baseline list that gives us something to build on for an underrepresented group, for whom few sources are available. Please note that it is sufficiently rare for African American women to receive doctorates in computer science that we were urged to further develop this topic at an editathon oh the Lost History of African Americans in STEM fields with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Tue Feb 24. Although we all hope that the day will come when an African American getting a PhD in computer science is an everyday occurence, even in 2013 a women were still in the process of breaking the color barrier when the first African American woman received CS PhD at an institution the size of Michigan State. Fifty-six practitioners in a field as of 2008 is not very many!

I would hope that Wikipedia would view breaking the color barrier as a notable activity, because if we don't, it doesn't speak very well for our commitment to diversity. --Djembayz (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge into a single list of African-American computer scientists, and delete all non-bluelinked entries. The low representation of African-Americans in computer science is well-known, problematic, and not likely to be difficult to find sources for (e.g. Google gives me 100k hits for the exact phrase "African-American computer scientists"). The low representation of women in computer science is also well known, problematic, and easily sourced. But it's not clear to me that when we start intersecting categories like this, that we still have notability: what are the issues that specifically affect African-American men in computer science, but are not common to African-American men in other STEM fields, or to other African-American computer scientists? And where do we list the computer scientists who don't identify as part of the traditional gender scale (if any of those happen also to be African-American)? Additionally, with many unsourced redlinked and unlinked entries (and many more people that could be added), we have issues with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Incidentally, these lists are currently far from complete: several additional names can be found by searching Wikipedia for the phrases "African-American" and "computer scientist". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read in the literature, the big issue that specifically affects African-American men in computer science is lack of access to computers before entering college. --Djembayz (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both non-notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ridiculous list of people who don't meet WP's notability guidelines. Eric Corbett 12:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's points. Most importantly, I do not think the article has shown that merely being an African American with a PhD in CS is notable enough for other Wikipedia:Reliable sources to cover this list. As sources we have one survey that lists tenure-track professors (which is not the same as PhD in CS; there are plenty of CS PhDs that aren't professors), and one personal web page, that lists "The African Diaspora" (which is not the same as African-Americans - for example it lists at least one Nigerian). And we have the personal say so of a volunteer. So basically this list is Wikipedia:Original research. Give two articles in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that make such a list, and I'll change my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a PhD is highly significant especially in computer science where such a degree is not needed to work in the field, still education in itself isn't notable per Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as nominated. Whether an individual is notable or not is not based on ethnicity; notability must be asserted through Wikipedia guidelines for each individual on the list FIRST, then a list should be derived from the articles of notable individuals. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reading of WP:LISTN is that notability applies to the list as a whole, not the individual entries. So the notability, or lack thereof, of any of these people on either list is not relevant; which negates many of the deletion arguments made here. I can't see how BLP applies to a simple list of names; they aren't biographies and contain no potentially libelous information. The topic is one that has plausibly been discussed as a group in reliable sources. Whatever technical flaws that remain with the lists are fixable over time: the lists have potential. Further, the nominator states "An argument could be made for an article to generally discuss the underrepresentation of African-Americans in the Computer Sciences Industries". While this isn't the end of that process, it is a part of that and a list often serves as the backbone for creating relevant articles around a topic. Some of these names may lead to future biographical articles (not, I repeat, that that is necessary under Wikipedia policy). I would say that extends the "has potential" argument from just the two lists under discussion to the entire topic group that may, potentially, exist one day. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but right now the article doesn't show what WP:LISTN requires, which is that reliable sources have actually written about African American PhDs in CS as such. Are there sources for that? I've read plenty of articles about underrepresentation of various groups in CS. But none that tried to give a list of PhDs. CS is a field in which having a PhD isn't nearly as important as in some others. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references to show that this is a subject of discussion. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search for more citations but I think this is ample to show that they exist. Wiki articles don't need to be perfect right away, they just need potential for future improvement, which I hope I have demonstrated. I have no opinion on merging the lists. I don't think unlinked names should be removed: it is not required at all under Wikipedia policy, it would be counter-productive to just eliminate the seeds of potential future articles, and it is unnecessary given the apparently small number of African-Americans with CS doctorates in the US. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and now some of them have been removed for spurious reasons by Padenton. Nevertheless, there are several publications that make a point of Computer Science PhD's and African-Americans; which is enough to support my point. There's another at insidehighered.com. A table of Africa-American PhD's vs. overall award for the year could probably be built using the NSF data and would be relevant to the topic. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several data sources such as the Taulbee Report and NSF that annually report data on the topic of these pages. These can easily be added to the pages as sources. It's also worth noting that until recently, when tech companies began reporting demographic data, there was little public discussion of the lack of minority presence in CS see here, here, and here for very recent articles on the topic.

Keep per LISTN and what AdamBMorgan said. Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge, too, per David Eppstein. See List of African-American inventors and scientists (includes men and women). Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only includes those that have individual notability, instead of just claiming that being an AA inventor or scientist is enough. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with David Eppstein's solution, which I feel is in line with the people lists Wikipedia already has, and have changed my delete both vote above accordingly. ― Padenton|✉ 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that we have African-American Baseball Coaches, African American Writers, African-American Pornographic Actors. We have List Of Jewish-American computer scientists. It’s interesting that we’re starting here, isn’t it? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That there are other rubbish articles is no reason to add to the collection. Eric Corbett 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All those are lists of people with Wikipedia entries in their own right, instead of claiming that merely being an AA computer scientist is worthy of mention. No objection to having a list of African American computer scientists that are individually notable. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of African-American computer scientists would be appropriate if the list was made up of African-American computer scientists who had Wikipedia articles, as has been the standard for our lists of people articles for years. A list of people who do not have Wikipedia articles is inappropriate, regardless of ethnicity and/or PhD status. I am not sure what you are suggesting by saying it is interesting we are starting here.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Thanks for assuming bad faith of everyone who voted delete, before you start accusing everyone of being racist, it would be nice if you did your homework, as others have pointed out, those lists are made up of notable individuals, whereas this is just a list of people with degrees, which means what? I can get a PhD in computer science and then decide to do absolutely nothing with it, does that make me notable? There is a reason this list was nominated and not those others, I think your interesting comment says more about you than any of us. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You’re certainly welcome to your opinion! I'm not asserting that anyone is acting in bad faith, much less that they are racist; I'm reminding people that the optics here are awkward at best. In point of fact, our coverage of baseball coaches and pornographic actors is really unequalled, where our coverage of scientists and engineers is less so; it might be a good idea to spend some time with this list to ensure that every redlink figure on the list really ought to be. Just saying.... MarkBernstein (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Mark, and without looking for statistics, I am sure you are correct, computer scientists and academics are underrepresented occupations on Wikipedia. Naturally these sorts of lists can be included within Wikipedia, and if you, or someone else cares to work these lists into a decent article that meets the Heyman Standard, I would be glad to change my position. As mentioned, blue linked articles grouped by occupation (and/or ethnicity) are generally acceptable, but blanket lists of non-notable people are not, and that is what we have here. Also worthy of note, the deletion of these versions of the article does not prelude their recreation according to Wikipedia standards. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Mark, I should apologize, I obviously just boomeranged myself right in the face, after re-reading your initial statement, and your follow up explanation, I was clearly the one jumping to conclusions and assuming bad faith on your part. I focused too much on the word interesting and thought you were saying this was only nominated as a racial prejudice. My sincere apologies, I tend to do stupid things frequently, Wikipedia can be a humbling experience at times. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Your initial argument is an "Aunt Minnie Argument," courtesy of the great Jewish film director, Billy Wilder--concerning Marilyn Monroe. He said, "My Aunt Minnie would always be punctual and never hold up production, but who would pay to see my Aunt Minnie?" He was comparing Ms. Monroe to his wonderful, virtuous Aunt Minnie. Marilyn Monroe had WP:N. Aunt Minnie didn't. Tell me who gets an article. Thus it is that Black porno 'actors' have articles, and black PhDs in computer science don't. Then again neither did my beloved black history professor (also a PhD). Wikipedia articles are not a meritocracy. Tapered (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a joint African-American computer scientist article per David Eppstein. The gender separation makes little sense in this case. Peter ^Isotalo 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN - As noted previously, this page was created as part of the White House Edit-a-thon Lost History of African Americans in STEM fields with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Tue Feb 24.. The goal for creating the pages was not to be a list for the sake of creating a list but to be an article/list about individual African Americans in Computer Science, per se but on the group as a collective. Thus, it is the grouping of the members in the broader context that is notable. The purpose creating separate pages was to have the women's list include mention of intersectionality and issues that are unique to individuals who are women in a male dominated field and African Americans. There are numerous articles on the topic [52], [53]. The National Academies Press published a report on the topic of Women of Color in Academia [54] that are focused on the topic intersectionality and women of color in STEM as well as those that highlight the issue in Computer Science [55], [56]. Furthermore the National Science Foundation publishes a report focused on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering that includes data on minority women [57]. The data on the pages can be gathered using national databases. The page does need to be updated to reflect the importance and unique experiences of African American Women in CS. Per WP:LISTN, " Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." The articles have potential WP:HASPOT and can be improved. IQuincykbrown (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)quincykbrown[reply]
Move to project space as someone mentioned that the lists were created due to an event about our coverage of racial minorities and women in STEM. The argument for deletion is that the black people on the lists are not notable. Some may be notable, but do not have articles due to systemic bias, such as limited interest from Wikipedians or reliable sources that are difficult to access. Perhaps two lists in mainspace is not the best way to deal with this important issue (unequal opportunities and imbalanced coverage), but until a better alternative is developed, deleting the lists will just reinforce racism and sexism, both on Wikipedia and in STEM. --Hildanknight (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be appropriate if it was plausible to believe that most or many of the names would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. On the contrary, the vast majority of PhD holders do not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deleting non-notable entries in a list doesn't reinforce racism or sexism. When the articles are finally created, I'm sure the authors (or someone else) will add them to the list. ― Padenton|✉ 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing that so many argue that breaking the color bar is not a notable activity. We need some explicit changes to policy on this. Where do we propose them? --Djembayz (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djembayz: at WP:VPP. It's less breaking a 'color bar', more being interested in a specific field and putting in the effort to complete a PhD. It's an issue of systemic bias, not racism (anymore). Especially in CS (moreso than other STEM fields), there's also an economic component. A PhD can take 5-7 years living with little money, while every CS can get the top-paying jobs for new college grads, and by getting the work experience instead, not only will they have made on average $250,000-$350,000 more during those years, their work experience can be more valuable than a PhD. No disrespect intended towards any participants here who completed the gauntlet, but while in other science fields (i.e. Chemistry, Physics) students are expected far more often to take their education to the master's/doctorate level, CS students have much lower rates of continuing to the PhD. ― Padenton|✉ 14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: Racism and sexism have not magically disappeared. Poor black and female representation in computer science is a real and important issue. Black and female contributions to computer science is a real and important issue. Barriers that black people and females face in computer science is a real and important issue. Could you suggest (and actually contribute to) good approaches for dealing with these real and important issues, since these two lists are clearly bad approaches? If the list is moved to project space, would you still argue that it should be deleted or would you let the community determine which people on the list are indeed notable? Being the first black graduate from a historically segregated university or an advocate for fellow female computer scientists could attract additional coverage, which increases notability. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did it become part of Wikipedia's brief to deal with whatever biases may or may not exist in the field of computer science? Eric Corbett 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Wikipedia is not in a position to improve black and female representation in computer science, but we certainly can (and should) improve our coverage of these real and important issues. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't an article about those issues, it's simply a list of largely non-notable people who happen to have a PhD. Eric Corbett 17:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to moving list to project space.--GRuban (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and KeepListing of prominent African Americans in computer science. Notable list of academics of an under represented group an a tough underreprented field of phds. Similiar fields exist including [58] CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a world of difference between the two lists. Is it really necessary to point out that the mere possession of a PhD does not make one either an academic or a computer scientist? Eric Corbett 16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And by your example, you prove our point. The list you linked to is a list of Medal of Honor Recipients, notable by their accomplishments by definition; compiling a list of inherently notable people is wonderful! Establish notability of these subjects, create their articles, and THEN we make a list. Easy, peasy. Otherwise, it's just a list of non-notable people. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a few issues raised in these discussions however the page has been updated to include references related to African American women in CS. The topic of African American Women in Computer Science is a notable topic. As listed in the [notability guidline] ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."), African American women in CS have been written about in reliable sources and the issue is easily verifiable. The sources are secondary, e.g. National Academies, and independent. Quincykbrown (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)quincykbrown[reply]

My feeling here is that all of your arguments would be excellent arguments for an article specifically discussing the general topic of African Americans in CS, such an article could discuss the biases and so forth, but it still doesn't make any sense to have a huge list of mostly non-notable people. No prejudice against a list of notable African American computer scientists (even without the qualifier of earning a PhD), also no prejudice against moving this to the project page for a major overhaul and a better approach to discussing these important topics. As it is though, this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, in my opinion. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly unsourced, poorly defined criteria for inclusion and essentially a listing of non-notable people that is little more than a directory. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of people who don't meet WP's notability guidelines. Vast majority would be deleted from the list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per usual criteria for lists, WP:LINK them all. Then delete all red links. Simples. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this form but allow userfication to merge and limit to notable people. As it is, this is merely a directory of living but not notable people, with very dubious sourcing in terms of WP:BLP. Sandstein 19:51, 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. The "weak keep" opinions are weak indeed, and one of them ultimately supports deletion. Sandstein 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lozenge and Hampshire[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Google doesn't bring up any third-party sources, has not been mentioned in any relevant video game news outlet. Soetermans. T / C 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep-Could use some improvement. Wgolf (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping? Unless WP:RS significant coverage can be found, there is nothing to improve.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since no video game sources confirm the game's existence. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm interested in Hampshire related articles but, not... this... I'm going to find some primary sources for this as this seems salvagable. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it needs is secondary source coverage (?) to show what unaffiliated sources think of the topic, not primary sources, which will, of course, always exist. czar ⨹ 13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a somewhat descriptive entry for MobyGames for one of the series' games I know MobyGames is unreliable as it relies on user-submitted content, but that was the only decent description I could find. The game looks pretty awful for December 2000. What I don't understand is that it's a fairly contemporary game series and there are almost no sources for it. I've seen other black holes for some games on the internet but a search from the VG custom search engine finds nothing on the series. Somebody asked what happened to Lozenge and Hampshire but I can see why this is up for deletion if there are no sources. I don't think this is salvagable, so sadly I would support a deletion unless something comes up. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 11 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. Pinging editors who have already had an interest in deleting an article is not cool and taints the discussion so that no consensus can be formed. I have seen it a couple of times recently - it needs to stop. Now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wallet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable. Another advert for Allied Wallet, this one from a single purpose account with a clear conflict of interest. There's a lack of coverage about the company in independent reliable sources. Existing coverage is not good enough. Primary, listings and press releases. A search found nothing better.
What new from Last time. They got a few "awards". None are major and none got any significant coverage from independent sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Mrschimpf, The Banner, FunnyPika, 296.x who have all looked at its notability before. Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete again a fluffy advertisement. Strange enough is the massive criticism nowhere to be found. Article should be deleted and salted. The Banner talk 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvement from the last time; didn't use the paid infomercial from the last version of the article, but again, stretching of the article by mentioning any payment method/company with a magnetic stripe/smartchip in the Western world, a bunch of awards, and everything else an average merchant service provider does. Not the puff piece from last time, but no substantial improvement either. Nate • (chatter) 18:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-surprise it wasn't put up when it first came up-was already afd before and looking at the page creators name it is a advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request to userify/draft - as the !votes above note, the article is non-neutral by, for example, leaving our RS criticism. However, the fact that such (negative) coverage exists suggests notability. As such, I am requesting the article be move to my userspace or draft space so that I can rewrite it in a neutral fashion. Unlike previous editors, I don't have a conflict of interest. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 13 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. Sandstein 20:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal rasool parray[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable enough. Can barely find one reference. Does not pass the requirement of WP:NFOOTY. Coderzombie (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are only one-two references to the person in the search. He has only managed one very new team, which does not play in the professional league, hence does not qualify for WP:NFOOTY. Coderzombie (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Sharmaa[edit]

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

its to early for her to have a wikipedia, lack of coverage and references online. some of the articles are on non-reliable sources. Isha has just done one show as supporting role basis the reference provided.

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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON /–Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirection is a separate editorial decision. Sandstein 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Anka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She's better known as the daughter of Paul Anka and the wife of Jason Bateman. WP:NOTINHERITED thus applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 8 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, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect-to either her husband or dad. Wgolf (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, Pointless redirecting as someone will kick up shit about where it should be redirected too so to save many redirect-wars and arguments it's better off deleted IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 22:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:08, 14 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. don't ping editors who have voted to delete before Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pull (Mr. Mister album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable. There's a lack of coverage about this in independent reliable sources. Has been released (on a band members vanity label) since the last deletion so not eligible for speedy G4 but it still lacks reviews. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At worst, redirect to Mr. Mister discography. Pinging Doc Strange, Philippe, Themfromspace, Esradekan,Mdsummermsw, Kos99, Mayalld who have looked at its notability previously. Boleyn (talk) 12:12, 8 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, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album by a notable band with sufficient sources available to have a meaningful article: PopMatters, Goldmine, AV Club. --Michig (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and those new sources (and never mind that one of them is entitled "The least essential albums of 2010", it's still evidence of notability). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthea Anka[edit]

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

The daughter of Paul Anka hasn't done enough as a screenwriter, singer or blogger to merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:12, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOCi (social media marketing)[edit]

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

Advert from a shill. Not notable. Awards are not major, just small local awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is mostly primary and routine announcements. There is a little local covereage but nothing of any depth. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and is clearly Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. And no wonder considering that the company is less than 3 years old. The "awards" are trivial, and the only sources are routine stuff about obtaining funding and hiring staff. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy den Outer[edit]

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

Non-notable sailor that has only competed on lower level. European Championship medals are from non-Olympic classes. Smartskaft (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

WP:GNG

With an more than average palmeres in Olympic and high end International classes at three continents plus an career in organizing and managing regattas for Olympic and former Olympic classes in several countries on non profit base should be notable.

Results summary: Rudy den Outer

Olympic classes from 1974 - 2000 at World, European, International and National championships Tempest, FD, Soling
- 8th European Championship Olympic Soling (Drägor, DEN)
- 5 time Dutch Champion Olympic Soling (1992, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000)
- 3rd SPA Regatta 1989 Olympic Soling (Medemblik, NED)
Former Olympic classes from 1999 - now Soling and Dragon (The Dragon is considered the most professional International non-Olympic class in Europe, with many former Olympic, world and European champions in Olympic classes)
- Gold Vintage Yachting Games 2008 International Soling (Medemblik, NED) ^[1]
- Silver Vintage Yachting Games 2012 International Soling (Bellano, ITA) ^[2]
- 6th World championship 2009 International Soling (Toronto, CAN) ^[3]
- 6th World championship 2011 International Soling (Chiemsee, GER) ^[4]
- 4th World championship 2012 International Soling (Milwaukee, USA) ^[5]
- European Champion 2003 International Dragon (Kinsale, IRL) ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]
- 5th European championship 2005 International Soling (Medemblik, NED) ^[10]
- 6th European championship 2010 International Soling (Arendal, NOR) ^[11]
- 5th European championship 2010 International Soling (La Trinite sur Mer, FRA) ^[12]
- 3rd European championship 2012 International Soling (Aarhus, DEN) ^[13]
- 4th European championship 2013 International Soling (Castilione della Pescaii, ITA) ^[14]
- 3rd European championship 2014 International Soling (Quiberon, FRA) ^[15]
- 2nd Dragon Gold cup 2002 (Marieholm, FIN)
- 1st Italian championship 2010 International Soling (Bellano, ITA) ^[16]

Organizing International regatta's by Rudy den Outer

European championship Olympic Soling 1985 Medemblik (Organizing committee)
World championship Olympic Soling 1990 Medemblik (Initiative + Liaison Officer International Soling Association (ISA))
European championship Olympic Soling Matchrace 1993 Kralingen (Initiative + Liaison Officer ISA)
World championship (Infanta Christina) Olympic Soling Matchrace 1998 Kralingen (Initiative + Liaison Officer ISA)

Management in sailing by Rudy den Outer

Past Comittee member International Soling Association (1989 - 1997) ^[17] ^[18]
Past Vice-President International Soling Association (1993) ^[19]
Past President Dutch Soling Association
Foundation Vintage Yachting Games Organization (Former Olympic classes)
Vintage Yachting Games 2008 Medemblik, NED (for Europe (male and female), O-Jolle, Flying Dutchman, Soling and Dragon), Chairman
Vintage Yachting Games 2012 Bellano, ITA (for Europe (male and female), O-Jolle, Flying Dutchman, Tempest, Soling, Dragon and 5.5 Metre), Chairman
Vintage Yachting Games 2016 Weymouth and Portland, GBR (for Europe (male and female), O-Jolle, 12m² Sharpie, Flying Dutchman, Tempest, Soling, Dragon and 5.5 Metre), Chairman

^ "Vintage Yachting Games 2008". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2008. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Vintage Yachting Games 2012". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Worlds 2009". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2009. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Worlds 2011". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2011. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Worlds 2012". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Dragon Europeans 2003". www.intdragon.net. GBR: International Dragon Association. 2003. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Fred Imhoff Europees Kampioen in de Drakenklasse" (in Dutch). NED: Maritiemnieuws.nl. 2003. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "tense finale to the Setanta Dragon European Championship saw The Netherland's Fred IMHOFF hold his nerve to secure overall victory this afternoon off Kinsale, Ireland". www.sailing.org. GBR: International Sailing Federation. 2003. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Dutchman Imhoff wins European event off Kinsale coast". www.rte.ie. IRL: RTE Sport. 2003. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Europeans 2005". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2005. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Europeans 2007". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2007. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Europeans 2010". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2010. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Europeans 2012". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Europeans 2013". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2013. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Europeans 2014". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2014. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ "Soling Italian championship 2010". www.soling.com. Buenos Aires (ARG): International Soling Association. 2010. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
^ Stuart H. Walker (1988). "ISA Committee and Officers 1988". Soling Sailing. December 1988. International Soling Association.
^ Stuart H. Walker (1997). "ISA Committee and Officers 1997". Soling Sailing. January 1997. International Soling Association.
^ Stuart H. Walker (1993). "ISA Committee and Officers 1993". Soling Sailing. January 1993. International Soling Association.

_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The 2 ostensibly independent sources fail WP:RS. They are not "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The editor of the previous ~~article~~ recommendation is the primary author of the actual article. Tapered (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions

From the five sources what are the two that you are referring too as ostensibly and why are they failing WP:RS?
Why am disqualified to react on this proposed deletion?_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 19:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 April, when I made my recommendation, there were four references in the article, 2 from LinkedIn and 2 from obscure sources--the 2 to which I referred. You're not disqualified--and I didn't say so--but the size of the entry (see attempt @ humor in comment) was inappropriate. I didn't check any of the sources. More appropriate would have been to put the sources in the article (as you've since done), and left a statement to that effect. As to why I pointed out your authorship, please see WP:AVOIDCOI. Next I'm going to strike out my "delete," because with the new refs it seems to me that the article satisfies WP:N. Tapered (talk)

Thanks. I apologize for not interpreting right._/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 15:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With added refs fr/ 9 April, article now meets WP:N and WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaya Pithwala[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR upcoming but not notable at this point. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:49, 13 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 Bellingham School District . merge anything salvageable Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcom Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school with no clear claim of notability. Jacona (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If non-notable, redirect to Bellingham, Washington per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Bellingham, Washington~~ Bellingham School District per SO, I would boldly close as redirect myself but not too sure on middle schools so I'll leave it be. –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to existing Bellingham School District article. Redirecting to the city when there is a school district article would be a bit silly. Note WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It also says articles are typically redirected to school districts in North America. Speaking of guidelines, did the nominator heed WP:BEFORE (part D), since the main concern here is notability? Note I've redirected plenty of middle schools to school districts and usually don't have a problem with that, just making sure we do our due diligence. The fact that the former middle school building used to serve as a now-defunct high school (those are considered notable, even the defunct ones) should at least get a mention in the school district article if redirected, but I would consider the former high school status a weak claim to notability for a stand-alone article. However, since the old building has apparently been razed, alternately, create an article for Whatcom High School and redirect the middle school to the district. Valfontis (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to school district per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Yoga Sports Federation[edit]

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

Organization tagged for notability for nearly 2 years that is unreferenced as well, trying to find notability but no luck. Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do think that WP:NCOMP is not inclusive enough when it comes to NGOs. But this requires expert input, difficult to come by in our community. I see several passing mentions - one in a book, few in newspapers. They seem to run something called World Yoga Sports Championship, which could perhaps be notable, given coverage in [59] and [60], through it's borderline. The federation could be merged there, I guess, as there are no other independent sources out there about it outside several similar pieces about it sponsoring some sort of an event. However, as I mentioned earlier, this is true for numerous NGOs which we nonetheless allow to stay here, pointing IMHO at the need to change a part of NCOMP. Sill, unless any yoga/sport experts will chime in saying that this is an organization that is recognized in the field, I don't see how we can keep this substub. For now, I'll bid my time - please ping me if any substantial argument is made here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 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, Black Kite (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For creating Stub article, user should provide introduction about the project with some trusted reference links, As far as i see there is no such links for showing readers or stub editors to improve this page Williamahendric (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft and seek approval. why on earth couldn't someone do the tidyup of moving this to draft without waiting for the full seven days? process wanking at its worst... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Luis Gonzalez (artist)[edit]

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

No evidence of notabilty. Just one single ref for a BLP. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very bottom, this article has the notice This is a misplaced articles for creation submission. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space rather than marking it for deletion. Note: If you are not an administrator please tag the redirect left behind after the move for deletion. Please consider this notice and move this article to draft space rather than deleting it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Move to Draft: namespace, however, it has never been anywhere near the WP:AFC process. The current version would not pass, but we stand a chance of knocking it into shape there. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Move to Draft: namespace I agree with that approach.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move to Draftspace: See tag at the bottom. --TL22 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep @Dthomsen8 @Timrent @FiddleFaddle @ToonLucas22 @Velella @TL22 This article has been totally reworked and now should be kept because of the interntional notability of the artice subject. For instance the article subject has:
Received a City of Los Angeles Certificate of Service, for his chairmanship of The Los Angeles City Bicentennial Committee from Mayor Tom Bradley on 28 September 1976.
He also received theBronze Medallion of Mexico City from Dr. Carlos Hank Gonzalez, Mayor of Mexico City, in 1981 for his contributions toward the Mexico City is Sister City of Los Angeles project.
In 1984 Peter Ueberroth, President of the Olympic Committee, along with Harry L. Usher and Paul Ziffren, presented him a Certificate and Bronze Medal for his contributions to the success of the 23rd Olympiad held in Los Angeles known also as the 1984 Summer Olympics.

There is a long list of off-line references. I will list the references here for your review, plus there are a couple of online ones as well.

La Opinion, Wednesday, September 22, 1971, Editorial Page/Pagina Editorial, Tribuna Del Publico by Luis B. Romero
Hoovers Guide to Galleries, East Los Angeles, page 116/117, 1971
La Opinion, Sunday, July 25, 1971, Explicando los Motivos Foto de Pancho Hollywood para La Opinion
Eastside Journal, Thursday, December 16, 1971, Mural Depicts History of Mexican Americans (Search for Identity)
The American Baptist Magazine, February, 1972, Art Center for East Los Angeles, showing nail relief to Davi
Belvedere Citizen, Thursday, December 20, 1973, First Street Store to Remodel Front of Building. Bibliography: Jose Luis Ruiz (author), Action Chicano, TV Film Spec. 1974
Eastside Sun, Thursday, October 3, 1974, Salesian High “Mustang Mural” Creation of alums Juan Gonzalez and Robert Arenivar
Times Photo by Bruce Cox, Ceremony Dancers Perform in front of Salesian Mural during Dedication
Los Angeles Times, Thursday, December 26, 1974, Chicano Art Blooms in Barrio Warehouse by Joe R. Nevarez, Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times
Dewar’s Profile, numerous national magazines and newspapers 1975
La Opinion, Tuesday, January 21, 1975, Instantaneas by Octavio R. Costa
Belvedere Citizen, Thursday, March 6, 1975, Sassoon Hair Style Debuts in East Los Angeles
Mexican American Sun, Thursday, March 13, 1975, New Styles Introduced in East Los Angeles
Ralph P. Davidson (author), The Mural Message, Time Magazine 4/7/75
Mexican American Sun, Thursday, April 17, 1975, Sassoon to Award Scholarships
The Daily News, May 13, 1975, Chicano Muralist Will Speak at Whittier Library Friday
Eastside Journal and Belvedere Citizen, Thursday, May 15, 1975, Hispanic Women’s Council “Fashion Frolic Sunday”
Los Angeles Times, Sunday, June 29, 1975, Matter of Heritage Photo by Marilynn K. Yee
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, Saturday, July 19, 1975, USC Gets 50 Foot Wall Art
News Pilot San Pedro, California, Wednesday, August 20, 1975, Staff Photos Restoration of San Pedro Post Office, Mural by Fletcher Martin
Eastside Journal and Belvedere Citizen, Thursday, January 1, 1976, The History of Goez, TELACU award honors Goez Art Gallery by Lorraine Panicacci
Fenix en Los Angeles, article and photographs by Frank Schreider
The Washington Post, Style People/Entertainment/Leisure, Saturday, July 5, 1975, The Other California by Pam Lambert
Los Angeles East Magazine, September 11, 1975, Murals Set The Tone Of Life For Estrada Courts Residents
Los Angeles Times Home Magazine, April 11, 1976, Murals at Estrada Courts
The Mural Message Environment, May 5, 1976
The Murals of East Los Angeles by George Beronius, abridged from Home Magazine, Photo by Susan Giuliano
La Luz, September–October, 1975, A profile of an Hispanic Artist, Charlie “Clavos” Felix by Louis R. Torres, Photos by Frank Kawan
The Tidings Los Angeles, November 19, 1976, “The Short Life of Alfonso Fulano”, executed at the then Brooklyn Avenue Neighborhood Center at the corner of Cesar Chavez and Arizona, 4716 Cesar Chavez Avenue, Los Angeles, CA
The Herald Examiner, Cinco de Mayo, Putting the French on the Run by Ava Gutierrez-O’Neill, Staff Writer, April 28, 1974
Eastside Journal and Belvedere Citizen, Wednesday, March 17, 1976
Rosemead; South San Gabriel, California; Alhambra, California; Monterey Park, California; East Los Angeles Tribune; Commerce Tribune, Thursday, November 6, 1975, TO HMAS donates mural to school district, which was executed at Mark Keppel High School, 501 E Hellman Ave, Alhambra, CA 91801
La Opinion, Monday, December 13, 1976, Instantaneas by Octavio R. Costa, El Mundo Pictorico de Carlos Bueno
East Los Angeles Tribune, 1977, Photo by Steve Castro
El Sereno Star, September 6, 1978, Los Angeles Mural Exhibit Opens at Gallery, The Walls of East Los Angeles
Los Angeles Times, Thursday, September 7, 1978, Family Guide to Weekend Events, “Walls of East Los Angeles”
Monterey Park Comet and Montebello Comet, Thursday, August 9, 1979, Art for Health
East Los Angeles Gazette, Montebello, CA, Saturday, September 24, 1977, Murals, Goez Murals Respected Nationwide
“Tiempo” Mural with spray gun on Hammel & Gage, East Los Angeles
Calendar Art, Photography “The State of the Art” by William Wilson, Sunday, January 28, 1979, Espejo: Reflections of the Mexican American
The Montebello News, Saturday, May 1, 1976, at County Mall, Goez Featured in Weekend Show
The Christian Science Monitor, Friday, July 6, 1979, by Mark Sevens, Art Flows from Chicano Barrios
Montebello News, East Los Angeles Gazette, Pico Rivera News, August 1979, Goez Art Studios and Gallery KO’s Doubters by John Haeckl
Career World, December 1975, The Opening Door, Photo by Connie Parva, Times are Changing, New Career Doors are Opening
Goez: A New Face, A New Place by Pete Moraga, Jr.
It’s Gone From A Meat Packing House to a Museum by Earl Weaver, 1984
Camino, October 1981, Business, Art is Business, El Arte Como Negocio, An Interview with Joe L. Gonzalez by Katherine A. Diaz
Joe Gonzalez: The Man Behind Goez Art Gallery by Gloria Gonzalez 1979
Belvedere Citizen, Wednesday, April 2, 1980, Visit Art Gallery, Photo by Charles Calderon, Governor Bruce Bobbit of Arizona visits Goez with David Lizarraga
Art Work on Display, Tribune Mural Required Hard Work and Patience 1977
Papers from Oxnard and Ventura published story on 1981 Seven Up Impulsa an Artistas Mexicanos fotos y texto: Miguel Marquez
East Los Angeles Comet, Thursday, December 11, 1980, A Holiday Surprise from 7Up
Neighborhood News, Wednesday, December 17, 1980, Orange County, California: A Holiday Surprise from Seven Up
Misc: Brooklyn Avenue Neighborhood Center murals (talks about “La Vida Breve de Alfonso Fulano”
Misc: Talks about Portrait of Artist, Frank Martinez (Photo Exhibit)
Misc: Talks about Photo Exhibit now at Goez Gallery Images of Mexican American culture
Misc: Cinco de Mayo Celebrations
Misc: Goez Art Gallery brings “Chicano Art” to Olvera Street
Misc: Gallery displays “Walls of ELA” a photographic collection of 39 Community Murals
Misc: Photo on display, This picture of Bert Corona, ELA Activist
Misc: Art Galeria Goez by Rosemary Quesada Weiner, about new Gallery on Olvera Street
Misc: Description of “The Goez Mayan Birth Glyph Developed at Goez Art Studio”
TELACU Today, The East Los Angeles Community Union, January 1979, Goez Designed front page cover Christmas design
Caminos, October 1980 by Kathy L. Bixler-Valdez, 10 Hints in Buying Chicano and Mexican Art
Map of Southern California for Atlantic Richfield Company Depicts Goez and El Mercado
Press Release from Ray Gonzalez of Minority Department – KTLA about Joe and John on “Pacesetters” program Sunday, November 10, 1974
Press Release for Art Exhibit in Century City
Vida en el Valle, Fresno, CA, Wednesday, August 29, 1990, Artista Viene a Fresno / A $175,000 Salute Planned by Juan Loera
Vida en el Valle, Fresno, CA, Wednesday, December 5, 1990, “Muralista Presenta Sus Obras en Fresno / Muralist to Present Model of Monument”

I can sort of understand the nominators thinking at first, but this hardly a person with "No evidence of notabilty." I myself took the time to read the entire article in its rather "raw" state. All the references were in the article at the initial state. The article just was not formatted correctly. I tried to start formatting it correctly from the start. It really makes me wonder if the nominator followed WP:BEFORE, since the article clearly stated from the beginning the points that give the article's subject notability:

Received a City of Los Angeles Certificate of Service, for his chairmanship of The Los Angeles City Bicentennial Committee from Mayor Tom Bradley on 28 September 1976.

He also received theBronze Medallion of Mexico City from Dr. Carlos Hank Gonzalez, Mayor of Mexico City, in 1981 for his contributions toward the Mexico City is Sister City of Los Angeles project.
In 1984 Peter Ueberroth, President of the Olympic Committee, along with Harry L. Usher and Paul Ziffren, presented him a Certificate and Bronze Medal for his contributions to the success of the 23rd Olympiad held in Los Angeles known also as the 1984 Summer Olympics.

In my view the nomination should be withdrawn at this point. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nowhere have I suggested deletion. The edits to the article add useful material to it. It now needs a tranche of work to knock it into shape. Your work has assuredly rescued it from deletion in my eyes, but that is not what my !vote here is towards. My view is that this is better performed as a draft rather than a main namespace article, the more so since WP:AFD is not really intended to clean an article up. There is a likelihood that his discussion will close with a migration to Draft: namespace. If I am correct then you should submit it for review while tightening the article and its referencing. This will be the best of all possible outcomes with the present state of the article, because there will be peace and quiet to work, without the urgency of defending agains a deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle 05:46, 14 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. Sandstein 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Croce in Pink: Untold Stories of Women and their Monuments[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NBOOK. Article was written by the book's author, with a mildly promotional tone: article creator's contributions have been limited to promoting herself and a colleague in this and several other articles, though that's not sufficient reason on its own for deletion. The references that mention the book are WP:Primary sources, and there's no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOnly 1 of 6 references actually refers to the book. That is an obscure magazine--for English speakers in Florence/Tuscany--not a reliable source. This article fails WP:N Tapered (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 16:59, 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 redirect to Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin . logically this is where the page should point based on the discussion below. merge in what is appropriate Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Semenyih helicopter crash[edit]

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

provides no real education value and is duplicated in the Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin article FOX 52 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is all fatal aviation incidents have an article in Wikipedia. 137.205.171.204 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large scale accident(s) yes, but this holds no real notability and should stay in the Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin article - FOX 52 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could this not be compared to the 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crash article or the 2014 Wichita King Air crash article? Both are low-fatality helicopter crashes.Canucklehead Alberta (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both those article as well should probably be placed in their respective "Accidents and notable incidents" sub-sections. The bigger problem with your article is lack of references, it only contains two sentences, and seems to fall short of notability for a stand alone article. - FOX 52 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, Just an ordinary non-notable helicopter crah with some minor Malaysian politicians on board. Politicians have such a bad rep these days, they almost exclude themselves from notability automatically, unless they, or the event, are very special.--Petebutt (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is systemic bias: we would not delete a US helicopter crash that killed a Cabinet member, an Obama aide and a prominent businessman. But I'm not inclined to correct systemic bias by keeping this article: I'd probably argue, in dissent, for the deletion of the US version too. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Wichita King Air crash, it is a complete farce. Here, as in there, the WP:NOTNEWS argument is correct, and there is no lasting impact per WP:EVENT. As pointed out above, there are adequate alternative pages in which brief material on the accident can be included (Jamaluddin Jarjis being another). --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The article does meet current consensus for a stand-alone article insofar as the AS365 is not a "light" helicopter and a Wikinotable person was killed. However, it is light on sources at the moment, which means it is difficult to argue that WP:GNG is met. Death toll of six is not really high enough to argue that an article should stand on that criteria either. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Same as above; the WikiNotable person (pretty important in his own regard) is enough for a keep Yny501 (talk) 02:21, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. Patrick Murphy[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. Chargé d’affaires ad interim is not a position with inherent notability. All sources I found were either DOS bio pages or social media. Jbh (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability in any of the positions held. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saarthi Bhatia[edit]

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

Contested BLP Prod fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS .One of the references [61] writes about his grandfather not about the subject.The other one barely mentions the subject.There are Thousands of lawyers and RTI activists not clear why the subject is the notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Everymorning, Wgolf who have both looked at its notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-We have to get rid of them lawyers completely! LOL. Okay seriously-we can't have pages for everyone that is a lawyer you know! Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL. Third the deletion. Athachil (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:49, 13 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 01:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Schapker[edit]

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

One of a bunch of spammer-created bios. Notability unclear. Artists aren't notable just because they exhibit, they're notable when those exhibitions attract reviews. Has this been achieved in this case? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's one weird surname .... Her surname is actually more interesting than this article .... Anyway Delete as promo crap, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as ((db-g10)) (an attack page). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Baxter[edit]

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

The article does not appear to be notable nor does it comply with WP:BLP. Roborule (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article meets WP:A7 and should have been nominated per CSD in the first place. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a CSD on it-so yep my answer is SpeedyWgolf (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The_Book_of_Mormon:_Original_Broadway_Cast_Recording. Nakon 01:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Jennette[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ENT Jbh (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see where he is getting past WP:NACTOR. Minor roles in notable productions don't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep or redirect to book of mormon subject of an independent article which shows GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyAces489: Are there any other reliable sources which discuss him? Please see WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG for the notability requirements for having a Wikipedia article. Since you created the article do you have any other sources that can demonstrate his notability? PS - I edited your comment to change :: to * for consistent formatting in AfD discussions. I hope that is OK. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet notability for the stage actors or the two tracks he participated in for the soundtrack. Article does not show the roles he played within the few stage productions listed, which might aid in notability. He has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as required. Perhaps some day, but not yet. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Book of Mormon: Original Broadway Cast Recording. Wgolf (talk) 19:37, 12 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, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lobato[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced biography. I am unable to find any reliable sources that establish WP:BASIC notability. - Mr X 02:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is verified source imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7210407/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BossReplace (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There 2nd reference : http://www.thehobbit.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BossReplace (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@BossReplace: IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source, ref. Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. The Hobbit official site did not list Lobato by name in either the Cast page or the Filmmaker/Crew page. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of all the English and Google translated hits I see at Google News Search, there are multiple different David Lobatos including a lottery seller and a county judge, but none speaks of a special effects specialist as the article claims. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The lack of verification makes me think that this is either a hoax, or someone who has worked on the films in a non-notable capacity. Unverified claims of 'film producer' and 'director of special effects' raise red flags. Parenthetically, the primary editor uses 'imdb' in their name, which raises further concerns as to whether they contributed spurious information to that site, before bringing it here. Nobody would do that, though, right? 32.216.140.250 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDb is selectively reliable; the credits are, in my experience, just fine. He does have an IMDb page and credits for very well known, A-list films, but being one of dozens of special effects people on, for example, The Hobbit movies and a couple of Fast and Furious ones doesn't make one notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADD + 4 References :

http://hollywoodreporter.es/Hobbit%20Film%20Lands%20Best%20Opening%20of%202014%20-%20Hollywood%20Reporter.htm

Redflag - I'm calling shenanigans on (at least) this ref. First, the domain ends in .es, but every link on the page leads to hollywoodreporter.com. Second, here is the same exact article without David Lobato's name.- Mr X 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://triblive.es/%27Hobbit%27%20tinkering%20is%20in%20a%20good%20cause,%20film%20creators%20say%20_%20TribLIVE.htm#axzz3WiyaidfN

Redflag - Same BS here -> (http://triblive.es/%27Hobbit%27%20tinkering%20is%20in%20a%20good%20cause,%20film%20creators%20say%20_%20TribLIVE.htm)

"“We have probably committed atrocities with the canon,” says Boyens, who, with Fran Walsh, won an Oscar for best adapted screenplay for the last movie in “The Lord of the Rings” series, based on the trilogy Tolkien wrote after “The Hobbit.” It also adds that In this third part, we've added more special effects thanks to Will Furneaux and David Lobato."
— Triblive.es

"“We have probably committed atrocities with the canon,” says Boyens, who, with Fran Walsh, won an Oscar for best adapted screenplay for the last movie in “The Lord of the Rings” series, based on the trilogy Tolkien wrote after “The Hobbit.”
— Triblive.com

- Mr X 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the web in Spanish, is redirected if you are in Spain, are updating contents (http://triblive.es/%27Hobbit%27%20tinkering%20is%20in%20a%20good%20cause,%20film%20creators%20say%20_%20TribLIVE.htm), REFERENCES ARE CORRECT IMDB— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldEdit (talk • contribs)

elmundocine.com/DavidLobatoTheHobbit _ Cine_ EL MUNDO.html

Redflag Homepage of website redirects to elmundo.es; the actual article the author wrote at that time and date is here and not about Lobato. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

www.hollywoodlife.es/‘Hobbit The Battle Of The Five Armies’ Review A Gripping, Epic Retelling - Hollywood Life.htm

Redflag Hollywoodlife.es redirects to hollywoodlife.com, where this review is in English, like the rest of the site, and doesn't include Lobato. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently for reasons of privacy, this character didn't want to get out in the light
dissolve this elimination, is a person with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemondUS (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADD + 1 References :
http://cinemablend.es/The Hobbit The Battle of the Five Armies (2014).html

Redflag Home page redirects to Cinemablend.com...anyone surprised? Exactly the same situation as Hollywoodlife above. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION THIS IS CREATING A BAD IMAGE OF THIS PERSON FAMOUS

Note that the film production in Spain is not the same as in United States  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldEdit (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|It is not possible that the information is false, IMDB only creates pages checked if they have references, in IMDB cannot create this kind of profile without references, obviously is a producer of effects special not well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMrWise (talk • contribs)

Delete The rampant fraud of references which establish notability have convinced me that this is a hoax. Also, IMDB accepts user-submitted content. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the socks and whatnot, there's obviously not enough coverage of this person, thus this becomes a promotional vanity bio at best. Having a distinguished or impressive CV does not notability make, at least not how we define it. There are thousands of people in the world that work behind the scenes in film and television, and very few of them ever receive significant coverage in media, mostly because they are behind the scenes. I have worked on notable desktop and web applications over the years, but I don't rate an article on Wikipedia even if the products do. And yeah, the citations seem very dodgy although I'm on the fence as to whether this is really a hoax or not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've blocked the following accounts as sock puppets: User:ZeusIMDB, User:BossReplace, User:GoldEdit, User:TheMrWise, and User:DemondUS. The AfD should still proceed to evaluate the article on its merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no sources that indicate subject meets WP:BIO --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lobato on show dating telenovela in Spain, show of famous people http://www.telecinco.es/mujeresyhombres/2013/julio/22-07-2013/Cita-Yanira-David-tronista-pretendiente_2_1640130024.html (Telecinco) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeitaly (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Jaimeitaly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That appears to be the dating show Mujeres y Hombres y Viceversa, correct? And is that David David Lobato? Because it looks to be David Rovira. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Even one of the IMDB photos is a fake. Compare [62] with [63]. You can't make this stuff up! Well, actually, I guess you can!- Mr X 02:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The neckline on the Lobato photo just looks wrong. Is it me? Am I nuts and seeing things? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 02:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no. It is very probably fake, and it was darkened to avoid it being too obvious. I lightened and posterized it to match an ELA-type analysis. Take a look. We might want to nuke this as an obvious hoax, and someone might want to contact IMDb for grins too. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'shopped. I can see the pixels. Seriously though, if you overlay the images in Photoshop it's very obvious.- Mr X 03:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ENT, he's probably more known for being a racial activist known for having sentiments that most deem "racist" instead of things he's listed as in his article,not like that even matters cause he still fails notability for the things he's listed as. Jukitzk (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging ChildOfMidnight, Edward321, Juliancolton and Theserialcomma who participated in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous various sources, most reliable and well known. Absolutely meets WP:N. FWIW, this looks like a POV nomination The term "racial activist" stands out. Tapered (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual's media coverage has grown significantly since the deletion 6 years ago. WP:GNG and WP:BIO is now easily met. One does not need to like his views to see that inclusion criteria for a person (no matter that person's views) are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and also... he MEETS WP:AUTHOR, as his being a New York Times Best Selling Author is a decent notability attribute, no matter his personal politics. See AALBC here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Although some of the references in the ref section seem to be very long descriptions! Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tutul Hossain Badsha[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 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 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil database[edit]

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

Non-notable since 2010, stub like article RockyMM (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RockyMM (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS present to justify stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 31 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 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Pantaleon[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Much of the sourcing of this article mentions the conspiracy theories involved, but few mention Pantaleon as the source behind these theories. Those that do are primary souces (youtube videos) or blogs that cannot be considered reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:31, 14 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, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plunet BusinessManager[edit]

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

I prodded this under 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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator without any explanation, and subsequent superficial edits do little to address the issue, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 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 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, multiple SPA Boom Boom Hans + Seraphine.gerth, maybe related to (2010) Fraber + Sokrates_sf on Project-Open found from here. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:23, 13 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) 06:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saarthi Bhatia[edit]

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

Contested BLP Prod fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS .One of the references [64] writes about his grandfather not about the subject.The other one barely mentions the subject.There are Thousands of lawyers and RTI activists not clear why the subject is the notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Everymorning, Wgolf who have both looked at its notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-We have to get rid of them lawyers completely! LOL. Okay seriously-we can't have pages for everyone that is a lawyer you know! Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL. Third the deletion. Athachil (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 19:49, 13 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) 06:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Nowara[edit]

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

I prodded it under the following rationale: "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." It was deprodded by an anon without any comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 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 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Instrumentalist which has played in notable orchestras. But this doesn't make him notable as a single musician. --Ben Ben (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 12 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, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin McClement[edit]

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

No evidence of this person passing the threshold of notability. One radio play and this are about as much as I could find. Sam Walton (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note that a number of possible sources have been posted on the talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are largely non-independent of the topic so fail reliability requirements. Not notable as a result. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 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]

Weak delete per nom. I saw that article, but that's not yet enough for GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 13 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.